A Grammar of the Ethics of John: Reading the Letters of John from an Ethical Perspective. Volume 2 3161592239, 9783161592232

Table of contents :
Cover
Title
Preface
Table of Contents
Abbreviations
Introduction
1. Ethics of the Johannine Letters in Research
1.1 Negative attitudes
1.2 Interest in the ethics of the Letters
1.3 Possibe reasons for the limited interest in the ethics of the Letters by scholars
1.4 The aim of this volume
2. The genre of the Letters
2.1 Ancient conventions in letter writing and the Letters of John
2.1.1 Ancient letters served as a substitute for physical presence
2.1.2 Expected friendly tone and style of ancient letters
2.1.3 Ancient letters somehow reflected the authentic character of the author
2.1.4 Letters are a versatile means of communication
2.1.5 The preferred style of ancient letters
2.1.6 Letters or not?
3. The relation between the Gospel and Letters of John
Excursus: What came first, the Gospel or the Letters?
4. Do the Letters of John belong together?
5. Defining some key terms
5.1 Ethics
5.2 Morals
5.3 Ethos
6. The grammar of ethics: logical and coherent structuring
Section 1: The First Letter of John
Chapter 1: A suggested scenario for interpreting 1 John
1.1 Different groups and their relations in 1 John
1.1.1 Self-reference by the author: The group identified as ‘us/we/I’
1.1.2 Who are the addressees, addressed as ‘you’?
1.1.2.1 On the one hand, the addressees are identified as part of the ‘us group’
1.1.2.2 On the other hand, the author (‘we’) sometimes addresses the ‘you’ as a group separate from ‘us’
1.1.2.3 Being one but not fully?
1.1.2.4 One or two conflicts?
1.1.3 The opponents (the ‘they’ group): antichrists who are of the world (kosmos)
1.1.3.1 A crucial question: do the antithetical sections in 1 John refer to the views of the opponents or not?
Excursus: A brief history of the interpretation of the antithetical sections in 1 John
1.1.3.2 If the antitheses refer to the views of the opponents
Excursus: An example of the view that the antitheses refer to the opponents
1.1.3.3 If the antitheses refer to the (theological) self-reflection of the ‘us’
1.1.4 The relation between the different groups: the ‘you’, the ‘they’ and the ‘us’
1.1.5 Kosmos as reality in 1 John
1.1.6 The suggested scenario and the ethics in 1 John
1.2. An ‘incarnated’ reality: ‘space’ in the Letters of John
Chapter 2: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (1): Family, Immanenz, mimesis and reciprocity
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Family imagery
2.2.1 Use of family terms to identify members of the family of the Father
2.2.2 Membership in the family through birth, eternal life and faith
2.2.2.1 Birth of God as identity marker,motivating ethical behaviour
Excursus: Birth in antiquity
Excursus: God’s seed (σπέρμα αὐτοῦ) in 1J 3:9
2.2.2.2 Eternal life and ethics in 1 John
2.2.2.3 Faith, in tandem with birth, changes identity
2.3 The role of Immanenz, that is unity by ‘abiding/remaining/being in’, in the grammar of ethics
2.3.1 Unity and Immanenz among (P)persons
2.3.1.1 Immanenz (unity) among the (C)characters
2.3.1.2 Abstract qualities abiding in (C)characters
2.4 Mimesis and reciprocity in the grammar of Johannine ethics
2.4.1 The practices of mimesis and reciprocity
2.4.1.1 Mimesis
2.4.1.2 Reciprocity
2.4.1.3 Occurrences of mimesis and reciprocity in the Letter
2.4.2 Examples of mimesis and reciprocity in 1 John
2.4.2.1 To imitate and reciprocate Jesus by walking (living) in the same manner as Jesus did (1J 2:6)
2.4.2.2 Being righteous as God the Father and Jesus the Son are righteous (1J 2:29; 3:7)
2.4.2.3 Miming Jesus: being pure as he is pure
2.4.2.4 To love like God/Jesus loved – to lay down one’s life like Jesus (1J 3:16–17)
2.4.2.5 Walk in the light as God is (in) the light (1J 1:6–7; 2:8–11) – mimesis?
2.5 Some summarizing and concluding remarks
Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2): koinōnia and love
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Koinōnia with the Father and Son, and with ‘us’
3.2.1 Koinōnia: an unfamiliar word in a key position
3.2.2 The lexicographical potential of the word koinōnia
3.2.3 Koinōnia in 1J 1:3–7 and its echoes throughout the Letter
3.2.4 Some summarizing remarks
3.3 Love as a basis for the grammar of ethics in 1 John
3.3.1 The lexicographical potential of the word group ἀγαπάω/ἀγάπη
3.3.2 The love of God as blueprint for the ethics of John
3.3.2.1 A key metaphor: God is love
3.3.2.2 How God loves … active and visible
3.3.2.3 God’s love changes identity through birth of God and faith of believers
3.3.2.4 Love and knowledge of God
3.3.3 Love of Jesus and the Spirit?
3.3.4 Believers ought to love as God loves
3.3.4.1 Believers (‘we/us’) ought to love – this is a responsibility based on reciprocity and mimesis
3.3.4.2 Perfect love casts out fear of the eschatological judgment
3.3.4.3 This is God’s commandment: to love one another
3.3.4.4 Being a child in the family of God requires love for one another
3.3.4.5 Love is an essential part of the ethos and tradition of the ethics of the Johannine group
3.3.4.6 What does love look like in concrete, practical situations?
Excursus: Tertullian on the gathering of the congregation
3.3.5 Love for the world and the things in the world? (1J 2:15–17)
3.3.5.1 Desire of the flesh (ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῆς σαρκός – v. 16b)
3.3.5.2 Desire of the eyes (ἡ ἐπιθυμία τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν – v. 16c)
3.3.5.3 Pride of life (ἡ ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου – v. 16d)
3.3.5.4 Individual phrases or one combined statement?
3.3.6 Brotherly love and love for outsiders
3.3.7 Hate in contrast to love
3.3.7.1 Hate is characterized by a life in darkness
3.3.7.2 Cain as stereotype of evil: he hated his brother and murdered him (1J 3:12–13)
3.3.7.3 The contrast to hatred: the example of the love of Jesus (1J 3:14–16)
3.3.8 Rhetoric of love that emphasizes love ironically indicates a lack of love
3.3.9 Some summarizing and concluding remarks
Chapter 4: Commandments, paraenesis and free will
4.1 Introduction
4.2 The use of ἐντολή (commandment) in 1 John
4.2.1 Overview of the use of the term commandments
4.2.2 The source of the commandments
Excursus: Who gives commandments, the Father or the Son?
4.2.3 Commandment(s) networked with key concepts in the Letter
4.2.3.1 Faith and love as basic commandments
4.2.3.2 Commandments as a key ethical term, networked throughout the Letter
4.2.3.3 The old and the new commandments
4.3 What happened to the word νόμος (law)?
4.3.1 The νόμος (law) as identity marker
4.3.2 Not law, but relations guide the family of God
4.4 Is there any evidence of influence of the Decalogue in the ethics of 1 John?
4.5 The use of ἀνομία in 1 John
4.6 Paraenesis as moral category in 1 John
4.7 Commandments and conscience
4.8 The role of the (free) will of believers
4.9 Discernment and the grammar of ethics of 1 John
4.10 Is ethical growth part of the lives of believers?
4.11 What is said about sin in 1 John?
4.11.1 The devil sinned from the beginning (1J 3:8)
4.11.2 A child of God cannot sin (1J 3:9–10)
4.11.3 Confession of sins (1J 1:7–2:2)
4.11.4 Mortal sin (1J 5:16)
4.12 Some summarizing and concluding remarks
Chapter 5: Tradition and ethos as part of the grammar of ethics of 1 John
5.1 Introduction
5.2 References to tradition in 1 John
5.3 What did the Johannine group actually know (οἶδα and γινώσκω)?
Excursus: Use of οἶδα and γινώσκω
5.4 What they have heard (ἀκούω)
5.5 The author writes, proclaims and witnesses
5.6 Statements as rhetorical devices
5.7 Authority and the traditional message
5.8 The role of the Spirit in preserving the tradition within the Johannine group
5.8.1 The work of the Spirit
5.8.2 ‘Anointing’ in 1J 2:18–28
5.9 Experience in the process of learning
5.10 Ethics and eschatology in 1 John
5.11 Some concluding remarks
Chapter 6: Some practical issues addressed in 1 John
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Caring for the poor
6.2.1 The position of the poor in antiquity
Excursus: Caring for the poor in antiquity
6.2.2 The poor and earthly goods in 1 John
6.3 Having or desiring earthly goods
6.4 Lies, deception, murder
6.5 Concluding remarks
Chapter 7: Some concluding remarks
7.1 Introduction
7.2 The scenario
7.3 God as source of ethics in 1 John
7.4 The family of God as ethical society
7.4.1 The Father gives believers a new identity: they are now children of God
7.4.2 The Father guides his children through his word and commandments
7.5 The close cognitive and functional unity (Immanenz) between the Father, Son and believers
7.6 God is love … and his family loves one another
7.7 Jesus as model for the behaviour of believers
7.7.1 Salvific actions with ethical implications
7.7.2 Jesus laying down his life for ‘us’
7.7.3 Believers ought to walk like Jesus walked, righteous and pure
7.7.4 Mimesis and reciprocity as key ethical conventions
7.8 Tradition and ethos in service of ethics
7.9 Growth in virtue?
7.10 Sin in different forms
7.11 Theo-logy and Christ-ology
7.12 Summary
Section 2: The Second Letter of John
Chapter 8: A possible scenario
8.1 Introduction
8.2 The structure of 2 John
8.3 The preferred scenario for 2 John
8.3.1 The preferred scenario
8.3.2 Motivating the preferred scenario
8.3.2.1 The Presbyter and the lady
8.3.2.2 The nature of the threat
8.3.2.3 Who were the deceivers and antichrists (v. 7)?
8.4 Is 2 John about hospitality or not?
8.4.1 Who were these visitors?
8.4.2 Not welcoming visitors, a radical request (v. 10)?
8.4.3 Ancient hospitality and vv. 10–11?
8.4.4 The importance of protecting the confessing community
8.4.5 Some concluding remarks
Chapter 9: Truth, love and commandments as ethical concepts in 2 John
9.1 The use of the term truth (ἀλήθεια) in 2 John
9.2 Love and related concepts in 2 John
Chapter 10: Some summarizing and concluding remarks
Section 3: The Third Letter of John
Chapter 11: Conflict in 3 John? What was it about?
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Interpersonal tensions leading to a conflict
11.2.1 Interpersonal tensions: some suggestions
11.2.2 The relationship between the main characters in 3 John
11.2.2.1 The relationship between Gaius and Diotrephes
11.2.2.2 The relationship between the Presbyter and Diotrephes
11.2.2.3 The relationship between the Presbyter and Gaius
11.3 Hospitality and 3 John
11.3.1 Conventions linked to hospitality
11.3.2 Hospitality and 3 John
11.3.3 Receiving or rejecting visitors: is there a contradiction between 2 and 3 John?
Chapter 12: The ethical dynamics in 3 John
12.1 Truth
12.2 Love
12.3 Brothers, children and friends – terms signifying identity
12.4 Vilification as part of the conflict
12.5 Mimesis in 3 John
12.6 Concluding remarks
Section 4: The Letters and the Gospel of John
Chapter 13: Comparison between the Letters and the Gospel
13.1 Introduction
13.1.1 Different theories
13.1.2 Approach
13.1.3 Some preliminary remarks
13.2 Literary similarities in the Gospel and the Letters related to the grammar of ethics
13.3 God the Father and Jesus the Son (similarities and differences)
13.3.1 Similarities in theological thought structure when it comes to the roles of the Father and the Son
13.3.2 A shift in the roles of God the Father and Jesus the Son
13.3.2.1 Love
13.3.2.2 Light
13.3.2.3 Commandments
13.3.2.4 Knowledge of God
13.3.2.5 Truth and lie
13.3.2.6 Strict dualism?
13.3.3 The invisible God is made known
13.3.4 God the Father and Jesus the Son: distinction and overlap
13.4 Ethics and the Spirit
13.5 Ethics and salvation
13.5.1 People are spiritually dead, in darkness and in need of salvation
13.5.2 Faith and ethical behaviour
13.5.3 The cross and ethical behaviour
13.5.4 Ethics and the family of God
13.5.4.1 The family of God
13.5.4.2 Koinōnia and Immanenz (unity)
13.5.4.3 Mimesis and reciprocity
13.6 Ethics, ethos and tradition
13.6.1 Ethics and tradition
13.6.2 Ethics and ethos in everyday life
13.6.3 Ethics and vilification
13.7 Sin, forgiveness, eschatology and judgment
13.7.1 Sin
13.7.2 Forgiveness
13.7.3 Eschatology and judgment
13.8 Concluding remarks: reasons for similarities and differences?
13.8.1 The impact of genre
13.8.2 Difference in situation
13.8.3 Two different traditions or one living tradition?
Addenda
Addendum 1: Different ethical systems (grammars of ethics)
Addendum 2: Mimesis and reciprocity
Addendum 3: Concepts contextually networked with the term ‘love’
Addendum 4: What was the background of the opponents?
Addendum 5: Some expressions of unity in 1 John catalogued
Addendum 6: Paraenesis
Addendum 7: Occurrences of the concept of truth in the Letters of John
Addendum 8: The ethical language of the Letters of John
Addendum 9: The use of ‘us/we/I’, ‘you’, ‘they’and third person ‘neutral’
Bibliography
Index of Biblical Sources
Index of Non-Biblical Sources
Index of Modern Authors

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) · James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) · Janet Spittler (Charlottesville, VA) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

502

Jan G. van der Watt

A Grammar of the Ethics of John Volume II: Reading the Letters of John from an Ethical Perspective

Mohr Siebeck

Jan G. van der Watt, born 1952; emeritus professor of New Testament at Radboud University Nijmegen (the Netherlands) and the University of Pretoria (South Africa) and research associate at the University of the Free State (South Africa). orcid.org/0000-0003-1525-396X

ISBN 978-3-16-159223-2 / eISBN 978-3-16-159224-9 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-159224-9 ISSN 0512-1604 / eISSN 2568-7476 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2023 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Gulde Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buch­ binderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Vir Shireen, Nireen, Loutjie, Jana en Markus

Preface This volume on the Letters of John is the second part of a research project on the grammar of ethics of John, of which the first volume, A Grammar of the Ethics of John: Reading John from an Ethical Perspective, Volume 1, dealing with the Gospel, was published in 2019. The original intention was to publish the material on both the Gospel and Letters in one volume, but for several reasons it was not feasible. For practical reasons, for instance, the length of such a volume, and theoretical reasons like the recent tendency to read the Letters as independent documents, it made more sense to publish the material on the Letters in a separate volume. The same general exegetical methodology that was applied in reading the Gospel is used in analysing the documents, that is a close reading of the text within its literary, social, historical and religious situation. Obviously, the difference in genre and situations is duly taken into account, which required suggesting detailed scenarios for understanding the different Letters. As was the case with the first volume and for the same reasons, some of the research presented in Volume 2 has previously been published during the period of research.1 However, this material is integrated into the general arguments presented in this volume. The translations from Greek (NA 28) are my own. In some cases the translations of ESV or NRSV are given where I concur with the translation. A challenge was to combine or connect the material in Volumes 1 and 2, since the aim is that a prospective reader should be able to read either of the two volumes independently of the other as stand-alone documents (i.e. not needing consistent back-referencing to Volume 1 for understanding the arguments in Volume 2), since it is presumed that some would only be interested in the Gospel while others might be interested in the Letters alone. Due to the overlaps and similarities between these documents, like the concepts of love, truth, eternal life, the use of the cross, the Spirit, and so on, overlaps in the material discussed in the two volumes are inevitable in order to make sense of the discussions. Obviously it should not automatically be assumed that overlapping concepts or words are identical in meaning. The uses in particular instances are checked and considered on their own. Use of cross references (mostly in the footnotes) aims at connecting the discussions 1

For the motivation, see the Preface of Volume 1.

VIII

Preface

in the two volumes. The last section (Section 4) also deals with the similarities and differences in order to illustrate both the connections and differences between the ethical material of the Gospel and Letters. Due to the spiral or cyclical Johannine style it was necessary to structure the material under topics like God, Jesus, family relations, etc. as these issues presented themselves. Because of John’s spiral-like working, he consistently returns to topics during his arguments. Since the information about different topics is therefore spread throughout the documents (in spiral-like repetition), both a syntagmatic and a paradigmatic approach were necessary in order to ensure a more comprehensive view of the concept or topic. The paradigmatic overviews are often expressed in tables with accompanying discussions. The aim was to present an overall and logical picture of how the different aspects related to ethics are mutually linked and developed in the Letters. I am grateful to the people who supported me while busy with this project. I want to thank the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung for financing several research trips, as well as the University of the Free State, where I am a research associate. I am grateful to my Alexander von Humboldt hosts in Berlin (Prof. Cilliers Breytenbach) and Munich (Prof. David du Toit), as well as to Prof. Matthias Konradt who hosted me in Heidelberg. Discussions with Prof. Alan Culpepper on Johannine literature also proved to be very valuable, and for this, he also deserves my gratitude. Not the least, I also want to thank my wife Shireen who has patiently walked the long road with me, assisting me in any way she could. I also want to express my gratitude to Nanette Lötter for correcting my English. Special thanks go to Prof. Jörg Frey and to Mohr Siebeck for publishing the results of this project in WUNT. Johannesburg, Summer 2022

Jan G. van der Watt

Table of Contents Preface ....................................................................................................... VII Abbreviations ............................................................................................XIX

Introduction ............................................................................................... 1 1. Ethics of the Johannine Letters in Research .............................................. 1 1.1 Negative attitudes ............................................................................... 1 1.2 Interest in the ethics of the Letters ...................................................... 2 1.3 Possibe reasons for the limited interest in the ethics of the Letters by scholars .................................................... 2 1.4 The aim of this volume ....................................................................... 3 2. The genre of the Letters ............................................................................ 4 2.1 Ancient conventions in letter writing and the Letters of John ............. 5 2.1.1 Ancient letters served as a substitute for physical presence ....... 5 2.1.2 Expected friendly tone and style of ancient letters .................... 6 2.1.3 Ancient letters somehow reflected the authentic character of the author.............................................................................. 7 2.1.4 Letters are a versatile means of communication ........................ 7 2.1.5 The preferred style of ancient letters ......................................... 8 2.1.6 Letters or not? ........................................................................... 8 3. The relation between the Gospel and Letters of John ...............................10 Excursus: What came first, the Gospel or the Letters? .............................13 4. Do the Letters of John belong together? ...................................................15 5. Defining some key terms..........................................................................16 5.1 Ethics.................................................................................................16 5.2 Morals ...............................................................................................17 5.3 Ethos .................................................................................................17 6. The grammar of ethics: logical and coherent structuring ..........................18

X

Table of Contents

Section 1: The First Letter of John Chapter 1: A suggested scenario for interpreting 1 John ..............23 1.1 Different groups and their relations in 1 John ........................................23 1.1.1 Self-reference by the author: The group identified as ‘us/we/I’ ....23 1.1.2 Who are the addressees, addressed as ‘you’?................................26 1.1.2.1 On the one hand, the addressees are identified as part of the ‘us group’ ....................................................27 1.1.2.2 On the other hand, the author (‘we’) sometimes addresses the ‘you’ as a group separate from ‘us’ .............30 1.1.2.3 Being one but not fully? ...................................................30 1.1.2.4 One or two conflicts?........................................................31 1.1.3 The opponents (the ‘they’ group): antichrists who are of the world (kosmos).....................................31 1.1.3.1 A crucial question: do the antithetical sections in 1 John refer to the views of the opponents or not? ........34 Excursus: A brief history of the interpretation of the antithetical sections in 1 John .................................35 1.1.3.2 If the antitheses refer to the views of the opponents..........40 Excursus: An example of the view that the antitheses refer to the opponents .......................................................41 1.1.3.3 If the antitheses refer to the (theological) self-reflection of the ‘us’ .........................................................................43 1.1.4 The relation between the different groups: the ‘you’, the ‘they’ and the ‘us’ ..................................................47 1.1.5 Kosmos as reality in 1 John ..........................................................48 1.1.6 The suggested scenario and the ethics in 1 John ...........................50 1.2. An ‘incarnated’ reality: ‘space’ in the Letters of John............................53

Chapter 2: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (1): Family, Immanenz, mimesis and reciprocity ...................................57 2.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................57 2.2 Family imagery ......................................................................................57 2.2.1 Use of family terms to identify members of the family of the Father ............................................................59 2.2.2 Membership in the family through birth, eternal life and faith......61 2.2.2.1 Birth of God as identity marker, motivating ethical behaviour ...........................................61 Excursus: Birth in antiquity..........................................................62 Excursus: God’s seed (σπέρµα αὐτοῦ) in 1J 3:9 ...........................64

Table of Contents

XI

2.2.2.2 Eternal life and ethics in 1 John.......................................67 2.2.2.3 Faith, in tandem with birth, changes identity ...................70 2.3 The role of Immanenz, that is unity by ‘abiding/remaining/being in’, in the grammar of ethics.........................................................................72 2.3.1 Unity and Immanenz among (P)persons...........................................74 2.3.1.1 Immanenz (unity) among the (C)characters .....................74 2.3.1.2 Abstract qualities abiding in (C)characters ......................79 2.4 Mimesis and reciprocity in the grammar of Johannine ethics .................84 2.4.1 The practices of mimesis and reciprocity......................................84 2.4.1.1 Mimesis...........................................................................84 2.4.1.2 Reciprocity ......................................................................86 2.4.1.3 Occurrences of mimesis and reciprocity in the Letter ......88 2.4.2 Examples of mimesis and reciprocity in 1 John ............................89 2.4.2.1 To imitate and reciprocate Jesus by walking (living) in the same manner as Jesus did (1J 2:6) .........................89 2.4.2.2 Being righteous as God the Father and Jesus the Son are righteous (1J 2:29; 3:7) ..............................................92 2.4.2.3 Miming Jesus: being pure as he is pure............................97 2.4.2.4 To love like God/Jesus loved – to lay down one’s life like Jesus (1J 3:16–17) .................99 2.4.2.5 Walk in the light as God is (in) the light (1J 1:6–7; 2:8–11) – mimesis?.......................................100 2.5 Some summarizing and concluding remarks ........................................101

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2): koinōnia and love ..................................................................................105 3.1 Introduction .........................................................................................105 3.2 Koinōnia with the Father and Son, and with ‘us’..................................105 3.2.1 Koinōnia: an unfamiliar word in a key position ..........................105 3.2.2 The lexicographical potential of the word koinōnia ....................106 3.2.3 Koinōnia in 1J 1:3–7 and its echoes throughout the Letter..........108 3.2.4 Some summarizing remarks .......................................................110 3.3 Love as a basis for the grammar of ethics in 1 John .............................110 3.3.1 The lexicographical potential of the word group ἀγαπάω/ἀγάπη ...............................................111 3.3.2 The love of God as blueprint for the ethics of John ....................113 3.3.2.1 A key metaphor: God is love .........................................113 3.3.2.2 How God loves … active and visible.............................116 3.3.2.3 God’s love changes identity through birth of God and faith of believers .....................................................118 3.3.2.4 Love and knowledge of God..........................................120 3.3.3 Love of Jesus and the Spirit? ......................................................121

XII

Table of Contents

3.3.4 Believers ought to love as God loves..........................................124 3.3.4.1 Believers (‘we/us’) ought to love – this is a responsibility based on reciprocity and mimesis .............124 3.3.4.2 Perfect love casts out fear of the eschatological judgment .......................................130 3.3.4.3 This is God’s commandment: to love one another ..........131 3.3.4.4 Being a child in the family of God requires love for one another ..........................................134 3.3.4.5 Love is an essential part of the ethos and tradition of the ethics of the Johannine group ...............................135 3.3.4.6 What does love look like in concrete, practical situations? .....................................136 Excursus: Tertullian on the gathering of the congregation ..........146 3.3.5 Love for the world and the things in the world? (1J 2:15–17).....147 3.3.5.1 Desire of the flesh (ἡ ἐπιθυµία τῆς σαρκός – v. 16b) ......150 3.3.5.2 Desire of the eyes (ἡ ἐπιθυµία τῶν ὀφθαλµῶν – v. 16c) ..............................154 3.3.5.3 Pride of life (ἡ ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου – v. 16d) ..................156 3.3.5.4 Individual phrases or one combined statement? ..............158 3.3.6 Brotherly love and love for outsiders..........................................163 3.3.7 Hate in contrast to love...............................................................167 3.3.7.1 Hate is characterized by a life in darkness ......................168 3.3.7.2 Cain as stereotype of evil: he hated his brother and murdered him (1J 3:12–13) ......................................168 3.3.7.3 The contrast to hatred: the example of the love of Jesus (1J 3:14–16).................173 3.3.8 Rhetoric of love that emphasizes love ironically indicates a lack of love ...............................................174 3.3.9 Some summarizing and concluding remarks...............................175

Chapter 4: Commandments, paraenesis and free will ..................183 4.1 Introduction .........................................................................................183 4.2 The use of ἐντολή (commandment) in 1 John.......................................184 4.2.1 Overview of the use of the term commandments ........................184 4.2.2 The source of the commandments ..............................................185 Excursus: Who gives commandments, the Father or the Son? ....185 4.2.3 Commandment(s) networked with key concepts in the Letter.....186 4.2.3.1 Faith and love as basic commandments .........................186 4.2.3.2 Commandments as a key ethical term, networked throughout the Letter....................................188 4.2.3.3 The old and the new commandments .............................191

Table of Contents

XIII

4.3 What happened to the word νόµος (law)?.............................................193 4.3.1 The νόµος (law) as identity marker ............................................193 4.3.2 Not law, but relations guide the family of God ...........................194 4.4 Is there any evidence of influence of the Decalogue in the ethics of 1 John?.........................................................................195 4.5 The use of ἀνοµία in 1 John .................................................................196 4.6 Paraenesis as moral category in 1 John ................................................200 4.7 Commandments and conscience...........................................................207 4.8 The role of the (free) will of believers..................................................208 4.9 Discernment and the grammar of ethics of 1 John................................211 4.10 Is ethical growth part of the lives of believers? ...................................214 4.11 What is said about sin in 1 John? ........................................................215 4.11.1 The devil sinned from the beginning (1J 3:8) ...........................215 4.11.2 A child of God cannot sin (1J 3:9–10)......................................217 4.11.3 Confession of sins (1J 1:7–2:2) ................................................218 4.11.4 Mortal sin (1J 5:16)..................................................................224 4.12 Some summarizing and concluding remarks .......................................226

Chapter 5: Tradition and ethos as part of the grammar of ethics of 1 John ........................................................233 5.1 Introduction .........................................................................................233 5.2 References to tradition in 1 John ..........................................................234 5.3 What did the Johannine group actually know (οἶδα and γινώσκω)?......234 Excursus: Use of οἶδα and γινώσκω .....................................................235 5.4 What they have heard (ἀκούω).............................................................237 5.5 The author writes, proclaims and witnesses..........................................237 5.6 Statements as rhetorical devices...........................................................238 5.7 Authority and the traditional message ..................................................241 5.8 The role of the Spirit in preserving the tradition within the Johannine group ..................................................................241 5.8.1 The work of the Spirit ................................................................242 5.8.2 ‘Anointing’ in 1J 2:18–28 ..........................................................243 5.9 Experience in the process of learning ...................................................246 5.10 Ethics and eschatology in 1 John ........................................................247 5.11 Some concluding remarks...................................................................251

Chapter 6: Some practical issues addressed in 1 John .................253 6.1 Introduction .........................................................................................253 6.2 Caring for the poor...............................................................................253 6.2.1 The position of the poor in antiquity...........................................253 Excursus: Caring for the poor in antiquity .................................254

XIV

Table of Contents

6.2.2 The poor and earthly goods in 1 John .........................................257 6.3 Having or desiring earthly goods .........................................................259 6.4 Lies, deception, murder........................................................................259 6.5 Concluding remarks .............................................................................260

Chapter 7: Some concluding remarks ..............................................261 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4

Introduction .........................................................................................261 The scenario.........................................................................................261 God as source of ethics in 1 John .........................................................263 The family of God as ethical society ....................................................264 7.4.1 The Father gives believers a new identity: they are now children of God .....................................................264 7.4.2 The Father guides his children through his word and commandments ........................................265 7.5 The close cognitive and functional unity (Immanenz) between the Father, Son and believers .................................................266 7.6 God is love … and his family loves one another ..................................268 7.7 Jesus as model for the behaviour of believers.......................................271 7.7.1 Salvific actions with ethical implications ...................................271 7.7.2 Jesus laying down his life for ‘us’ ..............................................272 7.7.3 Believers ought to walk like Jesus walked, righteous and pure ...272 7.7.4 Mimesis and reciprocity as key ethical conventions ...................273 7.8 Tradition and ethos in service of ethics ................................................274 7.9 Growth in virtue? .................................................................................277 7.10 Sin in different forms..........................................................................277 7.11 Theo-logy and Christ-ology ................................................................279 7.12 Summary ............................................................................................282

Section 2: The Second Letter of John Chapter 8: A possible scenario ..........................................................287 8.1 Introduction .........................................................................................287 8.2 The structure of 2 John.........................................................................290 8.3 The preferred scenario for 2 John.........................................................291 8.3.1 The preferred scenario................................................................291 8.3.2 Motivating the preferred scenario...............................................293 8.3.2.1 The Presbyter and the lady ............................................293 8.3.2.2 The nature of the threat..................................................301 8.3.2.3 Who were the deceivers and antichrists (v. 7)? ..............302

Table of Contents

XV

8.4 Is 2 John about hospitality or not?........................................................307 8.4.1 Who were these visitors?............................................................307 8.4.2 Not welcoming visitors, a radical request (v. 10)? ......................310 8.4.3 Ancient hospitality and vv. 10–11? ............................................313 8.4.4 The importance of protecting the confessing community............321 8.4.5 Some concluding remarks ..........................................................322

Chapter 9: Truth, love and commandments as ethical concepts in 2 John ..............................................................323 9.1 The use of the term truth (ἀλήθεια) in 2 John.......................................323 9.2 Love and related concepts in 2 John.....................................................326

Chapter 10: Some summarizing and concluding remarks...........329 Section 3: The Third Letter of John Chapter 11: Conflict in 3 John? What was it about? ....................335 11.1 Introduction .......................................................................................335 11.2 Interpersonal tensions leading to a conflict ........................................336 11.2.1 Interpersonal tensions: some suggestions ................................336 11.2.2 The relationship between the main characters in 3 John ..........338 11.2.2.1 The relationship between Gaius and Diotrephes.......339 11.2.2.2 The relationship between the Presbyter and Diotrephes .........................................................340 11.2.2.3 The relationship between the Presbyter and Gaius ...345 11.3 Hospitality and 3 John .......................................................................346 11.3.1 Conventions linked to hospitality ............................................347 11.3.2 Hospitality and 3 John.............................................................348 11.3.3 Receiving or rejecting visitors: is there a contradiction between 2 and 3 John? ........................351

Chapter 12: The ethical dynamics in 3 John ..................................353 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6

Truth..................................................................................................353 Love ..................................................................................................356 Brothers, children and friends – terms signifying identity ..................357 Vilification as part of the conflict ......................................................359 Mimesis in 3 John..............................................................................360 Concluding remarks ...........................................................................361

XVI

Table of Contents

Section 4: The Letters and the Gospel of John Chapter 13: Comparison between the Letters and the Gospel ...367 13.1 Introduction .......................................................................................367 13.1.1 Different theories ....................................................................367 13.1.2 Approach ................................................................................368 13.1.3 Some preliminary remarks ......................................................370 13.2 Literary similarities in the Gospel and the Letters related to the grammar of ethics .........................................................371 13.3 God the Father and Jesus the Son (similarities and differences) .........372 13.3.1 Similarities in theological thought structure when it comes to the roles of the Father and the Son...............372 13.3.2 A shift in the roles of God the Father and Jesus the Son..........373 13.3.2.1 Love ...........................................................................373 13.3.2.2 Light...........................................................................377 13.3.2.3 Commandments ..........................................................378 13.3.2.4 Knowledge of God......................................................379 13.3.2.5 Truth and lie ...............................................................381 13.3.2.6 Strict dualism?............................................................383 13.3.3 The invisible God is made known ...........................................384 13.3.4 God the Father and Jesus the Son: distinction and overlap ......385 13.4 Ethics and the Spirit...........................................................................386 13.5 Ethics and salvation ...........................................................................387 13.5.1 People are spiritually dead, in darkness and in need of salvation...........................................................387 13.5.2 Faith and ethical behaviour .....................................................388 13.5.3 The cross and ethical behaviour ..............................................389 13.5.4 Ethics and the family of God...................................................389 13.5.4.1 The family of God ......................................................389 13.5.4.2 Koinōnia and Immanenz (unity) ..................................392 13.5.4.3 Mimesis and reciprocity..............................................393 13.6 Ethics, ethos and tradition..................................................................394 13.6.1 Ethics and tradition .................................................................394 13.6.2 Ethics and ethos in everyday life .............................................396 13.6.3 Ethics and vilification .............................................................397 13.7 Sin, forgiveness, eschatology and judgment.......................................397 13.7.1 Sin ..........................................................................................397 13.7.2 Forgiveness .............................................................................398 13.7.3 Eschatology and judgment ......................................................399

Table of Contents

XVII

13.8 Concluding remarks: reasons for similarities and differences? ...........401 13.8.1 The impact of genre ................................................................401 13.8.2 Difference in situation.............................................................403 13.8.3 Two different traditions or one living tradition?......................406

Addenda Addendum 1: Addendum 2: Addendum 3: Addendum 4: Addendum 5: Addendum 6: Addendum 7: Addendum 8: Addendum 9:

Different ethical systems (grammars of ethics) ....................407 Mimesis and reciprocity.......................................................409 Concepts contextually networked with the term ‘love’.........419 What was the background of the opponents?........................421 Some expressions of unity in 1 John catalogued ..................425 Paraenesis ............................................................................429 Occurrences of the concept of truth in the Letters of John....435 The ethical language of the Letters of John ..........................439 The use of ‘us/we/I’, ‘you’, ‘they’ and third person ‘neutral’ .....................................................451

Bibliography...............................................................................................465 Index of Biblical Sources ...........................................................................479 Index of Non-Biblical Sources ...................................................................487 Index of Modern Authors ...........................................................................491

Abbreviations ABD ANRW ASV AUSS AV BAR BDAG

BFC Bib BiLi BTB BZ CBQ CV CEV CIJ EBR EDNT ESV EvQ GN GNB GW IG ISV JAAR JBL JETS KJV LCL LEB Lut

Anchor Bible Dictionary, Freedman, DN (ed.), 6 Volumes, New York 1992 Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Temporini, H, and Haase, W (eds.), Teil II: Principat, Berlin/New York 1974ff. American Standard Version Andrews University Seminary Studies Authorized Version – 1873 Biblical Archaeology Review Bauer, W, Danker, FW, Arndt, WF, and Gingrich, FW, GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edn., Chicago 1999 La Bible en Français courant Biblica Bibel und Liturgie Biblical Theology Bulletin Biblische Zeitschrift Catholic Biblical Quarterly Communio Viatorum Contemporary English Version Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum, Frey, J-B (ed.), 2 Volumes, Rome 1936–1952 Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception, Berlin/Boston 2009ff. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, Balz, HR, and Schneider, G, eds., 3 Volumes. Grand Rapids 1990–1993 English Standard Version Evangelical Quarterly Gute Nachricht The Good News Bible God’s Word Translation Inscriptiones Graecae International Standard Version Journal of the American Academy of Religion Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society King James Version The Loeb Classical Library The Lexham English Bible Lutherbibel

XX NA 28 NAB NASB NAV NBG1951 NBS NCV NGTT NIV NKJV NLT NRSV NT NTS RGG3 RSV SJOT SVV TDNT

TNIV TOB TRE TRu TS TTZ TWNT TZ YLT ZNW ZTK

Abbreviations Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th edn., Stuttgart 2012 New American Bible New American Standard Bible Nuwe Afrikaanse Vertaling (New Afrikaans Translation) Bijbel – 1951 (Dutch translation) La nouvelle Bible Segond New Century Version Nederduitse gereformeerde teologiese tydskrif New International Version New King James Version New Living Translation New Revised Standard Version Novum Testamentum New Testament Studies Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3rd edn., 6 Volumes, Tübingen 1957–1965 Revised Standard Version Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Statenvertaling (Dutch translation) Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Kittel, G, and Friedrich, G (eds.). Translated by Bromiley, GW, 10 Volumes, Grand Rapids 1993 Today’s New International Version Traduction Oecuménique del la Bible Theologische Realenzyklopädie, Krause, G, and Müller, G (eds.), 36 Volumes, Berlin/New York 1977–2004 Theologische Rundschau Theological Studies Trierer theologische Zeitschrift Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, Kittel, G, and Friedrich, G (eds.), 10 Volumes, Stuttgart 1932–1979 Theologische Zeitschrift Young’s Literal Translation Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Introduction Introduction

1. Ethics of the Johannine Letters in research 1. Ethics of the Johannine Letters in research

The Letters of John are known for their emphasis on love.1 In addition, 2 and 3 John deal with ethical crises specifically related to receiving ‘problematic’ visitors. There is little further evidence of ethical issues related to specific practical issues like, for instance, marriage, sexual or juridical behaviour, fiscal issues, and so on. 1.1 Negative attitudes Even though references to ethics occur in virtually all commentaries on the Letters2 and the ethical nature of the Letters is acknowledged,3 systematic and detailed reflection on ethical issues remains a rarity.4 A survey of the relevant literature5 shows that although some attention is given to ethical issues like 1 Cf., for e.g., Augustine at the beginning of his Ten Tractates on the Epistle of John. To mention but a few examples of the presence of the concept of love: God is love; He loved believers first and as he loved believers, they should love one another (1J 4:10–11); Jesus illustrated the nature of love through his death and this should be imitated by believers (1J 3:16); The Presbyter loves his fellow Christians in truth (2J 1); love is the commandment they heard from the beginning (1J 2:7–10; 2J 6); believers testify to the love of Gaius (3J 6). 2 Cf., e.g., relevant sections in Brown (1986), Schnackenburg (1984), Smalley (2002), Klauck (1991), Painter (2002), Lieu (2008), and Menken (2010). 3 As Schnelle (2010:188) remarks, ‘Es geht dem 1 Joh um die ethische Gestalt, den ethischen Charakter des Christentums!’ Kysar (1992:910), for instance, emphasizes the centrality of the moral perspectives in the Letters. Cf. Perkins (1979), Schnackenburg (1967:316), Brown (1982), Smalley (1984), Von Wahlde (1990:108), Van der Watt (1999; 2011; 2014) and Van der Merwe (2006:536). The primary theological foci in 1 and 2 John is usually identified as Christology and ethics. There are differences of opinion about the relation between these two concepts. Some see his ethics as directly dependent upon his Christology (Beutler 2000:26) while others do not want to link them so directly (Lieu 1991; 2008). 4 Ethics in 1 John is more often treated in combination with, and as a sub-section of, the ethics of John’s Gospel, as Konradt (2022:ad loc.), for instance, does it. 5 Some publications on the ethics in the Letters are: Rese (1985:44–58), Klauck (1989:151–71), Perkins (1992:287–95), Söding (1996:306–57), Van der Watt (1999:491– 511; 2014; 2016; 2018), Van der Merwe (2005:527–42; 2006:535–63), Nicklas (2006:245–

2

Introduction

love, references to light or sin, these are relatively limited, as is the excitement among scholars about exploring ethics in depth in these Letters.6 Negative remarks about the treatment of ethics in the Letters are not uncommon. Rensberger,7 for instance, notes, ‘The epistles are not concerned with ethics … The only ethical category of interest to the author is love for one another’. Lieu8 broadens this idea when she remarks, ‘It is true that the “ethical” dimension is very unspecific and that behaviour seems primarily directed towards other members of the community; there is no consideration of how they are to behave “in the world”’. 1.2 Interest in the ethics of the Letters In spite of these sentiments, interest in the ethics of the Letters of John is evident in articles that have recently been published.9 Schnelle emphasizes what he calls a theological ethic,10 while Van der Watt and Van der Merwe11 focus on the communal basis of ethics in the Letters. Wischmeyer, again, differentiates between the situations addressed by the Gospel and the Letters respectively, arguing that ethics is much more prominent in the Letters because of the difference in the situation between the Gospel and the Letters – what Jesus said to his disciples in John 13ff. is applied to a wider audience in the Letters.12 However, the interest remains relatively low key.13 On hospitality, Malherbe14 and Malina15 reflect on the ethical dynamics in 3 John, although Malina in his article focuses more on methodological issues. 1.3 Possible reasons for the limited interest in the ethics of the Letters by scholars The limited interest in the ethics of the Letters by scholars might partly be due to the apparent clear and straightforward ‘ethical language’,16 basically calling for ‘brotherly’ love, without treating the contents or implications of 48), Snodderley (2008), Wischmeyer (2009:207–20), Schnelle (2010) and Armitage (2021). See also Malherbe (1977:222–32) and Malina (1986:171–94) on 3 John. 6 Cf. Painter (2002:1–26) for an overview of the history of interpretation of the Letters. 7 Rensberger (1997:35). 8 Lieu (1991:106). 9 Cf. also Snodderley (2008). 10 Schnelle (2012). 11 Van der Watt (1988; 1999; 2007; 2014) and Van der Merwe (2005; 2006). 12 Wischmeyer (2009). 13 The above mentioned are only in the form of journal articles, often approaching the ethical dynamics from a specific perspective. I am not aware of any comprehensive treatment (i.e. as monograph or substantial part of a monograph) of the subject. 14 Malherbe (1977). 15 Malina (1986). 16 Cf. Schnackenburg (1967:316).

1. Ethics of the Johannine Letters in research

3

this love in much concrete detail (cf., however, 1J 3:16–17). What can be said is: ‘love one another’ and that is it!? A further reason for the lack of interest might be the absence of broader social awareness in the Letters, since on the surface level there seems to be no interest in issues outside the circle of the Johannine group, such as more general ethical themes like social responsibilities, economic or political behaviour, and individual issues related to interpersonal relations, marriage, or sexual behaviour, for instance. Lists of virtues and vices are lacking, while terms referring more to principles than practical behaviour are used, like truth, righteousness, purity or sinlessness. These principles are not filled with practical content, however, that is no morals are spelled out.17 Neither are these documents ethical treatises. Another issue seems to hamper ethical reflection, namely, ethical issues that might seem strange or even be questioned by modern readers. To name a few: the exclusive emphasis on ‘brotherly love’, which even seems outright sexist to some. The imperative (2J 10–11) not to allow a visitor into your house or even greet him seems to militate against the idea of Christian love and charity. It seems to propagate a situation where open discussion or, to put it in modern terms, ecumenical relations are discouraged. Some modern readers are also uncomfortable with the ancient reciprocal obligation to return a gift (like love), especially in light of free will. Then there is the harshness of the Presbyter in 3 John, where he insinuates that Diotrephes does not know God since he does not want to welcome strangers (travelling missionaries who are associated with the Presbyter) into his house.

1.4 The aim of this volume The aim of this volume, as is the case with Volume 1 on the Gospel, is to analyse and construct a grammar of ethics of the Letters through a multidimensional, close reading of the texts within their socio-religious frameworks, focusing on the data related to ethics and morals within the broader framework of the message of John in these particular documents. What was stated in the first volume about the methodology and approach also applies here and need not be repeated.18 A scenario of the possible situation will first be offered for the writing of the Letters, based on a close reading of the texts. The consistency and plausibility of the suggested scenario will be tested repeatedly, especially in regard to whether it allows for a plausible and integrated understanding of the different detailed remarks related to the ethics in the Letters. This is of course

17

Cf. Klauck (1991:277–80). The approach will be similar to that used in Vol. 1, 29–107 where the theory is discussed in more detail. 18

4

Introduction

more an approach than a method (different exegetical methods are of course used in the process of a close reading of the text).19 The ethics of the three Letters will then be dealt with individually (Sections 1–3), resulting in a grammar of the ethics of the Letters. In a last section (Section 4) the similarities and differences between the ethics of the Gospel and Letters will be considered. Before dealing with the different Letters separately, a few issues should first be considered that influence the interpretation as well as the grammar of ethics of these documents.20 These issues deal largely with the nature of the documents as well as the interrelatedness of the Letters, both to the Gospel and to each other.

2. The genre of the Letters 2. The genre of the Letters

The nature of genre is central to the interpretation of a document. A joke, for instance, should be interpreted differently from a newspaper article or a scientific essay. Letters were an important and central means of general and specific communication among all classes of society in ancient times.21 There is large consensus that 2 and 3 John are true ancient letters, but there are doubts about 1 John.

19 Writing on the ethics of the Letters proved to be complex, especially since researchers are divided between two major views (with nuances abounding between the two), namely, i) that 1 John is polemical implying that the contrasting material in the Letter refers to the views of the opponents, or ii) that the document is pastoral, meaning that the contrasting sections are rhetorically intended to convince the addressees to make the correct decisions. Obviously, a choice for a particular view significantly impacts on the grammar of ethics. To come to the most plausible conclusion, the different options are considered and argued in detail and a particular choice is made. This choice formed the framework within which the ethical data is considered. However, for the sake of balance, the implications of a different choice for John’s ethics are also discussed, but not in the same detailed way. 20 Not all introductory questions will be treated, for instance, the numerous discussions about a possible structure of 1 John (cf. Brown 1986, Schnackenburg 1984, Painter 2002, Culpepper 1998:245 and Menken 2010), which to my mind mostly seem artificial. Rather, issues that directly impact on the ethics of the Letters will receive due attention, like the social framework or the identity of the opponents. 21 Cf. Harding (2003:113) and Painter (2002:85). A vast deposit of ancient letters survives which provides us with ample information about the nature and function of these ancient letters.

2. The genre of the Letters

5

2.1 Ancient conventions in letter writing and the Letters of John Malherbe,22 referring to Graeco-Roman contexts, notes, ‘As early as the fourth century B.C., Epicurus used letters to instruct and direct affairs of the philosophic communities who held him in esteem as their master. The voluminous correspondences of Cicero and Seneca witness to the popularity of the genre in the centuries immediately before and after Christ’. Harding23 further remarks that ‘philosophers kept in touch with their pupils by letters, reminding them of the teaching of the master, and exhorting them to maintain their commitment to it’. Ancient letters were indeed a versatile and effective means of communication, also for the early Christian communities. The following qualities are regarded as characteristics of ancient letters.24 2.1.1 Ancient letters served as a substitute for physical presence Letters served as an effective substitute for physical presence, since there was no other quick way of making contact, like fast transport or telephones. Letters, therefore, fulfilled the function of ‘making a person present although he is absent’.25 It is ‘a sermo cum absentibus, a communication with somebody absent as if he or she were present’.26 It represented ‘half a conversation’,27 indeed, ‘one half of a dialogue’.28 The other half of the dialogue should be supplied by the receivers of the letter and this unfortunately remains hidden to the present-day reader. 2 and 3 John were most probably written to deal with important matters that could not wait until the planned face-to-face meetings, as are foreseen in the endings of both letters.29 Consequently ‘half a conversation’ should suffice. In the case of 1 John the case is less clear. However, ‘half a conversation’ is 22

Malherbe (1986:79; 1988). Harding (2003:117). 24 Cf. the excellent works of Malherbe (1988) and Klauck (2006) for information on ancient epistolary theorists and the nature and function of ancient letters. Based on descriptions by numerous ancient authors, Malherbe (1988:12), for instance, gives the following ‘definitions’ of a letter: a) ‘A letter is one half of a dialogue (Dem. 223) or a surrogate for an actual dialogue (Cic. Ad Fam. 12,30,1)’; b) ‘In it one speaks to an absent friend as though he were present’; c) ‘The letter is, in fact, speech in the written medium’; d) ‘A letter reflects the personality of its writer’. Cf. also Edwards (2001:1). 25 Harding (2003:113) says that the ‘letter writer addresses the recipient as though physically present’. 26 Allen, Neil and Mayer (2009:45). Malherbe (1986:68) notes that the preferred way of instructing in antiquity was through speech, but ‘writers like Seneca regarded letters as the next best’. A letter was a speech written down. 27 According to Harding (2003:113), this was Aristotle’s view. Cf. also Demetrius, Eloc. 223–225. 28 Allen, Neil and Mayer (2009:45). 29 2J 12; 3J 13–14. 23

6

Introduction

suggested by the way the author addresses his intended audience. He knows their ethos and their situation. He refers to what they know and argues from there,30 he anticipates what might be said,31 invites them back to fellowship,32 and warns them against deceivers.33 2.1.2 Expected friendly tone and style of ancient letters According to Seneca34 the tone and style should be as if two friends are communicating in one another’s presence, since letters were (normally) the ‘expression of a friendly relationship’, or at least a relationship where openness allowed communication.35 Psychagogy, that is, pastoral care and guidance, was therefore an important function of letters.36 The Letters of John fit the pattern of letters that reflect amicable communication to the benefit of the recipients. In 1 John the readership is consistently addressed in benevolent and intimate personal terms, such as ‘beloved’37 or ‘my (little) children’.38 The recipients are also, for instance, encouraged,39 warned,40 enlightened 41 and praised,42 confirming the pastoral nature of the Letter. In 2 and 3 John the author also addresses the readership as people he loves,43 whom he intends to visit,44 and in 3 John he calls the recipients ‘beloved’.45 In 2 John he is concerned about the possibility of damage to the group and positively advises the lady and her children. He also regards it as a joy to visit the group of the lady. In 3 John the author encourages Gaius to do the work of truth and in God’s service.

30

Cf. 1J 2:18, 20, 24, 29; 3:11, etc. Cf. 1J 1:6, 8; 2:9, etc. 32 1J 1:3–4. 33 1J 2:26. 34 Seneca, Ep. 40:1; 75:1–2. 35 Harding (2003:113). See Galatians or 2 Corinthians where an undertone of openness in spite of conflict is evident. 36 Ibid. 114. 37 1J 2:7; 4:1, 7; 3J 2, 5, 11. 38 1J 2:1, 12, 18, 28; 3J 4. 39 1J 1:9; 2:1–2, 27; 3:1, 14; 4:4, 19; 5:4, 13. 40 1J 2:15–17, 26; 5:21. 41 1J 2:18–27. 42 1J 2:12–14. 43 2J 1; 3J 1. 44 2J 12; 3J 13–14. 45 3J 2, 5, 11. 31

2. The genre of the Letters

7

2.1.3 Ancient letters somehow reflected the authentic character of the author Seneca remarked that a letter, like a personal speech, should reflect ‘the personality of the letter-writer’,46 or in the words of Demetrius,47 ‘it may be said that everybody reveals his own soul in letters’.48 This includes authenticity and trustworthiness, as well as correspondence to reality shared by the recipients. The three Letters of John each reflects in its own way the character of the author. In 1 John the author identifies himself as representative of the group of eye-witnesses and describes who he is and what he stands for, often referring to ‘I’ or ‘us’, thus revealing information about himself.49 In 2 John the author identifies himself as Presbyter50 and associates himself with all those who know the truth. His authenticity is confirmed by the truth that abides in him and will be with him (‘us’) forever (2J 1–2). He is sensitive about his relation to the elect lady and does not force his authority on the elect lady, but rather asks her politely.51 He is very decisive about loyalty to the teachings of Christ and the truth, however.52 In 3 John the author likewise identifies himself as authoritative Presbyter53 who follow the truth. He is also personally concerned about the health of Gaius whom he loves in truth, as well as about the well-being of the work of God (3J 6–8, 11–12). 2.1.4 Letters are a versatile means of communication Ancient letters (much like today) were very versatile means of communication,54 as Allen, Neil and Mayer note: ‘there was a flexibility in the deployment of the letter-writing genres and … it could be used almost ad libita for purposes of communication, for dissemination of ideas, for polemical ends, and for instruction’.55 Letters could deal with virtually anything that 46

Allen, Neil and Mayer (2009:45). Demetrius, Eloc. 227–228. Translation by Harding (2003:114). 48 In Ep. 40:1–2, Seneca remarks to Lucilius, ‘I thank you for writing to me so often; for you are revealing your real self to me in the only way you can. I never receive a letter from you without being in your company forthwith … a letter, which brings us real traces, real evidences, of an absent friend. For that which is sweetest when we meet face to face is afforded by the impress of a friend’s hand upon his letter, – recognition’. Malherbe (1988:12) emphasizes that ‘Letters should be real communications and not technical treatises’. 49 2J 1. 50 2J 1. 51 Cf. subsection 8.3.2.1 b), p. 298, on 2J 5 (ἐρωτάω). 52 Cf. 2J 8, 9–11. 53 Cf. 3J 1, 4, 5, 9–10. 54 Malherbe (1988:12–13) argues that the variety in types of letters is clear, considering the 21 types named by Pseudo-Demetrius or the 41 named by Pseudo-Libanius. 55 Allen, Neil and Mayer (2009:45). 47

8

Introduction

conversations could deal with, or as Cicero indicates, ‘There are many kinds of letters … letter writing was invented just in order that we might inform those at a instance if there were anything which was important for them or for ourselves that they should know’.56 Letters therefore varied both in style and content and were used for many purposes, depending on the circumstances.57 The versatility of the three Letters of John cannot be overlooked. 3 John deals with a personal conflict between the Presbyter and Diotrephes about authority and receiving visiting missionaries, while 2 John deals with false teachings threatening the elect lady and her children. 1 John again deals with a part of his group whose love and co-operation are cooling down in the light of the schism that has already taken place. 2.1.5 The preferred style of ancient letters Ancient literary theorists recommended that letters ‘must be concise, be clear in what they say … must be adapted to the circumstances and mood of their addressees … should be written in the most appropriate style’.58 There should also be freedom in structuring the letter. Further, as Demetrius puts it, ‘the length of a letter, no less than in style, must be kept within due bounds. Those that are too long … are not in sober truth letters but treatises …’.59 Although it is a matter of judgment, it may be said that the Letters of John aim at addressing the mood and problems of the addressees in an appropriate manner.60 The style is also not too poetic or complex,61 as is expected of an ancient letter, but displays a certain freedom in the use of diction, like imagery,62 although within the confines of the sociolect of the Johannine group. 2.1.6 Letters or not? In light of the above evidence, it might be said that the Johannine Letters reasonably fulfil the requirements of ancient letters, even in the case of 1 John. There is indeed little doubt that 2 and 3 John have the typical characteristics of ancient letters. 56

Cicero, Fam. 2.4.1 – in this case C. Scribonius Curio, 53 BCE. Cf. Harding (2003:115) and Malherbe (1988:ad loc.) for translation. 57 Cf. Ps.-Demetrius, Typoi epistolikoi, Introduction 5–8. Malherbe (1988:ad loc.). 58 Malherbe (1988:13). In a work attributed to Demetrius of Phaleron (ca. 330 BCE), namely, On Style, the author says that unornamented ‘plain’ style for letters was common, but that on certain occasions there was a need to enhance the style rhetorically, especially with moral exhortation as topic (cf. Harding 2003:114). Nevertheless, a letter should be kept uncomplicated, expressing the ‘heart’s good wishes’ (Demetrius, Eloc. 231). 59 Demetrius, Eloc. 228 (translation by Harding 2003:114). 60 Cf. 1J 1:3–4; 2:1, 7, 12–14, 18, 26; 3:11; 4:1–2, etc.; 2J 5–10; 3J 2–5; 13–14. 61 Compared, e.g., to Hebrews, Ephesians or 1 and 2 Peter. 62 Cf. the family imagery, light/darkness (1J 1:5–7; 2:8–11), the paraclete (1J 2:1), anointment (1J 2:20, 27), water and blood (1J 5:8).

2. The genre of the Letters

9

There is an ongoing debate about the nature of the genre of 1 John, however, since it lacks some of the typical formal characteristics of a letter, like a proper greeting at the beginning or conclusion, causing views to differ on the nature and function of the document.63 In these debates it was consequently categorized as a tract,64 a general manifesto, a homily65 or pastoral address,66 a paper,67 a paraenetic letter,68 or a book of instruction for followers in order to be able to apply the teaching of the leader, to name but a few. Lieu opts for epistle,69 while there are also those who prefer to call 1 John a letter, or even a circular letter.70 It seems plausible to read 1 John with a considerable number of scholars71 as a letter, sufficiently sharing the characteristics of ancient letters, not the least with its focus on a particular situation of conflict.72 1 John seems to be addressed to a particular group (the ‘you’ in the Letter), and is not a general document or treatise that is addressed to a fictive audience, detached from any concrete situation or recipients. The Letters, 1 John included, do not pretend to be fiction or just general remarks, but respectively address particular crisis situations73 – they want to proclaim, warn, convince, remind, teach, etc. As such they are performative texts that aim to influence and move people in their convictions about particular issues related to them, also on an ethical level. Letter vs epistle: Doty74 remarks that by the end of the 19th century, a distinction was made between letter and epistle within New Testament scholarship. He75 points out that Deissmann distinguished between ‘epistles’ (Episteln), as documents written for aesthetic reasons by such writers as Epicurus, Pliny and Seneca, and ‘letters’ (Briefe) to address particular situations. Painter opines that 2 and 3 John, at least, fit the criteria of ‘a popular

63 Cf. Thyen (1976:187), Marshall (1978:14–15), Strecker (1989:49), Klauck (1991:30– 32), Kysar (1992:902), Du Rand (1997:146–49), Schnelle (2010:56–57), Menken (2010:10), Van der Watt (2007; 2011) and Parsenios (2014:26–28). 64 Schnackenburg (1984:2–3). 65 Culpepper (1998:251). 66 Marshall (1978). 67 Smalley (1984) – a bit anachronistically. 68 Stowers (1986:97). 69 Lieu (1986:37–51). She and some others she mentions distinguish between letters and epistles. Cf. also Marxsen (1993:285–86). 70 Dodd (1946). 71 Cf. Van der Watt (2007:ad loc.) and further, e.g., Klauck (1991) and Menken (2010). 72 One of the reasons why Griffith (2002:8) regards 1 John as a situational document, is because of the exhortation, i.e. the paraenetic character of the document. It is not simply a speech written down, but the author consistently refers to his own activity as author of the letter (cf. 1J 1:4; 2:1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 21, 26; 5:13) while focusing on specific situations (1J 2:19, 26). 73 Cf. Von Wahlde (1990:105). 74 Doty (1973:24). Cf. also Aune (1987:160) and Painter (2002:37–38). 75 Doty (1973:24). Cf. also Aune (1987:160).

10

Introduction

letter admirably’.76 1 John does not seem to be a ‘popular personal letter’, though it is ‘directed to a specific situation’. He concludes that ‘none of these three writings is formally an epistle’.77 However, according to Aune78 the distinction between letter and epistle has obscured rather than clarified the spectrum of possibilities that separated the short personal letter from the literary letters of antiquity. Some even use these terms without distinction.79 To avoid confusion, 1–3 John will be referred to as ‘letters’.80

3. The relation between the Gospel and Letters of John 3. The relation between the Gospel and Letters of John

An important issue in interpreting the Letters of John is their relation to the Gospel,81 since that would determine to what extent the Letters must be understood and indeed interpreted in light of the Gospel. For instance, if one reads the term ‘life’ in a Letter, should one semantically fill it with the meaning it has in the Gospel? Are the conflicts in the Gospel directly related to the conflicts in the Letters, and are the opponents the same? Answers to these and similar questions directly determine the interpretation of the Letters. For instance, Brown82 and others83 presuppose a close relationship between the Gospel and the Letters, and therefore interpret the situation as well as the theology of the Letters in terms of the Gospel, enriching the understanding of the Letters through information from the Gospel.84 In 2009 a student of Zumstein, Horst Hahn85 argued that 1 John should be seen as a ‘Relecture’ of the Gospel, using themes from the Gospel and interpreting them anew that seemed an appealing suggestion. The Letters are also regarded by some as a commentary or a set of explanatory notes that aims at correcting a wrong understanding of the Gospel.86 76

Painter (2002:37–38). Ibid. 38. 78 Aune (1987:160). 79 Griffith (2002:6). 80 If reference is made to all three Johannine letters or one specific letter, a capital L will be used, i.e. Letter(s). 81 Cf. Brown (1986), Lieu (1986:205–209; 1991:1–8, 100–101), Marxsen (1993:285), Culpepper (1998:252–53), Beutler (2000:29–30), Frey (2000:53–59), Painter (2002:44–51, 58–74), Heckel (2004:426–33, 442) and Menken (2011:219–20). 82 Brown (1986) in his commentary. Sproston North (2001), however, argues against Brown, opining that Brown’s argument is circular. 83 Cf., e.g., H Hahn (2009), Menken (2012:3) and Parsenios (2014). 84 Painter (2002:93) opines that ‘The author’s response to this crisis is called forth from his own coherent and powerful understanding of the gospel … he has drawn deeply on the Johannine gospel tradition’. 85 H Hahn (2009). 86 Cf. Griffith (2002:4). Roloff (1993:291–92) identifies the author of 1 John with the last redactor of the Gospel. He wrote the Letter as a theological tractate to assist in understanding the Gospel correctly. According to him, 1 John therefore describes the situation of 77

3. The relation between the Gospel and Letters of John

11

On the other hand, if the more minimal approach of, for instance, Lieu87 is taken, a position is favoured where the relation between the Letters and the Gospel is not taken for granted and the mutual influence should be handled with care, not the least because new situations in the Letters offer their own scenarios. She argues that one should not just assume close dependence between the Gospel and the Letters, but should rather assume that the authors worked independently, based on ‘a common body of Johannine tradition’. Links between the Letters and Gospel are therefore not denied.88 However, the Letters should be interpreted as separate documents which should be read in their own right.89 Even though it is still debated whether the Gospel and the Letters might have been written by the same person,90 it seems problematic to accept that these documents do not share the same early Christian (Johannine) tradition, especially if the sociolect and even basic theological ideas are compared.91 As early as Irenaeus (180 CE), the link between the Gospel and the Letters of the community, but also offers insight into the historical development of the Johannine group. This comes close to reading 1 John as a commentary on the Gospel, as Klauck also mentions. 87 Lieu (1991). Consistent with his theory of the history of the Johannine writings, Schnackenburg (1991:41–64) sets 1–3 John apart from the Gospel of John. 88 Lieu (1991:101) and those who share the hesitancy to see the Letters as extensions of the Gospel, carefully navigate their views to respect the independence of the different Letters but also acknowledge the shared tradition, including vocabulary and theology. Possible links are not ignored, as is evident from the following remark, ‘shared idiosyncrasies of language and thought bind the Gospel and Epistles of John together’ (Lieu 1991:98). Lieu (1991:98–99) further opines that the shared ‘language, style, terminology, and patterns of theological thought and outlook point to a tradition which was encapsulated within a defined group’. 89 Between these views of close dependence and independence a variety of opinions are found, as the following examples illustrate. Schmid (2004), again, sidesteps the problem of dates and order of composition, by proposing an intertextual model according to which the Johannine writings are regarded as privileged space for intertextual relations. This means that he is not interested in whether the one document is written before the other, but rather compares and relates the ideas on the basis of a system theory according to which a Johannine system is suggested in which the ideas of the Letters and the Gospel could be interpreted in relation to one another. Schmid (2004:31) remarks ‘either text receives an amplified meaning when it is read in the light of the other’. 90 Scholars like Houlden, Lieu and even Schnackenburg favour different authorship of the Gospel and the Letters, while others like Guthrie or Marshall opine that it could have been the same author. The issue is how much allowance one gives for the differences between the Gospel and Letters. Painter (2002:50–51) is correct in remarking that it is not possible to make a decisive claim about common authorship, although a relationship between these documents seems evident. Hays (1996:139) claims that the Gospel and Letters of John ‘surely represent a common stream of tradition, even if they are not produced by the same author’. The issue of authorship is not important for our purposes, however. 91 Cf. Section 4.

12

Introduction

John was made and common authorship was suggested, inter alia because of the similarities on literary, thematic and theological levels.92 From early on it was also acknowledged that although the Gospel and the Letters were obviously written in different contexts and situations,93 represent different genres94 and consequently differ on some crucial points, the theological, conceptual and literary similarities are so remarkable95 that a shared tradition seems to be hard to deny (implying a different author but from the same circle). Recently, Hays,96 for instance, also opined that the Gospel and Letters of John ‘surely represent a common stream of tradition, even if they are not produced by the same author’. If what Lieu claims above holds true, it still suggests that the Gospel is a major influence, since it surely formed a major part of what she calls the ‘common body of Johannine tradition’.97 Although the similarities are remarkable, the differences between the Gospel and the Letters should not be denied or side-lined.98 The differences militate against an approach that regards these documents as a single unified whole that can simply be read effortlessly together and in terms of one another, as Lieu99 and others argue.100 This implies that the Letters should be approached by acknowledging some independence from the Gospel, first allowing these documents to speak for themselves. Schnelle agrees with this position when he says that methodologically it is better ‘dass jede Schrift

92

Brown (1983:ad loc.) and Van der Watt (2007:ad loc.). See Frey (2012:171–72), who argues that from early on in the tradition, the documents ascribed to John were regarded as coming from the same group and are thus related. Efforts to explain the differences between the Gospel and the Letters often focus on the difference in situations, linking the Gospel to an external conflict with the Jews and limiting the conflict in the Letters to internal division, leading the authors to defensively draw clear borders in protection of their tradition, not losing what they have. Lieu (1986:168) regards this as too simple a solution. Be that as it may, the above distinction largely rings true. 94 Cf. Schnelle (2010:114). 95 Cf. Brown (1983:ad loc.) and Frey (2012:173). 96 Hays (1996:139). 97 Hays (ibid.) is rightly of the opinion that ‘the Johannine tradition represents a distinctive and theologically coherent trajectory’. See also Brown (1986:227), Klauck (1991:83) and Lieu (1986:169–71). Beutler (2016:57) opts for the priority of the Gospel, but then remarks that the Gospel narrative is absorbed in form of letters, ‘in denen es darum geht, die Botschaft des Evangeliums abzusichern und auf eine neu entstandene Gemeindesituation hin aktualisierend auszulegen’. 98 Lieu (1986:170–71) refers to the similarities that are well documented in commentaries and introductions, but also notes the differences that are equally well documented and should not be overlooked. Parsenios (2014:11–13), for instance, plays down the differences a bit too much. 99 Lieu (1986:166ff.; 1991:19). 100 Cf. Marxsen (1993:285–87). 93

3. The relation between the Gospel and Letters of John

13

zunächst aus sich selbst verstanden werden muss’,101 before it is interpreted in broader frameworks. This is also the view held here. Excursus: What came first, the Gospel or the Letters? The question about the priority in authoring the Gospel and the Letters is a perennial topic. Frey102 opines, like Schnelle,103 that the Letters were written before the Gospel or at least before its final redaction. This would mean that the situations (e.g., the conflicts104) implied in the Letters could perhaps shed some light on the situations referred to in the Gospel. For instance, the conflicts in John 6 or 8 could be understood in light of 1 John 2 or 2 John. The Letters, therefore, show what type of problems the group was confronted with while they were discussing and reformulating the tradition, which found its final expression in the Gospel in its present form, even though Frey acknowledges that the support for the contrary view is significant. There is also a view that misunderstanding the Christological message of the Gospel led to an inner-Johannine conflict, resulting in a schism based on differences about Jesus’ humanity and earthly life. ‘1 John then aimed at managing this situation inter alia by emphasizing the correct interpretation of the Gospel. Such was also the aim of the three Letters.’105 The issue might be approached from a different angle, however, taking the nature of early Christian transmission of tradition into account. The tradition contained in the Gospel developed over a longer period of time (most probably between sixty and seventy years),106 initially orally, but later in the form of sources and eventually in being written down and edited to the Gospel we have today. In contrast, the ‘history of composition’ of the Letters was short and was dominated by a timely response to the immediate needs of the Johannine group at the time of composition.107 This means that what we have in the Gospel in terms of content by default pre-dates the content of the Letters, allowing for dependency of the Letters on Gospel material. Most of the Johannine tradition, as it is reflected in the Gospel, was available and, it may be assumed, was indeed part of the everyday reflection in the life of the Johannine group. In this way it can be said that the Letters indeed have their roots and are embedded in the Gospel tradition.

The influence of the Gospel should therefore be respected, since the traditional framework of the Letters (i.e. the soil in which the positions taken in the Letters grew) is found in the Gospel material. However, what we have in the Letters is an application or lived experience of some of the aspects of 101

Schnelle (2010:11). Frey (2000:53–59). 103 Schnelle (2010). 104 Frey (2012:171). 105 Marxsen (1993:286). Senior (2007:287) formulated it in this way, ‘Most pervasive is the hypothesis that the letter [1 John] was written subsequent to the Gospel by someone closely related to the Johannine tradition of the Gospel who wishes to reaffirm the ethical teaching of the Fourth Gospel’. 106 Cf. Brown (1979), Ashton (1991:107ff.; 1994:112–13), Painter (1993:67ff.), Lingad (2001:64ff.) and Martyn (2003). 107 So also Painter (2002:74). 102

14

Introduction

the Johannine tradition that is formulated in the Gospel. Novelty or other possible influences in this process are not excluded, but the theological roots lie in the Gospel. As Marxsen,108 for instance, remarks, the Letters ‘looked back on the work of its teacher, felt obliged to him, and wanted to preserve his legacy, but in a later time and in a new situation’. It should be remembered that the Gospel was written with a very specific Christological and soteriological purpose in mind, as is stated in J 20:31, based on a selection made from the available material on Jesus to make the point.109 The Gospel does not present us with a closed complete system of ideas or a comprehensive all-inclusive theology, but rather a selective narrative. It presents us with selected theological ideas aimed at presenting Jesus as the Son of God so that people can believe and receive eternal life. For example, in addressing the relevant issues in the Letters there seems to be no problem in using more general orthodox views on, for instance, soteriology (the blood of Jesus or the idea of expiation) or a more developed eschatology, moving beyond what is stated in the Gospel as such. These (expanded) views in the Letters should not be seen as being in conflict with the positions taken in the Gospel, as if the Gospel presented us with a closed system of ideas. Rather, these ideas express views from a wider (Johannine) theological scope according to the needs of the situations that arose.110 Indeed, the Johannine tradition was broader in scope than what we find in the Gospel itself. Therefore, the term ‘broader Johannine tradition’ is often used, referring to the Gospel tradition as well as to the material that is not directly found in the Gospel.111 As Bultmann remarked, ‘the author … had the Gospel before him and was decisively influenced by its language and ideas. He used it, however, not slavishly, but rather in line with the church tradition in which he lived’.112

108

Marxsen (1993:286). Cf. J 20:30; 21:25. The similar purpose mentioned in 1J 5:13 might suggest a conscious traditional link with the Gospel. 110 The error should not be made to regard the Gospel as the total of Johannine theology which becomes the absolute measure of Johannine theology (like the main Pauline letters are often used as absolute basis of Pauline theology against which other ‘Pauline letters’ are measured). As has indeed been also mentioned above, this implies that if some theological issues are mentioned in the Letters, this does not mean that they are un-Johannine, but that they should rather be regarded as part of what Johannine theology is all about. 111 Griffith (2002:1) reminds us that the circle of influence might even have been wider when he remarks that, ‘Hitherto, the prevailing scholarly consensus has sought to understand the Johannine Letters within a wider theological framework that establishes a trajectory linking the theology of John’s Gospel with later docetic and/or gnosticizing movements, a trajectory that has surprisingly tenuous connections with the text of the Johannine Epistles’. 112 Bultmann (1973:1). 109

4. Do the Letters of John belong together?

15

4. Do the Letters of John belong together? 4. Do the Letters of John belong together?

It has been argued above that care must be taken not to merge the Letters and the Gospel to such an extent that the Letters lose their own unique character. The same applies to the different Letters of John.113 They should not be interpreted as if they were three sections of one document, that is, what is referred to in the one (e.g., reference to opponents) applies directly to the other.114 Lieu,115 for instance, argues that 2 John should not be relegated to a footnote of 1 John and neither should the particularities of the different Letters’ historical situations be overlooked. 3 John also differs in expressions from 1 and 2 John due to its focused aim. For instance, the conflict about the treatment of visiting missionaries in 2 and 3 John should not automatically be reduced to the same situation, or the false teachers in 2 John should not be identified as the trouble makers mentioned in 1 John. In any case, none of the documents refers explicitly to the others. It makes sense to read the different Letters individually, acknowledging that they are separate individual letters. They should be understood from their inner distinctiveness. However, maintaining that there is no relationship between them is obviously also not a correct assumption.116 The above assumptions do not imply that they should be read as if they have nothing in common. To the contrary, they at least share common tradition, similar vocabulary, and indeed problems and challenges that may be compared. Important Johannine concepts like truth and love echo one another in the different Letters. Such communalities should not be overlooked in the interpretation, but handled with care. The approach taken here will be at first to treat the three Letters individually. In a close reading of the text, the argument, rhetoric and ethical expressions of each of the Letters will be explored, since ‘they are not merely commentaries on or “reading keys” for the Gospel’.117 However, as has been stated above, all three Letters are regarded as part of the Johannine tradition, and similarities as well as differences will be noted. 113 Cf. Thyen (1976:186–88) for a brief overview of the relation between the various Letters. 114 In the history of their acceptance all three Letters were only regarded as part of the canon, i.e. belonging together from the middle of the fourth century. 1 John enjoyed general acceptance from the start, while the situation with 2–3 John is more problematic. The Muratorian Canon (ca. 170–210) mentions two Johannine letters, 1 John without being specific about the other one. Clement of Alexandria (roughly the same period) mentions 1 and 2 John but not 3 John. By the beginning of the fourth century Eusebius of Caesarea classified 1 John as acknowledged book, but 2 and 3 John as disputed books. However, in the middle of the fourth century Athanasius of Alexandria regards all three Letters as part of the New Testament, a view that was confirmed by the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (398). 115 Lieu (1991:99). 116 Cf. Painter (2002:79). 117 Menken (2012:22).

16

Introduction

5. Defining some key terms 5. Defining some key terms

In order to prevent misunderstanding, it is necessary to define some key terms as they are used. The definitions correspond with those used for the Gospel.118 5.1 Ethics In describing what ethics is, Meeks formulates it thus: ‘ethics’ is ‘a reflective, second-order activity: it is morality rendered self-conscious; it asks about the logic of moral discourse and action, about the grounds for judgment, about the anatomy of duty or the roots and structure of virtue’.119 Wolter’s definition is quite similar: ethics is ‘eine theoretische Reflexion …, die über Begründung und Eigenart eines aus der menschlichen Existenz in der Welt sich ergebendes Sollen nachdenkt’.120 Ethics is a behavioural category that aims at distinguishing between good and bad behaviour. It deals not only with the question of what should be done, but also of why it should be done and how it should be done.121 In light of the above, the following description of ethics will be used: i) ethics involves self-conscious, rational, systematic reflection on, and description of, issues that relate to positive (and negative) actions; ii) in critically reflecting on behaviour (actions) in relation to its nature, rationale and prescriptive content, the theoretical questions dealt with are why something should be done (the rationale), what should be done (prescriptive) and how something should be done. The ‘why’ deals with the envisaged morals (the ‘ought to’), with the motivation, roots and foundations of those particular morals;122 the ‘what’ refers to expected, concrete behaviour or actions; and iii) part of the rational reflection is also the issue of how the ‘why’ and ‘what’ are structurally and logically interrelated, also called ‘grammar of ethics’. 118

Cf. also Vol. 1, 18–29 for more detailed discussions on the different definitions. Meeks (1993:4). 120 Wolter (2011:310). Cf. also Horrell (2005:97) and Zimmermann (2016:55–63). 121 The Research Center for Ethics in Antiquity and Christianity of Mainz formulates their view of ethics as follows, ‘Unter Ethik verstehen wir die reflexive Durchdringung von Lebensweisen hinsichtlich ihrer leitenden Normen mit dem Ziel einer Bewertung. Sie vollzieht sich in vielfältigen Sprach- und Ausdrucksformen, sie ist kontext- und zeitgebunden. Sie ist intra- und intersubjektive Kommunikation’. In this definition the diverse aspects of ethics are aptly reflected. The emphasis seems to fall on the reflective consideration of norms by also evaluating and rating them within their particular contexts. Furger (1984:13–14) expresses similar sentiments. 122 The focus on why causes ethical reflection to overlap with other theological areas of reflection, such as soteriology, Christology or eschatology. This does not mean that ‘all’ theology becomes ethics, but that theology has ethical implications. Cf. also Marxsen (1993:15–33) and Hunold et al. (2000). 119

5. Defining some key terms

17

5.2 Morals The word-group morals/morality123 is often used as a synonym for the term ethics. This might be confusing, which makes it important to distinguish between these two terms.124 In this context, the word-group morals/morality refers to the set of prescriptions (prescribed actions) of concrete actions (‘ought to’) that a particular group accepts and shares consciously or unconsciously, and that guide individuals cognitively and emotionally to shape their everyday action in life in a good and beneficial way.125 In relation to ethics, which is the more overarching term, the term morals focuses specifically on prescribed actions, without reflecting on the roots, rationale or reasons for these actions. These latter aspects form part of the task of ethical reflection, which means that ‘morality as moral practice has its theoretical grounding in ethics’. Morals are not behaviour, however, but are about particular actions. 5.3 Ethos The concept ethos126 is a behavioural category that is broadly speaking regarded as the practical expression of the written or unwritten conventions of a particular group (or individual).127 In any community there is some ‘reservoir’ of knowledge that is not necessarily written down as rules but that all (unreflectively) share, acting as social fibre.128 A parent telling his or her child to ‘behave yourself’ gives no practical direction but invokes the child to

123 The word ‘morals’ is derived from the Latin word mos (plural: mores) that can mean both ‘Sitte als auch Charakter’ (Pieper 2002:26). 124 Cf. Vol. 1, 26–27. 125 For some examples reflecting this way of describing morals, cf. the following: Pieper (2002:32) phrases it thus, ‘Eine Moral ist … der Inbegriff jener Normen und Werte, die durch gemeinsame Anerkennung als verbindlich gesetzt worden sind …’. Bayertz (2004) also sees morality as referring to a complexity of norms, values or ideals. These do not include the motivation for the prescriptions. 126 Schmeller (2001:133) remarks, ‘Das ntl. Ethos ist ein Feld, dessen Erforschung (im Unterschied zur Ethik) noch in den Anfängen steckt’. Works by Heiligenthal (1983), Theißen (1989) and Prostmeier (1990) may be mentioned here. 127 Wolter (2009:128–36) explains what difference the use of the analytical category of ethos makes in analysing the material by saying that, i) not only moral rules but a much wider variety of actions, inter alia institutionalized actions such as the observance of food laws, circumcision, observing feasts and meals, are included in the analysis, and ii) a wide variety of contexts, including the ordinary everyday contexts as well as the unusual special contexts (such as religious feasts, etc.) may be considered. 128 Ulrich (2009:306) remarks, ‘Ethik wird (seit Aristoteles) als Arbeit am Ethos verstanden, als die explorative Arbeit an der gemeinsamen Lebenswelt, in der wir uns beständig befinden’.

18

Introduction

align his or her behaviour according to guidelines they share.129 Keck states, it is expressed in the ‘life-style of a group or society’.130 Such fixed, shared conventions that form part of a group’s identity is called their ethos. As Wolter remarks, ethos is a ‘Kanon von institutionalisierten Handlungen, die innerhalb eines bestimmten sozialen Systems in Geltung stehen. Ihnen wird Verbindlichkeit zugeschrieben, weil allererst durch solche Handlungen eine bestimmte Gruppe als solche erkennbar und erfahrbar wird’.131 The term ethos draws attention to two important elements: i) the relationship between behaviour and identity. In a functional sense, the aim of ethos is to express and illustrate the identity of a particular group,132 outlining inclusive and exclusive behaviour; and ii) there is a fixed element when it comes to moral behaviour. Certain actions do not constantly generate or need new deliberation, decisions or motivation.

6. The grammar of ethics: logical and coherent structuring 6. The grammar of ethics: logical and coherent structuring

The Letters are not ethical treatises, but reflect ethical data that form a framework for determining the basic ethical dynamics of the documents. These are not loose, unrelated remarks, but form part of a larger logical and structured ethical system, that can be identified as the grammar of ethics.133 As letters build words, and words sentences, and sentences paragraphs, etc., different ethical aspects are interrelated in order to come to an integrated, synergetic whole. Interrelating the ethical data results in a logical system in which each aspect finds its relative position, thus contributing to the whole,134 that is, forming the grammar of ethics. Not only grammatical, literary or socio-cultural 129

Meeks uses this example. Keck (1974:490). Schmeller (2001:133) speaks of ‘Ethosfeldern’. Cf. also Furnish (1968). 131 Wolter (2001; 2009). Meeks (1993:8) remarks, ‘Our moral intuitions are those unreflective convictions about what is right or wrong, fair or unfair, noble or despicable, with which all the more complicated moral decisions must begin and which they must take into account’. 132 Sorokin (1948:381), Despres (1975:40), Mönnig (1980:32) and Van der Merwe (2008:360). 133 Cf. Vol. 1, 54–59 for a detailed description and motivation of the concept of the grammar of ethics. See also Addendum 1 for examples of different ethical systems. 134 For instance, in John, mutual love is an ethical requirement, but can only be properly understood in its relation to God as love and source of love. Love is therefore to be interrelated to God’s love. This love is defined in terms of God sending his Son and his Son laying down his life for others – this type of love is what is required from believers. The interrelatedness of these different aspects of love contributes to the understanding of love as an integrated whole. 130

6. The grammar of ethics: logical and coherent structuring

19

content, but also structure, mutual influence and interrelatedness receive attention. Morgan135 remarks that such ethical systems (the grammar of ethics) usually make sense, but are not stagnant entities. She correctly points out that ethics as a system is ‘alive’ in its application and therefore suggests development. It remains a matter of development and not of new creation, confirming dependence on the core (tradition) of that particular ethical structure. This is noteworthy when considering the relation between the Gospel and the Letters, and to a lesser degree between the Letters themselves. This might help in understanding the complexity of the ethical system of the Johannine group.

135

Morgan (2007:15–16).

Section 1

The First Letter of John

Chapter 1

A suggested scenario for interpreting 1 John Lieu argues that because the data on the ‘opponents’ of the Letters allow for such a variety of possible opinions, a proposed scenario for the writing of the Letters ‘has to be made before the letter[s] can be interpreted, even if we are trying to explore its internal theology as a single text’.1 She continues, ‘it is impossible to understand the thought of 1 John without a number of prior decisions, even if only implicit, about its nature as a piece of writing’.2 In suggesting a plausible3 scenario, a close and detailed analysis will be made of the key groups (‘characters’) mentioned in 1 John, focusing especially on the groups identified as the ‘us/we/I’, the ‘you’ and the ‘them’.4 The suggested scenario will be argued in some detail, considering different options based on a close reading of the text.5

1.1. Different groups and their relations in 1 John 1.1.1 Self-reference by the author: The group identified as ‘us/we/I’ In the very first sentence of 1 John, without introducing himself otherwise, the author refers to himself several times as ‘we/us’, who have heard, seen 1

Lieu (1991:14–15). Lieu (1991:8). The same applies to 2 and 3 John. Smalley (1984:xxxi) also argues that it is difficult to understand the Letter without taking note of the suggested contextual framework. 3 Thatcher (2012:368) notes that it is ‘impossible to offer a definitive reconstruction of the Johannine situation’ although there are some clues that could help in understanding the Letter. Obviously, no absolute, definite or final reconstruction is possible, but that does not exclude the possibility of suggesting possible scenarios, and even the most acceptable and plausible scenario, based on the available data. 4 Smalley (1984:xxiv, xxxi) argues that four groups may be distinguished in the Johannine church, namely, a) the Johannine Christians who accepted the apostolic gospel (the ‘we’); b) the Jewish members with a tendency towards false doctrine; c) the heterodox followers from pagan-Hellenistic background; d) the schismatics (the ‘they’). His separation of the addressees in two groups, based on religious affiliation is not convincing. 5 Parsenios (2014:23) acknowledges the significance of the chosen scenario for deciding how the ethics should be dealt with. He calls it a question hard to answer and remarks that one can only speculate about the answer. 2

24

Section 1: The First Letter of John

and touched Jesus, followed by numerous self-references to ‘us’, ‘we’6 or ‘I’ in the rest of the Letter. Klauck aptly remarks, ‘Es handelt sich um ein kommunikatives Wir’ and points out that, ‘Es liegt ein schriftstellerischer Plural vor. Das Wir meint lediglich den Schreiber selbst’,7 of course associating himself with the eye-witness group.8 Lieu also favours the idea that ‘for most of the letter “we” denotes not the author and his fellow authorities, an exclusive circle, but the community together with the author’.9 Within grouporientated societies this is to be expected. Three important action lines in the initial verses (1:1–4) identify the group that is referred to as ‘us’ or ‘we’. i) Observing Jesus, as ear and eye-witnesses, determines the identity of the ‘we’ as the eye-witness representatives of the physical Jesus, testifying to the true Jesus tradition.10 Klauck describes the identity of the ‘we’ group as follows, ‘der verbleibende Rest sind Träger der Identität der Gemeinde und ihrer Überlieferungen vom ersten Anfang an’.11 He continues that behind the ‘wegroup’ ‘stehen Tradenten, Theologen und Lehrer der Gemeinde, die für das johanneische Schrifttum in seinen verschiedenen Phasen verantwortlich zeichnen’.12 Since Brown suggests a very close link between the Letter and the Gospel, he also argues that the ‘we’ were not a group of established church leaders or authoritarian teachers, but rather the carriers and authentic interpreters of the tradition. He further argues that these authentic interpreters go back to the Beloved Disciple. He remarks, ‘… the special “we,” saw and were especially close to the Beloved Disciple and could therefore give surety to other members of the Johannine Community (the “you”).’13 Brown’s opinion did not go unchallenged. Heckel, for instance, correctly denies that the author tries to link himself with the Beloved Disciple of the Gospel, but rather seems to imbed himself in a collective group (‘we/us’) who were eye-witnesses of Jesus14 as is suggested by Klauck and Lieu.

6

The terms ‘us’ and ‘we’ will be used alternatively, according to the requirements of the context. 7 Klauck (1991:73). Painter (2002:45–46) unnecessarily problematizes the references to ‘we’. Klauck (1991:74) also argues that this is not a pluralis majestatis but a common use of the plural in ancient letters, ‘wo “wir” als eher zurückhaltende Umschreibung der eigenen Person fungiert’. 8 1J 1:1–3. 9 Lieu (1991:24–26). 10 Schnelle (2010:68) and Balz (1986:36). 11 Klauck (1991:73). 12 Ibid. 74. Cf. also Haas et al. (1972:6). 13 Brown (1986:96). Cf. also Johnson (1993:2). 14 Heckel (2004:443).

Chapter 1: A suggested scenario for interpreting 1 John

25

ii) A second action line within 1:1–4 focuses on the fellowship and cooperation (koinōnia [κοινωνία]) between God, Jesus and ‘us’ (1:3). The incarnated Christ, who is life, indeed made it possible for people to have fellowship with the Father and Son. The author therefore has no hesitation in claiming that ‘we are of God’ (4:6), since the ‘we’ are children of God because of the love of God (3:1–2),15 thus expressing their identity as family of God that share in this fellowship. iii) Proclamation by ‘us’ to ‘you’ (the addressees) accounts for the third action line in 1:1–4. Having fellowship with the Father and Son (1:3) results from the acceptance of this proclamation about the Life that was made manifest (1:2). Through his proclamation the author aims at restoring the relationship and co-operation between the ‘we’ and the ‘you’. This remark in 1:4 is expanded in 1:5, where it is stated, ‘And this is the message we have heard (ἣν ἀκηκόαµεν) from him and proclaim to you (ἀναγγέλλοµεν ὑµῖν)’.16 This process of passing on eye-witness information is part of the ethos of the Johannine community, spreading the true Jesus tradition. It originated with the incarnated Jesus and is further proclaimed by the ‘first-hand witnesses of the ministry of Jesus’.17 In sum, these action lines identify the ‘us’ as the true witnesses to the Jesus tradition that goes back to (experiencing) Jesus himself,18 thus binding the proclamation of the ‘us’ directly to the presence and experience of Jesus. The ‘us’ claim to have close fellowship (koinōnia) with God and Jesus, disclosing their identity and explaining their behaviour. This gives them the moral high ground as God’s true orthodox19 representatives in this Letter. Based on this position of authority and status, the ‘us’ encourages the ‘you’ to enter into a position of co-operation and partnership with the ‘us’ and God (1:3).20 As variation, the first person singular (‘I/me’) is used several times in chapter 221 and once in 5:13, consistently and specifically referring to the person who writes (i.e. ‘I am writing to you’ – γράφω ὑµῖν).22 In 2:1–3 after 15

The ‘us’ have love (3:17–18; 4:11; 5:2) because they have life (3:14; 4:7, 9; 5:11). 1J 1:5. Cf. also 1:3. 17 Painter (2002:82). 18 Heckel (2004:433). Wengst (1976:65), like Brown, also sees them as the original witnesses. 19 The term ‘orthodox’ is a later dogmatic term that was used to indicate the more tradition-orientated groups (cf. Smalley 1984:xxv). The term is used here to refer to those who regard themselves as the original eye-witnesses (1:1–4), of whom the author is part. 20 Kruse (2000:14–15) opines that these verses do not invite the readers to koinōnia, but simply indicate that the existing koinōnia is under pressure, thus trying to support the relational link between the author and the recipients. This view does not take 1J 1:3 (ἀπαγγέλλοµεν καὶ ὑµῖν, ἵνα καὶ ὑµεῖς κοινωνίαν ἔχητε µεθʼ ἡµῶν: ἵνα expresses purpose or result) seriously enough. 21 Cf. 1J 2:1, 7, 8, 12–14, 21, 26. 22 Lieu (2008a:810) correctly notes that ‘the “I/me” only “writes”’. 16

26

Section 1: The First Letter of John

referring to himself in the singular he effortlessly moves to the plural ‘we’. Some argue that the singular should be distinguished from the plural “we”.23 This seems to be an unnecessary differentiation as it neglects, for instance, the ancient communal and representative nature of individuals (leaders), where the individual was imbedded in a wider group to which he belonged. It is further not clear why anybody would speak of ‘us’ and ‘I’ yet exclude the one from the other. How can ‘I’ not be part of ‘us’? The most probable solution is to see the ‘I’ as referring to a person who represents a group which obviously is the ‘us’. The author, not mentioned by name, does not seem to rely heavily on his own personal authority to support his claims.24 He rather refers to his experience of Jesus and mainly relies on this tradition for his authority, although in some cases he does display some authority as is evident from his guidance of the addressees,25 as well as, for instance, reminding the addressees that they are his children. Nevertheless, the message rather than the messenger seems to be important. Indeed, ‘unequivocal authority’26 is claimed for the proclamation of the author on the basis of his (their) first-hand knowledge of Jesus (and his tradition).27 1.1.2 Who are the addressees, addressed as ‘you’? The addressees of 1 John are not identified by name, but are simply addressed as ‘you’. References to them are ambiguous, since they share much with the ‘us’ group, so much so that they are in some places identified with the ‘us’,28 but in some other places, they are lacking in some respects (i.e. in love for, or fellowship with, ‘us’), implying that they cannot be fully identified with the ‘us group’.29 23 Lieu (ibid.), for instance, places the ‘I/me’ ‘outside … the binary opposition between “we” and “you”’. 24 1J 1:2. Cf. Lieu (1991:24). Lieu (2008:9) also notes the author’s tendency not to identify himself and describes it as a deliberate technique used by John. 25 Cf. Balz (1986:35). 26 Lieu (1991:23). 27 The idea created in the Letter is that, rather than standing above or outside the eyewitness group, the author is an integrated part of this group. This does not locate authority in him as a person, but in the ‘orthodox’ tradition of the Johannine group. 28 Klauck (1991:73) also remarks, ‘Wir umfaßt ihr und ich, oft im Gegensatz zu sie’. 29 Painter (2002:82) also noted that in some cases the ‘us’ are separated from the ‘you’ (3:14–16; 4:4–6), but in other cases they are presented as inclusive (2:18–21, 24, 25; 3:19– 24). Cf. further Lieu (1991:13, 23). Her earlier argument (1991:27), based on the use of imperatives or commandments, that the author should be distanced from the addressees and is ‘perhaps in reality outside the situation’, is questionable. The data suggests a more complex reality and a closer bond, a point Lieu (2008a:816–17) later eloquently argued on the basis of her rhetorical approach.

Chapter 1: A suggested scenario for interpreting 1 John

27

1.1.2.1 On the one hand, the addressees are identified as part of the ‘us group’ In numerous cases, the grammatical and syntactical data in 1 John identifies the ‘us’ with the ‘you’. Evidence of this identification should briefly be scrutinized by noting several points. i) In some cases no distinction is made between the ‘us’ and the ‘you’, or the references alternatively suggest a shared identity. The ‘you’ are addressed by means of a statement and then the author simply continues in the first person (‘we’), thus including both himself (his group) and ‘you’. The following statements prove the point: – In 2:28 the ‘you’ and ‘we’ are used interchangeably in the same sentence, that is the ‘you’ must abide in Him so that ‘us’ (including the ‘us’ and ‘you’) may have confidence when He returns. In 2:1 similar changes in subject takes place which implies that what is true of the one is true of the other also.30 – In 3:13–15 the author focuses on love in the family of God (the ‘us’ and ‘you’). The double underlined parts in the text in the footnote31 below show the movement between the ‘us’ and ‘you’, which shows that the author rhetorically associates and even identifies these two groups32 and thus aims at paraenetically motivating the ‘you’ to keep on loving the family of God (the ‘us’). – In 3:2 the ‘you’ is addressed as ‘beloved’, followed by the remark that ‘we’ are children of God. It may be argued that the author only refers to the ‘us’ here, but the context shows that the beloved (‘you’) are part of ‘us’. What follows is true of both the ‘we’ and the ‘us’.33 30

Cf. also 1J 1:5. 1J 3:13–15: A 13a [Καὶ] µὴ θαυµάζετε, ἀδελφοί, 13b εἰ µισεῖ ὑµᾶς ὁ κόσµος. [And] do not be surprised, brothers, if the world hates you. 14a ἡµεῖς οἴδαµεν ὅτι µεταβεβήκαµεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν, We know that we have passed/changed out of death into life B 14b ὅτι ἀγαπῶµεν τοὺς ἀδελφούς· because we love the brothers; B1 14c ὁ µὴ ἀγαπῶν µένει ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ. he who does not love abides in death. A1 15a πᾶς ὁ µισῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἐστίν, Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, 15b καὶ οἴδατε ὅτι πᾶς ἀνθρωποκτόνος οὐκ ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἐν αὐτῷ µένουσαν. and you know that every murderer does not have eternal life abiding in him. 32 In v. 14a it is said that ‘we’ know and in v. 15b that ‘you’ know, referring to shared knowledge and a common ethos. The ‘you’ group should not be surprised if the world hates them, since ‘they’ no longer belong to the sphere of death but have eternal life, like the ‘us’. Rhetorically the author aims at convincing the addressees to keep on loving the family of God (‘us’) of which they are (still) part and not to become like the opponents who hatefully turned against them and stopped loving them. 33 Cf. also 1J 3:11, 18; 4:7 for similar cases. 31

28

Section 1: The First Letter of John

ii) The use of (filial) endearing vocatives like τεκνία [µου] ([my] little children),34 ἀγαπητοί (beloved),35 παιδία ([little] children),36 points to an existing (Christian) relation and even a strong personal bond between the ‘we’ and the ‘you’. Examples are: – In 2:1 the addressees are called ‘my’ children to whom ‘I’ am writing, referring to an existing (Christian) relationship.37 – In 3:2 we read, ‘Beloved, we are God’s children now’ (ἀγαπητοί, νῦν τέκνα θεοῦ ἐσµεν), including the ‘beloved’ (‘you’) in the circle of the ‘us’ (cf. also 3:21). Similar examples are found in 3:1838, 4:739 and 4:1140. Such endearing expressions are often followed by the first person (‘us/we/I’), suggesting unity between the two groups. Examples are: In 3:18 we read, ‘Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth’ where the ‘little children’ are regarded as part of the family of God (cf. 3:11–18). In 4:7 it is stated, ‘Beloved, let us love one another’ where the term ‘one another’ (ἀλλήλων) is normally used to express a close relationship. iii) The author rhetorically uses imperatives that are preceded by intimate relational terms like ‘children’ or ‘beloved’,41 thus addressing the ‘you’ with typical group authority. Such endearing terms (even without the imperative) associate the addressees closely with the author, who commands them on that basis. A few examples are: – In 2:28 we read, ‘little children, abide in him’. – In 3:7 the author remarks, ‘little children, let no one deceive you’. – In 4:1 it is stated, ‘Beloved, do not believe every spirit’. – In 3:2 it is stated, ‘Beloved, we are God’s children now’.42 – In 4:7 the author directly associates the ‘us’ and ‘you’: ‘Beloved, let us love one another’.43 34

1J 2:1, 28; 3:7, 18. 1J 2:7; 3:2; 4:1, 7, 11. 36 1J 2:18. 37 Cf. 1J 2:18. 38 ‘Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth’ (Τεκνία, µὴ ἀγαπῶµεν λόγῳ µηδὲ τῇ γλώσσῃ ἀλλὰ ἐν ἔργῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ). 39 ‘Beloved, let us love one another’ (Ἀγαπητοί, ἀγαπῶµεν ἀλλήλους). 40 ‘Beloved, if God so loved us …’ (Ἀγαπητοί, εἰ οὕτως ὁ θεὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡµᾶς). 41 Used with a relation termal – 1J 2:28; 3:7, 13; 4:1, (7, 11); 5:21. Used without a relational term – 2:15, 24, 27, 28; (3:1). 42 Cf. also 1J 3:21. This might also be a remark about the author’s group to the beloved, not necessarily including the ‘beloved’. However, in light of the other similar remarks that seem to include the addressees, it is plausible to regard the ‘beloved’ as part of the ‘we’. 43 Cf. also 1J 4:11. 35

Chapter 1: A suggested scenario for interpreting 1 John

29

iv) They share the same message (tradition) in contrast to the antichrists, which is also in line with the paraenetic nature of 1 John.44 Heckel45 also points out that the ‘you’ indeed knew the oldest tradition about Jesus, thus putting them in the same category as the ‘us’. The following examples prove the point: – In 2:7–8 the author seems to identify his message with that of the ‘you’ when dealing with old and new commandments: he does not bring a new message, but the old message that ‘you’ had heard from the beginning. – In 3:11 the message ‘you’ heard from the beginning is that we (‘us’) – that includes both the author and the addressees – should love one another.46 Similarly, in 5:11 and 5:13 it is said that both the ‘us’ and the ‘you’ have eternal life. See also the similar connection in 2:24–25. The author notes several times that he writes/wrote to them (‘I write/wrote to you …’47), expanding on the message with themes like sin and forgiveness (2:1–2), the new commandment (2:7–8), that they know God, their sins are forgiven and they are indeed victors (2:12–14), they know the truth (2:21) and they know they have eternal life (5:13). These are all aspects that are equally true of ‘us’. Sharing this common (orthodox) tradition seems important to the author, since it proves that the ‘you’ are linked more closely to the ‘us’ rather than to the antichrists, binding the ‘you’ to the ‘us’ and not to the opponents (the ‘they’). v) The unity between ‘you’ and ‘us’ is expressed metaphorically. – In 3:11–18 Cain murdered his brother, symbolically referencing the relationship between the opponents (‘they’) and the orthodox group (‘us’). The warning in 3:13 that the addressees should not wonder at this hateful behaviour, addressed to the ‘you’ aligns the ‘you’ with the ‘us’, who know that both ‘we’ and ‘you’ have passed from death to life. The above examples illustrate that the author (‘us’) still regards the addressees (‘you’) as part of the group, in spite of the problems within the group.48 They still form a unity against the opponents, as Lieu49 observes that where the ‘we’, ‘you’ and ‘they’ occur together for the first time (4:1–6), the ‘we’ and the ‘you’ are grouped together as God’s children in contrast to the ‘they’.

44

See subsection 4.6 below and Addendum 6 on paraenesis. Heckel (2004:433). 46 Cf. also 1J 3:13–16. 47 Cf., e.g., 1J 2:1, 7–8, 12–14, 21, 26; 5:13. 48 Klauck (1991:73) states, ‘Schreiber und Adressaten heben sich als Gemeinde mit Wir-Bewußtsein von den Gegnern ab’. 49 Lieu (2008a:814). 45

30

Section 1: The First Letter of John

1.1.2.2 On the other hand, the author (‘we’) sometimes addresses the ‘you’ as a group separate from ‘us’ i) In 1:3 it is stated that the Letter was written so that the message is proclaimed to ‘you’ and ‘you’ may have koinōnia with ‘us’ and consequently with the Father and Son. The ‘us’ and ‘you’ are thus distinguished, and a wish is expressed for closer fellowship and co-operation. ii) This expressed aim for closer fellowship colours the rhetoric of the rest of the Letter. The author addresses the ‘you’ group separately by warning them not to be deceived (3:7), and not to sin.50 Rhetorically this suggests a possible ‘break’ with the orthodox group. Coupled with this, the author also presents his Letter with paraenetical finesse,51 in order to amicably remind ‘you’ of what they profess and to encourage them to stick to that profession, since they might be deceived. A serious problem addressed in 1 John is that part of the ‘we’ group (the addressees) came under the influence of deceivers, being lured away by deceivers and that this influenced their relationship and behaviour towards the ‘we’ group, affecting the sound equilibrium of this group. Although claims were made about knowing and loving God, having fellowship with him, there seems to be a short circuit when it comes to corresponding loving behaviour, especially towards their fellow believers. 1.1.2.3 Being one but not fully? The above arguments show that the relationship between the ‘us’ and the ‘you’ is anything but sound or one-dimensional. On the one hand the author confirms the unity between the ‘us’ and the ‘you’, sharing tradition, expectations and spiritual reality, but on the other hand, these two groups are not sharing koinōnia, suggesting a lack of participation and co-operation between them.52 A major problem seems to be the lack of love of the ‘you’ for the ‘brothers’ (orthodox group) that signals the danger of a break between ‘us’ and ‘you’.53 It is interesting that in the major section on love in 4:7–5:5 there is no reference to the ‘you’ at all, but love is described in terms of those who belong to the ‘us’. However, in these verses the ‘you’ are several times addressed as ‘beloved’ (4:7, 11), implying that what is said applies to them as it also applies to the ‘we’ group: They should love one another because God loved them first. In sum, in some ways, especially when it comes to loving behaviour and mutual co-operation, the two groups are distinguished, while in other ways 50

1J 2:1. Cf. also 1:7–10 and 5:16–17. Cf. subsection 4.6 below. 52 Cf. 1J 1:3. 53 Cf. subsection 3.3.8 below. 51

Chapter 1: A suggested scenario for interpreting 1 John

31

they represent the same group with a shared identity. A specific scenario is therefore needed to explain this differentiation in spite of the unity that exists. 1.1.2.4 One or two conflicts? The process envisaged in 1 John has two ‘phases’ that suggests conflict. The first phase is the ‘conflict’ with the ‘us’ group, since they do not co-operate or properly love them as they should as members of this group. This is an ethical problem, relating to the behaviour of the ‘you’ group. Since the relationship with the ‘us’ is deteriorating, they are open for influence from the schismatics (whom they most probably knew, since the schismatics were originally part of their group). Moving into the schismatics’ sphere of influence, they would have been confronted with their erroneous confession of Christ. This is not the main focus of the author of 1 John, but he appropriately warns the addressees against this by clearly linking this erroneous confession with the spirit of evil and the antichrists. This is not a preferable choice for people who have fellowship (koinōnia) with God. Obviously, the author does not yet see the erroneous confession as the main problem of the addressees, but their lack of fellowship and love. 1.1.3 The opponents (the ‘they’ group): antichrists who are of the world (kosmos) A third group is explicitly mentioned in 1 John, namely, the schismatics (or secessionists as some call them, addressed as ‘they’),54 a contrasting, opposing group to the author’s group (the ‘us’).55 They are also branded as deceivers56 or antichrist(s).57 Again, coming to a clear profile of the opponents is a complex matter, as Lieu58 noted, especially in light of the fact that it is unclear

54

These terms will be used alternately, referring to the same group. The aim is not to give a precise and detailed description of the opponents, but to position them in the suggested scenario. Cf. Painter (1993:373–75) and Thyen (1976:190) for more detailed discussions. 56 1J 2:22; 5:10; 2J 7. 57 Menken (2012:7) refers especially to 1J 2:18–27; 4:1–6; 2 John. Brown (1986) uses many different terms for the opponents, such as secessionists (69–70), adversaries (574) or deceivers (358–59). Wengst (1976) prefers ‘heretics’, while Painter (1993:372) also calls them schismatics. All these terms have some ring of truth about them. For discussions specifically of the antichrist, cf. Thyen (1976:189–90), Marshall (1978:16), Schnackenburg (1984:16), Smalley (1984:xxiv), Brown (1986:49–55) and Menken (2010:12). 58 Lieu (1986:209) and Thatcher (2012:368). The complexity is illustrated by Streett’s (2011:6–109) analysis and classification of the five different views of the opponents, which are i) Gnostic opponents (pp. 19–35), Docetic opponents (pp. 35–53), Cerinthian opponents (pp. 53–76), Opponents who devaluate Jesus (pp. 77–89) and Jewish opponents (pp. 90–109). 55

32

Section 1: The First Letter of John

whether the so-called antitheses59 in the Letter apply to the opponents or not. The physical group opposing the author also explicitly appears relatively late on the scene in the Letter, that is, for the first time in 2:18.60 References61 to the opponents62 are marked in 1 John through the use of terms like antichrist, Cain, evil or kosmos (in a negative sense).63 In the contexts where there are references to the opponents, disassociation is prominent, for instance, the antichrist and his spirit (‘they’) are disassociated from both ‘us’ and ‘you’ in 2:18–19 (cf. also 4:1–6), emphasizing that though they once were part of the ‘us’, they were not really part of them, and the ‘you’ know that. Both groups claimed guidance by the (S)spirit,64 but the ‘they’ are identified as having the spirit of the antichrist (4:3) and are therefore identified as misleading, false prophets (4:1–2). A close reading of the data in the text shows that according to the author, the ‘they’ group have their own narrative that centres around a schism within the orthodox group. ‘They’ are described as people who initially associated themselves (i.e. were part of) the physical group of the orthodox believers (‘us’). Most probably at that time they shared similar Christological views with the ‘us’ and lovingly co-operated with the group at large. However, this situation did not last and ended in schism. The author explains the situation in 2:19: ‘They went out from us (ἐξ ἡµῶν ἐξῆλθαν), but they were not of us (οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡµῶν); for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out. That it might be plain that they all are not of us’ (ἐξ ἡµῶν). The central issue that caused this schism was Christological in nature.65 The confessional rejection of Jesus’ humanity and messiahship 66 seems to have been the issue that separated the schismatics/antichrist(s) from ‘us’. Painter67 opines that the ‘anti’ in ‘antichrist’ refers to opposition to the truth 59

Cf. subsection 1.1.3.1 below. On a spiritual level, darkness and sin were already mentioned in 1J 1, but do not specifically refer to a physical group of people. The ‘evil one’ is mentioned in 2:13. 61 Addendum 4 discusses some theories of who the opponents could have been. 62 Smalley’s (1984:xxiv–xxv) view that the schismatics were not false teachers but simply people who could not associate with the ‘us’ group any longer, since other views started to influence them, softens the rhetoric of the Letter unnecessarily. Against this view, Painter (2002:81) argues that the schism was much more serious and warranted the Letter. Cf. Balz (1986:47), Brown (1986:48–49), Du Rand (1997:163) and Akin (2001:29). 63 Cf. 1J 2:18; 3:1, 11–13; 4:1–3, 5; 5:18–19. 64 Although Büchsel (1933:4–5) argues for a situation of uncontrolled Christian prophecy under inspiration of the S(s)pirit, Brown (1986:49) and Marshall (1978:16) opine that this suggested hypothesis is not necessary to understand the text properly, since there is no evidence of uncontrolled prophecy in the text. 65 Cf. Thatcher (2012:369). 66 1J 2:22; 4:2. 67 Painter (2002:81). 60

Chapter 1: A suggested scenario for interpreting 1 John

33

that Jesus is the Christ,68 which implies that the crisis occurred within a context where Jesus was still mutually acknowledged. Because of this difference in confessional opinion, these opponents no longer shared in the fellowship (koinōnia) with God and his people, neither did they co-operate with them in love.69 Different explanations for the opponents’ deviant Christological views are given. Dodd,70 for instance, argues that the problem arose when the opponents reinterpreted the Christological kerugma in light of prevalent Gnostic views and consequently separated from the ‘us’. Others71 explain that the opponents apparently acknowledged the divinity of Christ, but not his humanity, arguing that he only had the semblance of a human being, thus suggesting a ‘high Christology’. This also involved a possible rejection of the atonement through the physical blood/death of Jesus.72

In spite of the schism, the impression is not created of an official process of ‘excommunication’ by the orthodox group, but rather of separation that took its natural and logical course,73 due to differences in their respective perceptions of Jesus Christ. Their disassociation of the schismatics is expressed in clear contrasts between ‘us’/‘you’ and ‘they’. The schismatics are no longer part of ‘us’ (2:18), do not really know who the children of God are or who their Father is (3:1) and do not listen to them (4:6). They kill the family of God because they lack eternal life and love, and instead are full of hate (3:11–13). They also follow false spirits as is evident in their false confession about Jesus (4:1ff.). They are indeed in the grip of evil (5:18–19). These schismatics are further identified as part of the ‘world’ (kosmos – 4:5), with their spiritual ancestry with the devil (3:10) making them hostile and treacherous.74 Although the term kosmos (world) is used in a differentiated way in John’s literature,75 it is often used to refer to the world opposing God (2:15–17), of which the opponents were part. The kosmos that includes all the unbelievers, including the antichrists, is in the power of evil and is not to be associated with ‘us’, who are of God (5:18–19).

68 Painter (1993:394) proposes that the opponents’ Christological view distinguished between Jesus and Christ, the first referring to his humanness and the latter to his divine nature as the pre-existent Son of God. 69 In this respect, a brief reference should be made to the Cain imagery in 3:12ff., branding the opponents as spiritually dead people who murder their brothers rather than loving them. 70 Dodd (1946:xvii). Cf. also Schnackenburg (1984:16–19). 71 E.g., Balz (1986:48) and Menken (2012:10). 72 Cf. 1J 2:2; 4:10; Van der Watt (2011:1–7). 73 Cf. Klauck (1991:33), Kysar (1992:905) and Painter (2002:80–81). 74 Thatcher (2012:370). 75 Cf. H Hahn (2009:338–68).

34

Section 1: The First Letter of John

The narrative about the schismatics does not end here. They seemed to have formed a separate group with their own dynamics, since the author refers to the continuing activity of this group after the schism, by noting their presence and influence in the world. According to 4:5 it seems as if the ‘they group’ had a clear presence in the kosmos, where they apparently exercised even more religious76 influence than the orthodox ‘us’ group.77 This deceiving influence also reached members of ‘us’, to whom the Letter is directed (i.e. the ‘you’ – 2:26). 1.1.3.1 A crucial question: do the antithetical sections in 1 John refer to the views of the opponents or not? A crux interpretum for understanding the ethics of 1 John is whether the antithetical sections78 reflect the views of the opponents. Those who believe this to be the case, use these antitheses as basis for their reconstructions of the opponents’ mainly extra-textual historical-religious background. This approach was widely practised during the previous century and is still followed by some today.79 However, the above view did not go unchallenged.80 A growing number of scholars became convinced that these antitheses are not aimed at the opponents but rather represent inner-group (i.e. the ‘us’ and ‘you’) reflections that play a rhetorical role as pastoral encouragement to the addressees, based on the author’s theological self-reflection.

76 It is difficult to understand these remarks as not referring to religious contact with the world, since within this context the references are to the work of the S(s)pirit and false prophets (1J 4:1, 6) (against Thyen 1976:190). 77 Klauck (1991:33). 78 E.g., 1J 1:6–10; 2:4–9; 4:20. Painter (2002:90–91) identifies seven slogan-like assertions, which might represent the claims of the opponents, offering a coherent picture of the opponents. These are: – ‘if we say …’ (1:6, 8, 10), These remarks are ethically related. Vv. 1:8, 10 are about sin(lessness) and are considered to be false claims. Painter (2002:91) opines that these claims have nothing to do with ethical claims, but with claims to have communion with God. – ‘he who says …’ (2:4, 6, 9). To claim to know God but not obeying his commandments is false. Moral reality falsifies claims. Behaviour exposes a person who is in darkness. – ‘If anyone says …’ (4:20) relates to love for one’s brother. Behaviour again falsifies a claim. – Claims that focus on Christological issues are formulated in 2:18–23 and 4:1–6. 79 Cf. Rusam (2018) or Armitage (2021). 80 Cf., e.g., Thyen (1976:188).

Chapter 1: A suggested scenario for interpreting 1 John

35

Excursus: A brief history of the interpretation of the antithetical sections in 1 John81 At the beginning of the previous century, the antithetical structures in 1 John drew the attention of especially source critics like Dobschütz.82 He identified two ‘styles’ in 1 John, namely, some sections displayed an admonitory nature, while others showed a pattern of theses vs. antitheses.83 Due to the pairs of antithetical statements he identified (eight in all) in 2:28–3:12, Dobschütz argued that such ‘neat’ structures are evidence of a source that was used by the author, to which the author antithetically responded with his own ideas, described as Grundschrift and Bearbeitung respectively. Dobschütz, and of course other source critics who followed him, identified the hypothetical source (the so-called Grundschrift) from which these antithetical remarks were taken and then based their evaluation of the content and nature of the conflict in 1 John on the characteristics of this proposed hypothetical source. By combining the ‘negative’ parts of these antithetical statements, they offered a profile of the convictions of the opponents. Dobschütz,84 for instance, associated his identified source with hellenistic-semitic thought patterns, to which the author reacts in a somewhat superficial Gnostic way by posing a metaphysical dualism.85 This conclusion then formed the basis and background on which the identity and theology of the opponents, as well as of the author, were determined. The rest of the content of the Letter was then interpreted in light of these conclusions. In 1927 Bultmann applied Dobschütz’s insights to 1 John as a whole (not just 2:28– 3:12) and suggested additional source reliance, that is, expanding the data to be analysed to 26 antithetical statements.86 Bultmann suggested that a Gnostic Revelation Discourse Source (that he also thought lay behind the Gospel) is the source of the ‘negative’ parts of the antithetical statements. This convinced him that the purpose of 1 John was to counter these false Christological teachings of the opponents who succumbed to a non-Christian, oriental, Gnostic position.87 Based on this analysis, the theological nature of both the opponents and the author could be identified, thus indicating the socio-religious framework against which 1 John should be interpreted, namely, a Gnosticism-orientated context.88 81

Cf. Neufeld (1994:6–28) for an overview of the history of interpretation. Dobschütz (1907:4–5). 83 Ibid. 1–8. Cf. Brown (1986:36–46) for a detailed overview of Dobschütz’s theories as well as other source theories. Some of the above information was taken from this overview. Cf. also Marshall (1978:28–33). 84 Dobschütz (1907:6–8). 85 Neufeld (1994:6) criticizes this view by remarking that ‘commentators are preoccupied with the material extrinsic to the text’. Much of the discussion was indeed about the Gnostic, Jewish or other backgrounds that could be linked to the words in 1 John. According to Neufeld, this limits the scope of the meaning of 1 John as a text. 86 1J 2:29b/3:4a; 3:6a/3:6b; 3:7b/3:8a; 3:9a/3:10b. Bultmann confirmed this position in his 1959 RGG article (p. 837) as well as in the 1967 revision of his 1951 commentary. Cf. Thyen (1976:188–89). 87 Cf. Brown (1986:40). 88 Thyen (1976:188–89) also opines that with very few exceptions, the majority of exegetes (at the point of writing his article in the 1970s) interpreted the heretics in John as being gnostically orientated. He further gives an overview of the link made between such extra-textual socio-religious aspects (like Docetism) and 1 John. The term ‘Docetism’ (often linked to Cerinthus) is used in this regard (here Thyen draws the attention to 82

36

Section 1: The First Letter of John

Especially the hypothetical nature of these constructs by Bultmann have caused considerable scrutiny.89 Some of Bultmann’s own students, like Käsemann90 and Braun,91 for instance, posed a Christian instead of the non-Christian Gnostic source that Bultmann favoured. The suggested profile of the opponents was accordingly aligned to a more Christian view. Thyen later also remarked that ‘Aufgrund einer gnostisierenden Rezeption des Johannesevangeliums soll diese Irrlehre nach 1 Joh 2,18ff innerhalb der johanneischen Kirche selbst entstanden sein und alsbald zu deren Spaltung geführt haben’.92 Nauck,93 again, preferred a closer link to Jewish sources and suggested contacts with Qumran literature, thus explaining the presence of dualism in 1 John. Of course, the background against which the Letter is interpreted changes according to the nature of the different sources that are suggested. There are numerous problems with such constructions, however, that need not be further discussed here.94 A notable development in the history of research is most apparent in Brown’s commentary of,95 who, in many respects, moved away from the dominant idea that written sources and redactors behind the Letter should determine its theological interpretation. Brown96 does not reject the insights of the source critics,97 since according to him the structures noted by them cannot be ignored and the apparent Gnostic and the additional paraenetic remarks should not be overlooked. Nevertheless, he approaches the issue from another angle. He presupposes that ‘the author of I John took slogans from his adversaries (whence the incipiently Gnostic tone) and opposed them with slogans of his own.98 Both types of slogans echoed the themes and wording of the Johannine tradition found in GJohn … The author then commented on such contrasting slogans’.99 Since the structured antithetical remarks correspond with the views of the opponents (‘contemporary adversaries’100), it Bultmann 1959:837). The link between John and Cerinthus, with his Gnostic tendencies that was rejected by John, goes back as far as Irenaeus and Eusebius (so Thyen 1976:188). Cf. also Streett (2011:6–8) for different views on the opponents. 89 Cf. Brown (1986:41) who mentions those who supported Bultmann (Beyer, Windisch) and those who opposed him (Lohmeyer, Büschel). 90 Käsemann (1951). 91 Braun (1951). 92 Thyen (1976:188–89). 93 Nauck (1957:26–66). 94 Klauck (1991:22–23), for instance, considers these source-theories not completely satisfactory. Such criticism falls outside our aim and scope, but is well documented. Cf. also Thyen (1976:188–89) and Brown (1986:36–46). 95 Brown (1986). 96 Ibid. 42. 97 Brown (1986:48–49) opines that he cannot see how the antithetical remarks cannot be linked to some form of opposition. On the other hand, he acknowledges that it should not automatically be assumed that all the slogans are related to the adversaries. Some might reflect more general opinions. Painter (2002:90, 93) also doubts whether the author would simply make up problems considering the impact the schism had on the group. 98 Marshall (1978:15) and Hakola (2010:35–36) warn that the text should not be overinterpreted in favour of the opponents. Cf. also Klauck (1991:23), Du Rand (1997:163) and Edwards (2001:58–60). 99 Brown (1986:42, cf. also 47). 100 Ibid.:47. The impression should not be created that Brown approaches the Letter solely as polemical. Brown denies that and states that ‘the primary purpose of the work

Chapter 1: A suggested scenario for interpreting 1 John

37

enables a clear cut view of their theological positions.101 Brown also opined that the ethical errors of the opponents were closely linked to Christological issues. The above approach influenced the Johannine research significantly.102 On the ethical level the antitheses were the basis for constructing the behavioural patterns of the opponents103 – they were identified as people who, for instance, claim to be without sin (1:8), claim to have fellowship with the light but behave as people in darkness (1:6–7), claim to love God but feel nothing for their neighbours (4:20), etc.104 These claims were then aligned to ‘outside’ philosophical views, like Docetism105 or Gnosticism, which were then claimed to be the ‘home of the opponents’. In evaluating the interaction of ideas within the antithetical remarks, Brown further maintained that there is a strong and direct influence of the Gospel on the Letters, allowing him to interpret the responses to the opponents in the Letters in light of the Gospel material, thus providing a ‘richer’ perspective than is found in the Letters themselves. A change in perspective challenged the way of establishing the ‘theology of the opponents’, as is described above.106 Brooke107 expressed doubts as early as 1912 as to whether 1 John was written with a polemical aim (i.e. against the opponents), although he did not deny the presence of remarks against the opponents. However, the author’s main aim was rather to teach and encourage members of his own group who were in danger of being seduced through false teachings. He often (nine times108) remarked ‘in this you know’, thus reminding his members of what their ethos was. Lieu109 and others,110 recently took this suggestion seriously that 1 John was not written to or for the purpose of the opponents,111 but was addressed to the other part (the ‘you’) of might well be to strengthen the author’s own community in a time when adversaries are causing trouble’ (ibid.). Cf. also Johnson (1993:12–14), Kruse (2000:3) and Menken (2011:221). 101 Cf. Brown (1986:50) and Painter (2002:84). 102 Schmid (2004:24–25) proposes to read 1 John non-polemically, although he acknowledges that most exegetes would agree that 1 John is a polemical text. 103 The implications for the interpretation of 1 John of regarding the opponents as main aim of the Letter may be seen in the analysis of Wengst (1976:38–80). For him, every contrasting or negative remark becomes the voice of the opponents. 104 Cf. recently Rusam (2018) or Armitage (2021). Even though Neufeld (1994:95, 134) approaches 1 John from a literary perspective, he nevertheless still links the initial contrasting verses in the Letter to the hypothetical opponents. 105 Segovia (1982:76) interprets the Letter in light of Docetism and libertinism, while Beutler (2016:59) is not in favour of this view. He prefers to see the opponents in light of ‘enthusiastische pneumatische Strömungen’. 106 Cf. Lieu (2008:85–86). 107 Brooke (1912:xxvii). 108 Cf. 1J 2:3, 5; 3:16, 19, 24; 4:2, 6, 13; 5:2. 109 Lieu (1981; 1991:5–6, 13–16, 66; 1993; 2008). Cf. Smalley’s (1984:xxxi) criticism of Lieu. This did not prevent Lieu’s position from steadily winning ground. 110 E.g., Edwards (1996:37–38, 57–60, 64–65), Griffith (2002), Painter (2002:85–88) and Schmid (2004:24–25). Perkins (1979:xxi–xxiii) propagates the view that the hostile comments of the author were basically due to his rhetoric and that the schism was basically more of a minor family quarrel than anything else. Her approach was of little influence. 111 Lieu (1991:6) correctly notes that the antithetical sections need not be interpreted as the views of the opponents and reading them as such is hypothetical (cf. also Edwards

38

Section 1: The First Letter of John

the orthodox Johannine group. Lieu explains that the ‘antithetical, debating style is all part of the thought and theological pattern of 1 John’.112 Thyen likewise deems it questionable whether the antitheses aim at addressing or describing the opponents. Instead, he speculates whether these antithetical sections do not refer to ‘die innere Krise und die Anfechtungen des Autors und seiner Gemeinde’113 (excluding the schismatics). Schnelle114 likewise questions the view that these negative remarks should be linked to the teaching of the schismatics,115 since it rather seems as if the focus falls on an ‘innergemeindliches Problem’. Balz116 is of similar opinion, since the antithetical sections rather explain to the readers how a person can deceive him- or herself or be deceived about being in the light. Of course, if this is the case, it changes the rhetorical approach to 1 John significantly. 1 John should consequently not be read as if it takes up the arguments of the opponents in an apologetic or polemical117 (i.e. Docetic118 or early Gnostic) way and thus tries to defeat them. 119 As pastoral letter,120 it intends to encourage the addressees and aims to protect and strengthen them. It aims at admonishing the ‘in group’, in order to strengthen and build their identity in light of the negative influence of the schism. The primary rhetorical mode of the text is thus not to attack or focus on the deviating views of the opponents, but to encourage and strengthen the ‘in group’ through positive as well as contrasting selfreferences. In sum, according to the pastoral view, 1 John focuses on the addressees (‘you’), assuring them of the truth proclaimed by ‘us’. Passages with a polemical tone ‘can be

1996:65–67). Beutler (2000:27) likewise shies away from the idea that the opponents and their ideas should be seen as the reason for writing 1 John. For Thyen (1976:189), the later introduction of the opponents (antichrists) who only appear in 2:18ff., serves as a definite sign that the Letter was not specifically or primarily written against or for them. 112 Lieu (1991:16). 113 Thyen (1976:189). 114 Schnelle (2010:74–75). 115 So also Edwards (1996:58–60, 67). 116 Balz (1986:42–43). 117 Griffith (2002:1, 255) uses the term ‘non-polemical’, suggesting a more pastoral reading. Cf. also Lieu (2008a:806). 118 Lieu (1986:200) is critical of the idea of Docetic polemics in 1 John. She nevertheless argues that John’s effort to hold on to the reality of Jesus’ earthly life and the presence of the risen Son in the community, allows for some of the antithetical remarks in 1 John to be labelled as possibly Docetic or antidocetic (ibid. 204). However, Streett (2011) argues that the major problem was with Jesus’ messiahship, since those who seceded were Jews who returned to the safety of the synagogues (cf. Streett 2011:4). This does not give adequate attention to Jesus becoming flesh, however. 119 Streett (2011:1) notes, ‘According to the majority view, 1 John’s polemic is aimed at former members of the Johannine community who have seceded because of their doctrinal innovation, which is usually thought to have taken a docetizing or gnosticizing trajectory’. 120 Thyen (1976:190) uses the term ‘seelsorgerliches Schreiben’. In his RGG article he indeed states that the idea that 1 John was written with the conflict with the opponents as main aim should not dominate the discussion any longer, since that does not seem to be the aim of the Letter. Interestingly enough, Brown (1986:47) did allow for the possibility that 1 John might have been written to strengthen the community, even though the Letter should be classified as polemical. Cf. also Painter (2002:85).

Chapter 1: A suggested scenario for interpreting 1 John

39

attributed to the writer’s rhetorical self-reflecting style without reference to any polemical situation’.121 Obviously, the implications of this changed perspective for ethics are significant. If the antithetical remarks do not reflect the views of the opponents, but are rather rhetorical selfreflections on the situation inside the group,122 the ‘Christological error should be separated from the moral dilemma dealt with in 1 John, which is nowhere associated with the opponents’.123 The ethical issues should be interpreted not in the framework of reconstructed arguments against the adversaries, but as pastoral theological discussions within the group. The implications are that the Christology functions differently from the polemical approach. It is then rather about ethics than about Christology. Jesus indeed motivates ethical behaviour, but in a different way, as is expressed through reciprocity and mimesis, since his humanness is exemplary for the ethical responsibilities of family members of God. On the other hand, if an approach is favoured that emphasizes the (‘negative’) antithetical parallels as the opponents’ view, it would be natural to interpret the ethics in light of the particular views regarded as part of these ‘negative’ antitheses.124 The Christology of the opponents, namely, that Jesus did not come in the flesh is related to a philosophical position, that is Docetism or pre-Gnosticism. This ‘anti-materialistic’ view is then projected onto the moral behaviour of people, implying that what is done on the material level is not important and should not be regarded as sin.125 This means that if Jesus is not truly human, then behaviour in the material bodily world should also not matter, since believers should only be concerned about their ‘souls’. For this reason, concrete brotherly love in deeds and in truth did not play any significant role for them. The remarks of thinking that one has no sin (1:7–10) then applies to them. The view of ethics is thus directly derived from this particular (Docetic) view of Christology. In sum, the pastoral view enjoys considerable acceptance, with some care not to underestimate the (direct or indirect) influence of the schismatics. Klauck, for instance, acknowledges the central role of the conflict in the Letter but brings balance by describing 1 John ‘… als paränetisch-mahnende[n] Brief. Er will nach innen hin stabilisieren und nach außen hin abgrenzen. Er will die genuine Evangelientradition gegen Mißdeutung sichern …’.126 The Johannine group seems to have been negatively influenced and defences needed to be set up.127 121

Painter (2002:89). Schmid (2004:36) opines that the antitheses ‘operate as a basis for the ethical paraenesis’ for the ‘us’. 123 Painter (2002:89). 124 Lingad (2001:219), for example, opines that the dualistic language of the Gospel becomes the author’s ‘polemic arsenal’ against the schismatics, to describe both their identity as well as their behaviour (ethics). Although they still claim to believe in Jesus, their ethics does not correspond with that of the author (they do not love their brothers) and on that basis they are put on the other side of the line – they are in darkness. Cf. also discussions by Brown (1986:252–53), Painter (1993:375–76) and Menken (2012:20). 125 Brown (1982:50–54; 73–78), for instance, opined that the opponents supported a high Christology that had an impact on their view on ethics – they regarded themselves as sinless, since physical trespasses did not affect them. 126 Klauck (1991:33). 127 Painter (2008:87) refers to Watson when opining that maintenance of group unity was crucial, requiring the author to nurture bonds within the community and reassert the values shared before the schism. 122

40

Section 1: The First Letter of John

1.1.3.2 If the antitheses refer to the views of the opponents … If it is accepted that the antitheses128 refer to the opponents, the following would be implied based on the remarks in the antitheses: – The opponents claim to have fellowship with God and regard themselves as being in the light, yet they live in darkness.129 – According to them, they ‘know’ God abides in them, they claim to love God, but they do not obey God’s commandments and hate their brothers.130 – They claim to be sinless, living in communion with God, but actually make themselves and God into liars.131 – It does not appear as if this ‘opposing group’ rejected Jesus as such, but they did not accept certain characteristics, like his messiahship or that he became flesh, that were accepted by the eye-witness group and for that matter, orthodox Christianity. This meant that they also denied the atoning value of the cross.132 – Both groups made prophetic claims, seemingly under the guidance of a (the) s(S)pirit. However, the author distinguished between ‘them’, having the spirit of the antichrist and ‘us’, having the Spirit of truth. These remarks, collected from the antithetical sections, create the impression that the opponents, regarding themselves as having (the) s(S)pirit, professed ‘(too) high a Christology’,133 causing them to have little or no concern about moral behaviour,134 assuming they are without sin.135 By looking for corresponding ideas, a Docetic or early-Gnostic context is usually preferred as background to these remarks. It is argued that since flesh was regarded in a totally negative light, Christ could not have come in the flesh and that he could not die or be resurrected in the flesh and could not have real salvific significance. Physical, material things, including the flesh, were regarded as of no significance. Consequently, ‘believers’ need not care about their actions ‘in the flesh’, since sin relates to the fleshly, earthly dimensions and not to the higher spiritual dimensions, meaning that sin that is committed with their physical bodies did not bother them or affect their spiritual status. That is why these people could walk past a brother136 or sister in physical need without even thinking of helping that person.137 There was no need for 128

1J 1:6, 8, 10; 2:4, 6, 9; 4:20. 1J 1:6; 2:9; Brown (1986). 130 1J 2:4, 6, 9; 4:20. 131 1J 1:6, 8, 10. Cf. Brown (1986:54). 132 1J 2:2; 4:10. 133 Brown (1986:55). 134 According to Menken (2012:11). 135 Ibid. 20. 136 Cf. Frey (2012a:550–57) on the use in the New Testament. 137 Cf. Brown (1986:55). 129

Chapter 1: A suggested scenario for interpreting 1 John

41

expressing love in inferior physical terms, since only the superior spiritual reality counted (3:11–18).138 In response, the author rejected these views as false (1:5–6). Excursus: An example of the view that the antitheses refer to the opponents As can be expected, there are differences in explaining the antitheses as reflections of the views of the opponents. One prominent example might illustrate the way this perspective is handled. Wengst139 represents the typical argument in favour of the opponents being Gnostics. He thinks that the ethical errors were a bigger problem for the author than the Christological ones.140 Wengst opines that ethics is based on anthropology. ‘Das Schwergewicht in der Theologie der Gegner liegt deutlich in der Anthropologie’,141 which, according to him, is influenced by Gnosticism, forming the background for the interpretation of 1 John. In discussing what he calls the ‘anthropology of the opponents’142 he considers the idea that spirit and matter were separated within the anthropological thinking of the opponents. To be able to sustain this position he ascribes antithetical texts like 1J 1:5–10143 and others to the views of the opponents, as is common in this type of argumentation. Without this assumption it would not be possible to sustain his argument. His argument will not be presented in full here, but only what is relevant for our purposes. The first relevant issue Wengst144 discusses is the issue of sinlessness, based on his assumption that 1:6–10 refers to the opponents.145 According to these verses, the opponents assume sinlessness based on their relation to God, which he explains within the framework of typical Gnostic thought patterns. He finds support from the apocryphal Acts of Thomas. Some sort of Gnostic ‘Wesensgleichheit von Gott und dem Selbst des Menschen’146 is assumed. The theme of not sinning is continued in 3:9, a verse Wengst regards as a quotation taken from the opponents. This verse underlines that being without sin is ‘eine Seinsbestimmung und keine Tatbestimmung’.147 Of importance is rather one’s relation to God than one’s behaviour, as Gnostics would argue. Wengst argues that the opponents saw

138 Brown (1986:54–55) entertains the thought that the schismatics were not libertines (cf. Segovia 1982:76), living a licentious immoral life, but were rather ‘moral indifferentists’. 139 Wengst (1976:38–61). 140 Based on his assumption that 1J 1:6–10 refers to the opponents, Wengst (1976:38) even opines that there are references to the opponents in 1J 1:3. 141 Wengst (1976:61). 142 Ibid. 38. 143 E.g., in 1J 1:5–10: v. 6: If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth …; v. 7: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, or vv. 8–9: If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves …; v. 9: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins … Cf. also 2:29b/3:4a; 3:6a/3:6b; 3:7b/3:8a; 3:9a/3:10b. 144 Wengst (1976:38). 145 For support he refers to scholars like Dodd and Weiss. 146 Wengst (1976:42). 147 Ibid. 44–45.

42

Section 1: The First Letter of John

themselves as ‘daß sie selbst Geist sind’. This is why the opponents understood themselves as ‘Pneumatiker’. He then concludes, ‘Als anthropologische Grundansicht der Gegner ergibt sich demnach die gnostische Überzeugung von der Wesensgleichheit des eigentlichen Menschen mit Gott: Das Selbst des Menschen ist göttlich, es ist nicht von dieser Welt’.148 In discussing love, Wengst149 opines that the opponents did not love their brothers although they favoured a type of isolated love for God alone. Wrongfully isolating love in this way, is what is meant by living in darkness in the Letter (1:5–7), that is, not loving the members of the Johannine group equates to living in darkness.150 The opponents might claim a spiritual relationship with God, not caring for physical human deeds (ethics), but exactly this lack of emphasis on deeds shows the darkness they find themselves in – being without God who is light. The basis of this lack of love is the result of hubris (‘Hochmut und Überheblichkeit’), finding expression in apathy towards one’s fellow men (3:17). Both of these attitudes (hubris and apathy) are grounded in an elitist self-understanding,151 claiming God’s love for themselves. With such a self-understanding, ordinary behaviour did not matter, since the deeds and their consequences are theologically irrelevant. This attitude ‘ist am besten denkbar bei Leuten, die sich um ihre materielle Absicherung keine Sorgen zu machen brauchen, die wohl zu unterscheiden wissen zwischen ihrem hohen geistigen Bewußtsein und ihren weltlichen Geschäften’.152 Obviously, the author is well acquainted with these ideas of the opponents and consistently counters them in the ‘positive’ parts of the antitheses.

Dobschütz153 identifies the eight antitheses in 2:28–3:12 as references to the views of the opponents that were subsequently expanded to other antithetical sections in 1 John. The question to consider is the role of the opponents in this section (as in 1:5–10), as Dobschütz insinuates. A step-for-step look at the text is revealing. – In 1J 2:28–29 there is no reference to the opponents, but ‘you’ (as part of the ‘us’) are rather encouraged to seek righteousness in order to have confidence when Jesus comes. – 1J 3:1–3 relates the view that believers are children of God and are looking forward to the return of Jesus, purifying themselves. In this section there is reference to the kosmos, those who do not know ‘us’ because they do not know God, but this remark clarifies something about the ‘us’ in light of their presence in the world and does not shift the emphasis in this passage to the opponents as such. Again the opponents are not the aim of these remarks. – In 1J 3:4–6 the remarks in the third person are continued, inter alia focusing on what the ‘you’ know, that is part of the theological ethos of the Johannine group. It deals with claims from both a positive and a negative

148

Ibid. 50. Ibid. 53. 150 Ibid. 57. 151 Ibid. 58. 152 Ibid. 153 Dobschütz (1907:4–5). 149

Chapter 1: A suggested scenario for interpreting 1 John

43

perspective, about a relationship with God and consequent behaviour. Again there is no textual indication that these words refer to views of the opponents. – In 1J 3:7 the ‘children’ (‘you’) are warned not to be deceived, creating the expectation that the contents of the deception (i.e. the teachings the opponents used in their deception) will come into focus in the next verses. These verses are all in the third person, but do not deal with the views of the opponents. They rather deal with the necessity of righteous behaviour, because sin is of the devil and Jesus destroyed the devil’s works. Sin is not, and should not be, part of the life of the children of God, who should love their brothers.154 There is little or no reference to the opponent’s deceptive views, although they are identified as of the devil from the perspective of the ‘us’. The content rather focuses on the positive expectations regarding sin and righteous behaviour, presented in the third person, as is typical (as was shown above) of the way the author unfolds his content. It is more a warning to the ‘you’ than a description of the opponents. – The description in 1J 3:9–10 is also dominated by the ‘us’ perspective on matters. In sum, scrutiny of this ‘Dobschütz passage’ suggests that neither the opponents nor their views are in focus, but instead the believers and their expected behaviour, to which the opponents offer a threat. It shows that the antitheses are not primarily aimed at the opponents. 1.1.3.3 If the antitheses refer to the (theological) self-reflection of the ‘us’ … The view that the antitheses are not aimed at the opponents, and that they do not directly address the views of the opponents, has become increasingly dominant lately. The antitheses are rather seen as pastoral remarks to the ‘you’ group to educate and encourage them to remain with the ‘orthodox group’. The key question is whether this argument can be sustained by a close reading of the text.155

154

– He who does what is right is righteous like he is righteous (v. 7). – He who sins is of the devil, because the devil sinned from the beginning (v. 8). – For this purpose the Son of God appeared, to destroy the works of the devil (v. 8). – He who is born of God does not sin, because God’s seed remains in him and he cannot sin, because he is born of God (v. 9). – By this it is clear who are the children of God and who the children of the devil. Everyone who does not do what is right and does not love his brother is not of God (v. 10). 155 This is an important issue, since the view that the antitheses refer to the views of the opponents, is based on an assumption of an assumption of an assumption. The first assumption is that the antitheses suggest an ‘original source’ behind the text of 1 John. The second assumption is that the antitheses in this (these) source(s) refer to the views of the opponents, and the third assumption is that these views may be reconstructed from extratextual references to different philosophies or religious views.

44

Section 1: The First Letter of John

As an example, 1J 1:5–10, as a passage favoured by those who link the antitheses to the opponents, will be considered in light of the question of whether it indeed refers to the opponents. The well-structured passage starts with a key opening metaphor that God is light (1:5), followed by a series of conditional phrases (ἐάν), inter alia containing the antithetical remarks.156 The argument is continued in vv. 6–7, claiming that for ‘us’ the fellowship (koinōnia) with God157 is linked to the desired behaviour – ‘we’ who have koinōnia with God should not walk in darkness, but in light.158 ‘We’ cannot claim koinōnia and then live in darkness. If this happens, that is, if one of ‘us’ sins in this respect, vv. 8–9 deal with correcting the problem.159 Reference is made 156 5 Καὶ ἔστιν αὕτη ἡ ἀγγελία ἣν ἀκηκόαµεν ἀπ̓ αὐτοῦ καὶ ‘Bridge remark’ ἀναγγέλλοµεν ὑµῖν, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστιν Antithetical statement καὶ σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεµία. 6 Ἐὰν εἴπωµεν ὅτι κοινωνίαν ἔχοµεν µετ̓ αὐτοῦ Contrasting claim καὶ ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατῶµεν, and action ψευδόµεθα καὶ οὐ ποιοῦµεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν· Negative judgment 7 ἐὰν δὲ ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατῶµεν Positive action ὡς αὐτός ἐστιν ἐν τῷ φωτί, κοινωνίαν ἔχοµεν µετ̓ ἀλλήλων Positive remark καὶ τὸ αἷµα Ἰησοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ καθαρίζει ἡµᾶς Positive result ἀπὸ πάσης ἁµαρτίας. 8 ἐὰν εἴπωµεν ὅτι ἁµαρτίαν οὐκ ἔχοµεν, Claim ἑαυτοὺς πλανῶµεν καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡµῖν. Negative judgment 9 ἐὰν ὁµολογῶµεν τὰς ἁµαρτίας ἡµῶν, Positive action πιστός ἐστιν καὶ δίκαιος, Positive remark ἵνα ἀφῇ ἡµῖν τὰς ἁµαρτίας Positive result καὶ καθαρίσῃ ἡµᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης δικίας. 10 ἐὰν εἴπωµεν ὅτι οὐχ ἡµαρτήκαµεν, Claim ψεύστην ποιοῦµεν αὐτὸν Negative judgment καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡµῖν 157 Their fellowship refers to their identity as those who have fellowship with God. 158 This clearly does not apply in this context to people who do not have any relation to God, but to people who do have such a relation. This understanding finds support from Schnelle (2010:76) who opines that these verses describe the koinōnia that should define the group. If therefore, somebody damages this fellowship through behaviour or dogma it cannot be claimed that such a person values or expresses a close relationship with God. 159 Mentioning confession of sin rhetorically here at the beginning is significant. In light of the statements in 1:5, 7, acknowledging the possibility that actions might deviate from what is confessed (that God is light), it seems logical that confession of sin in this context should refer to exactly that problem, namely, confessing to be in the light, but then straying from the light through behaviour – something that was true of the ‘you’. If the ‘you’ ‘sinned’ by straying in the direction of the opponents (‘they’), then it is imaginable that it

Chapter 1: A suggested scenario for interpreting 1 John

45

to confession and consequent forgiveness of the sin160 of ‘us’ – that is those who have fellowship with God. Contextually as well as content-wise, these statements do not refer to those who are not part of the ‘we’, that is the ’they’. Furthermore, the stated purpose of the author is formulated in 1:3, 5, namely, to encourage the ‘you’ through proclamation to have koinōnia with the Father, Son and ‘us’, that is, to participate and co-operate with them. This remark is directed to the addressees (‘you’) and is not a general remark including the opponents. 1J 1:5–10 gives an explanation of what it practically implies for ‘us’ that the ‘us’ group may have fellowship with God, giving these remarks the rhetorical undertone of explanatory self-reflection (i.e. if ‘we’ do this, that is true of ‘us’ and vice versa).161 These remarks also apply to the addressees (‘you’), motivating them to seek fellowship (koinōnia – 1:7) with ‘us’. In sum, the antithetical remarks in 1:5–10 are clearly not intended as polemic against the opponents,162 but as pastoral description of what it means to be part of ‘us’.163 Several arguments further support the view that the antithetical remarks should not be interpreted in terms of the opponents. For instance, the absence of specific references to physical opponents up to 2:18 suggests a clear focus on the ‘us’ and the ‘you’, at least in the important first section of the Letter. Apart from that, there is the lack of references to the opponents in the key section on love in 4:7–21 (5:3), which again suggests an emphasis on the situation of the ‘us’ and ‘you’ and not on the opponents. A further rhetorical strategy of the author becomes manifest through his references to characters, namely, to clarify a statement about the ‘us’ or the ‘you’ by means of general third person references. These statements about the ‘us’ and ‘you’164 are ‘clarified’ by third person remarks about the theme should be explained to them that there is forgiveness if they are willing to confess their sin and opt for fellowship (koinōnia) with the ‘us’. God is faithful and just to forgive these ‘trespasses’ (1:9). This is the benefit of standing in a relation to God as the ‘us’ do, that is, God provides the possibility of forgiveness for ‘us’ through the blood of Jesus that cleanses from sin. Schnelle (2010:76) also remarks that this is ‘für die Gemeinde keine ausweglose Situation, denn das Blut Jesu … reinigt “uns” von den Sünden’. 160 Cf. Lieu (1993:461–65) for the Old Testament and Jewish views on God’s forgiving nature. 161 Lieu (1991:66) points out that the negative statements (1J 4:8, 20) ‘probably serve to sharpen the argument of the section rather than to pillory opponents’. 162 Against Marshall (1978:15). 163 Lieu (2008a:818) also supports this view: ‘Evocations of “our” experience, particularly articulated in frequently anonymous confessional or testimonial formulae, were a familiar strategy within the broader Johannine tradition (John 1:14, 16; 3:11; 6:69; 21:24; 3 John 12)’. 164 Cf. 1J 2:3–11, 15–17, 21, 29; 3:4–10; 4:7, 11–12, 13–15, 19–20; 5:1, 10–12. In these numerous contexts the (first person) statement is linked to a third person remark, usually clarifying the statement.

46

Section 1: The First Letter of John

addressed in the particular statement about the ‘us’ or ‘you’. In these contexts there are no references to opponents,165 but direct (theoretical) clarifications of theological statements about the ‘us’ are made in a self-reflective way, often by contrasting positive and negative aspects, spelling out the possibilities and impossibilities for the members of the family of God. The following examples illustrate the point (several – but not all – examples will be given to also illustrate the scope of this stylistic feature). – In 3:14–15 the statement is: ‘we’ know because ‘we’ love, ‘we’ have life. The related third-person remark is: ‘he’ who does not love remains dead and his hate makes him a murderer. – In 3:16 the statement is: ‘we’ ought to love like Jesus. The related third-person remark is: The love of God cannot be in ‘him’ who does not want to help his brother. – In 4:6 the statement is: ‘we’ are of God. The related third-person remark is: ‘he’ who is not of God, will not listen to ‘us’. – In 4:16 the statement is: ‘we’ know God’s love for ‘us’. The related third-person remark is: ‘He’ who remains in love, will remain in God and God in him.166 Another interesting point is that these remarks in the third person are often longer than the first-person statements, offering a considerable amount of ‘theological’ data, explaining the issue by means of a more general argument, seemingly based on the theological tradition of the group. The numerous times where the phrase ‘you know/have heard’167 is followed by third-person remarks, shows that these remarks should be regarded as part of the ethos of the Johannine group – this is what they already know. This link between the theological ethos and these third person remarks strengthens the argument that these third person remarks should be seen in the light of self-reflection on the tradition of the author and not as negative reactions to the opponents as is evident from the following few examples. – In 2:3–6 the interrelatedness is explained between knowing God, keeping his commandments, perfecting love and the relation between doing what Jesus did, based on Immanenz. These verses indeed provide a theological knot, tying several aspects together. – In 2:8–11 the rationale and relevance of light and darkness for proper ethical behaviour is explained in some detail. – In 2:15–17 the reason why ‘you’ should not love the world is further explained in third-person terms.

165

1J 3:7–10 with its references to the devil might be an exception. Cf. also 1J 4:13–15 and 4:19–20 for the same stylistic pattern. 167 Cf., e.g., 1J 2:3–6, 18, 21, 24, 29; 3:4–10; 5:10. 166

Chapter 1: A suggested scenario for interpreting 1 John

47

– In 4:20–21 the necessity for love for one’s brother is explained in more detail in light of God’s love. It seems convincing not to see the main thrust of the argument in the Letter in terms of an argumentative engagement with the opponents, but to warn the ‘you’ against the false prophets who try to mislead them, and especially to convince the ‘you’ to move closer to the ‘us’ through love and co-operation. Lieu hits the mark when stating, ‘in the debate we do not see ruthless attack against some external opposition but a genuine wrestling with the implication of religious experience, particularly when that experience is expressed as a “realized” present reality’.168 The Letter is indeed an effort to prevent the ‘you’ from moving closer to the ‘they’ and thus to prevent further loss of members by the orthodox group. 1.1.4 The relation between the different groups: the ‘you’, the ‘they’ and the ‘us’ The schism between the ‘us’ and the ‘they’ resulted in two separate, opposing groups, both having developed their own identity.169 A clear qualitative distinction is manifest between the ‘us’ and the ‘they’, not the least describing the ‘they’ as antichrists (2:18), akin to the murderous Cain (3:12ff.). Their hateful demeanour shows that they are children of the devil (3:10), doing the opposite of what the children of God, that is the ‘us’, do. The ‘they’ walk in darkness and do not have life in them, in contrast to the ‘us’ who are in the light and live in fellowship with God. It is not precisely clear to what extent the ‘us’ and the ‘they’ groups were separated, although it is clear that they already formed two separate groups. The existence of the ‘you’ group (that are still regarded as part of the ‘us’) suggests that there was still some social fluidity170 that allowed the opponents’ ideas to influence some of the ‘us’ (i.e. the ‘you’). The ‘you’ could still associate with either of the other two groups, explaining John’s warning against the opponents’ corrupting influence (2:15–17).171 Klauck correctly notes, ‘Die “Kernspaltung” liegt schon etwas zurück’, but adds: ‘sie hat sich aber noch nicht bis in alle Ecken fortgesetzt, und es gibt immer noch Definitionsprobleme’.172 If the ‘we’ and the ‘you’ are confronted only with each 168

Lieu (1991:51). 1J 2:9–11; 5:18. Cf. Brown (1986:92–93) and Painter (2002:85). 170 How else could the opponents still have influenced them? Cf. Painter (2002:85) re concrete social and religious contact. 171 1J 2:22, 26; 3:7; 4:1. Cf. Culpepper (1998:262). 172 Klauck (1991:34). Although the ‘they’ group is treated as a unity in this description, the possibility exists that they also displayed variety, that might cause problems in attempting precise descriptions of the groups. Cf. Brown (1986:49–50), Klauck (1991:35– 42) and Painter (2002:93). 169

48

Section 1: The First Letter of John

other, there might be some differences between them, but once in the presence of ‘them’ they are bound to make common cause, as Lieu173 maintains. In sum, ‘they’ are a separate, opposing group to ‘us’, while ‘you’ are still regarded as part of ‘us’, in spite of some relational problems, like lack of love and fellowship. ‘They’, however, still have sufficient contact with ‘us’ to be able to influence and indeed deceive some of them, the ‘you’, into leaving the ‘us’ group in favour of the ‘they’, thus creating the danger of further schism. The ‘you’ is in ‘fluctuating movement’ between the ‘us’ and ‘they’. 1.1.5 Kosmos as reality in 1 John The term kosmos is used numerous times in the Letter174 with a rather wide semantic application, including a wider group than just the schismatics.175 An analytical survey of the use of this term in 1 (and 2) John allows for the division into four major categories, namely, a) physical/material reality; b) all humans; c) humans not believing in God; d) the ungodly reality that stands in opposition to God.176 Some examples of these uses of kosmos in 1 John are as follows: – Kosmos refers to physical/material goods needed for existence in the world. In 3:17 the phrase, ‘if anyone has the world’s goods’ (τὸν βίον τοῦ κόσµου) refers to a person with material, earthly goods or means177 who 173

Lieu (2008a:814). According to Smalley (2002:81) there are 183 occurrences of the word in the New Testament, of which 103 are in the Johannine literature. It is used 22 times in 1 John (2:2, 15[3x], 16[2x], 17; 3:1, 13, 17; 4:1, 3, 4, 5[3x], 9, 14, 17; 5:4[2x], 19) and once in 2J 7. It is not used in 3 John. Detailed discussions of the use of the word can be found in Van der Watt (2015a:253–70) and Schnelle (2010:84–85). 175 Arndt et al. (2000:ad loc.) note that the word kosmos is used in Homeric times to refer to ‘that which serves to beautify through decoration, adornment, adorning or “condition of orderliness, orderly arrangement, order”’. However, the reference to ‘the sum total of everything here and now, the world, the (orderly) universe’ is much more common. Other potential uses include ‘the sum total of all beings above the level of the animals, the world’ or more specifically, ‘humanity in general’. It may also be used to refer to ‘planet earth as a place of inhabitation, the world,’ indicating the habitation of humans, standing in contrast to heaven. Bauer et al. further distinguish ‘the system of human existence in its many aspects’, including joys, possessions, sufferings, etc. as a possible reference. 176 Cf. also Brown (1986:223–24). 177 Discussing this issue, Klauck (1991:212) remarks, ‘Das Leben in der Welt erfordert Mittel zum Leben …’. Other phrases suggested include ‘irdisches Gut’ (Schnackenburg 1984:199), ‘this world’s livelihood’ (Brown 1986:449), ‘vergängliche Welt’ (Strecker 1989:189), all referring to things belonging to the material world. Cf. also Wheeler (1995:113). Surveying some translations, the word is rendered as: ‘world’s goods’ (NKJV; ESV; NASB; NRSV); ‘goed der wereld’ (Statenvertaling); ‘goed van die wêreld’ (1983 Afrikaans translation); ‘world’s means’ (NAB); or ‘earthly possessions’ (ISV); ‘material possessions’ (NIV); or ‘in de wereld een bestaan heeft’ (1951 Dutch translation); ‘qui est riche’ (BFC). 174

Chapter 1: A suggested scenario for interpreting 1 John

49

should share this with fellow Christians who need such earthly goods for their further existence. – Kosmos refers to all human beings. It is said that many false prophets (1J 4:1) or deceivers (2J 7) have gone out ‘into the world’ (εἰς τὸν κόσµον), in other words, they have gone out to humans living in this world in general, irrespective of who they are. Some opine that this phrase refers to a place,178 but the most probable reference is to people in the world in general.179 – Kosmos refers to humans not believing in God. In 4:9 it is said that God sent his Son into and as saviour of the world. He is the expiation for the sins of the whole world (2:2), showing that God’s intention is not to save only some, but to save everybody, although salvation remains dependent on faith in Jesus (5:11–13).180 Although these references seem to be general, they refer to people in need of salvation, that is people not believing in God (yet).181 In line with this, but a bit more specific, the verses 3:1, 13 describe the kosmos as not knowing God and his people, hating believers. This reference is very specific in its reference to unbelievers. – Kosmos refers to the ungodly reality in opposition to God.182 In several cases, the word kosmos refers to a more general, inclusive, ungodly reality, including not only humans,183 but in some cases also spiritual powers. All these may be distinguished from and indeed stand in opposition to God as ‘realm of hostility to God’.184 This idea of general, apocalyptic ‘evil’ is found in both 2:18 and 2J 7. In 1J 4:5 it is mentioned that there are people ‘of/from the world’, a phrase that stands ‘im schärfsten Gegensatz’185 to those who are ‘of/from God’ in 4:4. In this context, kosmos refers to evil as an individual entity encapsulating everything that is evil: that is the ungodly, evil reality from which the unbelievers come and whose ‘language’ they speak.186 178

Cf. Bultmann (1973:63). Haas et al. (1972:116) talk about the ‘sphere’ where the antichrist is working. 179 Smalley (1984:225, 227) interprets this expression as ‘people who do not belong to God’. Marshall (1978:208) also implies it. 180 Cf. Brown (1986:224), Strecker (1989:94), Smalley (2002:40), Painter (2002:159) and Schnelle (2010:ad loc.). 181 Brown (1986:517) notes that Weiss wants to see the use as negative but that such incarnational uses of κόσµος are actually positive. Cf. also Painter (2002:159), Menken (2010:88) and Marshall (1978:214 – by implication). Smalley (2002:227), on the other hand, wants to see the use as ‘neutral’, thus ignoring the emphasis on people in need of salvation. 182 It should be noted that Lieu (1986:184) correctly points out that this designation of the cosmos should not be confused with the Gnostic rejection of the world. 183 Against Kruse (2000:149). 184 Brown (1986:498). 185 Schnackenburg (1984:225). Painter (2002:263) refers to the references to God and the world in 1J 4:4–5 as an ‘antithetic parallelism’. 186 Smalley (2002:227) and Strecker (1989:216).

50

Section 1: The First Letter of John

In sum, kosmos as diverse ‘character’ in 1 John signifies people and things that are in general evil (including the antichrists) and stand in opposition to God and his people, although it might in some cases refer to earthly goods that are not evil per se. The opponents, the ‘they’, are also identified with the kosmos, confirming their opposition not only to the author, but also to God. For the grammar of ethics this implies a contrasting (dualistic) view of the world and its inhabitants, offering a negative ethical perspective on a world without the Father and the Son. Loving or associating with the world (kosmos) is by no means an option for the members of God’s family who live according to the truth. 1.1.6 The suggested scenario and the ethics in 1 John It has been suggested that 1 John was not directed at the opponents as a polemical document, but was addressed to ‘you’ who were still regarded as being part of the ‘orthodox’ Johannine group (‘us’), suggesting a nonpolemical, pastoral aim for the Letter. Schmid 187 and others, make the point that in these antitheses188 the emphasis is not on the opponents, but on the addressees (‘you’), self-assuring and encouraging them, inter alia to behave ethically and correctly as family of God. This was a key aim of 1 John, namely, to encourage the addressees to lovingly co-operate (koinōnia) more closely with ‘us’. This serves as basic point of departure. It was further argued that the reading strategy to interpret the antitheses as descriptions of the opponents’ views is less desirable. Obviously, such a reading suggests a strong link to Docetism and Gnostic ideas,189 which likewise seems debatable. This means that trying to describe the views of the opponents by using the antitheses is not preferable, since they do not refer to the opponents.190 On the basis of these conclusions, the following is suggested as a working scenario: There was a schism between ‘us’ and ‘they’, which was already well-defined. A third group, the addressees (‘you’), is regarded by the author as associating with ‘us’ rather than with the ‘they’. They find themselves in a position ‘in between’ the ‘us’ and the ‘they’. However, there still seems to be social contact between these different groups,191 which allows the ‘they’ to 187

Schmid (2004:36). Cf. Streett (2011:4, 173ff.) for a different opinion. 1J 2:18–27 and 4:1–6. 189 Cf. Lieu (1991:102) and Strecker (1989:260) for arguments against a pertinent Docetic or Gnostic background for 1 John. 190 This option will not be further in focus, since it is regarded as a less plausible option. 191 This scenario suggests that these different groups might at least have lived in approximately the same area. Cf. Klauck (1991:33) and Akin (2001:29). Furthermore, the ‘us’ and the ‘you’ do not seem to be sectarian, avoiding others, but to have participated in society at large. 188

Chapter 1: A suggested scenario for interpreting 1 John

51

try to mislead the ‘you’ with their false message and thus to lure the ‘you’ into their sphere of influence. This implies that relations between the ‘us’, the ‘you’ and the ‘they’ are still fluid and porous, allowing mutual contact. It seems as if the ‘you’ are to a certain extent succumbing to this deceptive pressure, since their relationship with the ‘us’ group is deteriorating, as is evident from the call to them by the author for closer fellowship, love and cooperation. The author indeed warns the ‘you’ against this movement closer to the sphere of influence of the ‘they’, not the least because that would imply playing into the hands of ‘idols’.192 In other words, they are warned against turning away from the true God by turning away from the ‘us’; they must rather seek co-operation and communion (koinōnia) with God and his people (1:3–6 – ‘us’), by staying away from the deception of the ‘they’ group. Kysar formulates it thus, ‘The general purpose of 1 John, then, was to preserve a Christian community from dissolution, to protect the identity and composition of that community, and to arrest a movement which threatened the very heart of what the author understood to be a genuine faith and life … it sought to assure the remaining community that they stood within the fold of the truth and faith and to reinforce their position in order to prevent further disintegration’.193 This problem of the ‘you’ moving away from ‘us’ and yielding to the deception of the opponents presents the imminent danger that is addressed in 1 John, requiring the pastoral approach that included reminding the addressees of the tradition and ethos in which they stand, motivating them through paraenetic encouragement, explaining to them what is true of ‘us’, to whom the ‘us’ belong, and so on. Part of this pastoral approach is the encouragement for those of the ‘you’ who had already sinned by moving in the direction of the opponents: there is always the righteous God who, upon the confession of their trespasses, will forgive their trespasses through the blood of Christ and restore their relation with Him (1:8–2:2). One caution: Although the scenario is suggested that 1 John is a pastoral letter, not focusing on the opponents, the influence of the schism on the situation described in 1 John should not be overlooked. The strong rhetoric in 1 John against the opponents (i.e. antichrists, deceivers, false prophets, etc.) shows that the schism had a major impact on the social consciousness of the Johannine group and served as important stimulus behind the writing of 1 John. With the above scenario, the idea must therefore not be created that nothing in 1 John reflects the position of the opponents. That would be going 192

1J 5:21 – cf., e.g., Frey (2012), Painter (2002:1, 79) and Griffith (2002:1) for different views. 193 Kysar (1992:906). Griffith (2002:1) correctly remarks that ‘The letter thus represents a sustained effort to prevent further apostasy among Johannine Christians by strengthening their identity and cohesion’. Cf. also Klauck (1991:33) and Culpepper (1998:262).

52

Section 1: The First Letter of John

too far.194 The truth seems to be that ‘you’ are confronted with the ideas of ‘them’ and it is possible that ‘you’ entertained and even accepted (some of) these ideas. It is to be expected that in such a crisis situation some of the opponents’ ideas will play a role in the overall argument. It is plausible that some of the ethical do’s and do not’s in 1 John might therefore echo the views held by the opponents, but that is not the focus of the Letter, at least not to the measure some would like to suggest.195 To differentiate is difficult, however, not the least because the antitheses are not regarded as referring directly to the views of the opponents. Several pointers for interpreting the ethical material in 1 John follow from the above suggested scenario. – Since the author of 1 John works with theological concepts (principles) like eternal life, love, truth and so on, there is always the temptation to interpret the Letters primarily as theological theses, with the danger of falling into an ahistorical approach.196 Instead, the ethics of 1 John should be interpreted in light of the particular historical situation where the ‘orthodox’ position is threatened by the schismatics. The ethics remains situationally determined, although it is thoroughly imbedded in theology. – Lieu cautioned, ‘The so-called “moral debate” is not explicitly related to the schismatics and so should not be interpreted purely as a reaction against them’,197 but rather offers self-reflection by the author of what applies to believers, in both positive and negative ways. – Although Christology forms a key issue in the conflict with the opponents, direct or mutual influence should not automatically be suggested

194

Cf. also Lieu (1991:13–14). Parsenios (2014:14–16) offers a scenario based on a combination of the views of Perkins and Lieu. According to Perkins, the rhetoric of 1–3 John is mere rhetoric, typical of oral cultures, and the descriptions in the Letters should therefore not be seen as an accurate description of the situation. In her account by Parsenios, Perkins opines that ‘the supposedly permanent rift in the community’ was ‘nothing more than a minor squabble among people still living in communion’. One should imagine something like a ‘family quarrel that, once it blows over, is forgotten and a thing of the past’. However, this view of Perkins falls short inter alia according to Brown (1982:48–49). Taking the critique seriously, namely, that Perkins underestimates the intensity of the conflict, Parsenios tends to accept that the conflict was not so serious, since there still seems to be some contact among the different ‘groups’ (based on 2:19 and 3:7). The addressees might not ‘yet realize just how dangerous the secessionists are’ (Parsenios 2014:16). Parsenios then opines that ‘perhaps instead 1 John seems to produce a crisis’, since the group shows some degree of ‘division’. ‘All the community members may not yet know the danger that lies before them, and the author writes to oppose this teaching and to marginalize his opponents’ (ibid.). 196 Frey consistently warns against this sterile approach in his 2012 article. 197 Lieu (1991:15). 195

Chapter 1: A suggested scenario for interpreting 1 John

53

between the Christology and ethics, as if the ethics were the direct result of the Christological errors of the opponents.198 – The ethical dynamics of the Gospel overlap in many respects with that of the Letters, but due to the situational differences, the rhetorical dynamics in these two documents are not the same. Care should be taken not to force the ethics of the Gospel onto 1 John as the dominant matrix for understanding the ethics of the Letter. This does not mean that the link between the Letter and the Gospel should be ignored, to the contrary, these Johannine documents reflect the same theological tradition.199 The interrelatedness should rather be handled with sensitivity to prevent the pitfall of over- or misinterpretation.200

1.2 An ‘incarnated’ reality: ‘space’ in the Letters of John An essential part of any scenario of the Letters is their perspective on cosmological and anthropological ‘space’. Spatial contrasts like heaven and earth, above and below, so typical of the Gospel narrative, do not play such a prominent role in the Johannine Letters. However, in 1 John, God’s transcendental reality (i.e. the above, the heaven, to use Gospel terms) is distinct from and stands in contrast to the kosmos, as in the Gospel. The first four verses of 1 John characterize the space within which the rest of the Letter unfolds – it is a synergy between the transcendent and the earthly realities.201 Jesus is not only described in physical human terms as the one who was heard, seen and touched (1:1), but he is also identified as the (transcendent) life who was with the Father (1:1–2). The presence of the Son is incarnational, implying this complex synergy of the divine and human (earthly) realities in the person of Jesus. In a certain sense, Jesus may be described as a ‘new species’ that is human on this earth, but who also shares in God’s divine reality, in other words, in whom the earthly and the divine (eternal life) are simultaneously experienced for the first time. Through faith, believers are enabled to partake in this reality by receiving eternal life. Believers still exist in this material world as part of an earthly family, but by receiving eternal life they are also born into the transcendent family of God. This new situation has its own existential and ethical challenges.202 Believers 198 For example, because Jesus was not human, believers (opponents) are sinless since they do not have to worry about sin committed as humans. 199 Cf. below, Section 4. 200 Cf. the discussion below in Ch. 13. 201 Meeks (1993:211) notes that the combination of heavenly and earthly realities was common in ancient thought. Cf. also Zimmermann (2012:66). 202 An important anthropological point as a point of theological departure is that people are regarded as being in darkness, children of the devil, who by themselves cannot change their ontological status. Jesus, as the Life from God (1:2) offers the divine life to those who

54

Section 1: The First Letter of John

have a changed identity as children of God, requiring a different focus, while they are still living as humans in this world. This new identity now determines their existence and must be expressed in this physical world through moral behaviour according to the will of the transcendent God. The term koinōnia (1:3, 6) highlights the possibility that believers may partake as humans in the transcendent reality. Koinōnia describes the ability of those who are in the light – as God is light – to have fellowship, that is, to experience a close relationship with the Father, Son and other believers, as well as to co-operate in their behaviour with the family of God; in other words, to behave in this world in obedience to the commandments of God, and to live according to the divine pattern of light, righteousness, love, etc. This fellowship, therefore, introduced a new heuristic pattern for interpreting reality (2:7–8), that is, ethically correct behaviour for humans is now determined by the heavenly values of love, light, truth, righteousness, etc.,203 that is, earthly behaviour is evaluated in light of the divine presence. Nobody has seen God (4:12, 20). Nevertheless, the co-existence of the spiritual and the earthly realities becomes visible on earth through the behaviour of believers. This happens in different ways, namely, through the correct confession (4:15), keeping the word/commandments of the Father and Son,204 and remaining in love205 and righteousness (2:28–29). These are all practical expressions of the presence of the divine reality in this world. The other side of the coin is that evil is also presented as an unseen reality which is expressed in the lives and behaviour of unbelievers. Those who sin (i.e. act in a way contrary to God’s will) are children of the devil (3:9–10). Believers are therefore qualitatively distinguished from the evil kosmos (cf. 5:19) and should not imitate evil (3J 11). This boils down to different ways of behaviour. One type of behaviour is to love this world and worldly things, leading to lust, wrong desire and hubris based on earthly possessions (1J 2:15–17). However, these two unseen realities (the divine and evil) should not be equated as far as quality is concerned. God represents the transcendent reality that is qualitatively ideal, superior and perfect in contrast to the destructive, murderous and other negative qualities that evil has to offer. Ethics, that is, what is right and what is wrong is considered from this perspective. The behaviour of believers within this reality is influenced inter alia by the Spirit that represents a way in which the divine reality interacts with people (3:24). The (S)spirit(s) form(s) the interface between the spiritual realities believe and thus changes their ontological status. Cf. Vol. 1, 256. Cf. also Van der Watt (1999:491–511) and Van der Merwe (2006:535–63). 203 Cf. further Roitto (2011:19) on the ethical qualities of the character of God. 204 1J 2:5, 14, 24; 3:24; 2J 9. 205 1J 2:15; 3:17; 4:9, 12.

Chapter 1: A suggested scenario for interpreting 1 John

55

and the physical human reality: believers experience God through the Spirit and stand under the guidance of the Spirit, while many other spirits are active among the people of this world (4:1), not the least as the spirit of the antichrist (4:3). The type of spirit that is active in a particular person is evident through his or her behaviour, that is, in activities like confession (4:1–6), prophecy and moral actions. The reality of people is framed within a world or space where the transcendent and earthly realities meet, with Jesus as incarnational example of this new reality. This creates qualitative opposition between the divine and earthly, light and darkness, spiritual life and death. People are encouraged to join the ‘incarnational world’ where they have eternal life as people who still live in this world. Within such a dynamic space the children of God act as ethical agents.

Chapter 2

Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (1): family, Immanenz, mimesis and reciprocity 2.1 Introduction Ethics in 1 John unfolds in a complex and integrated web of relations.1 God is the primary ethical agent in 1 John. He determines the qualitative nature of all ethics. Jesus is the mediatory ethical agent, illustrating the love of God in this world by laying down his life for believers. Through faith in him people become children of God, who ought to behave as his children by showing mutual love. By living in fellowship (koinōnia) with one another, they are relationally bound together in identity and behaviour. However, it is important to determine how these relationships are presented in the Letter, since different types of relations function according to different dynamics. The dynamics in a master–slave relationship are different from those in a relationship within a family, between friends, lovers or between enemies. In the case of 1 John, relationships are expressed in predominantly four ways, namely, through family imagery, by emphasizing the unity (Immanenz) between different ethical agents, and through the two concepts of koinōnia and love.2 The family imagery and the concept of unity will receive further attention in this chapter, while the latter two concepts will be treated in detail in the next chapter.

2.2 Family imagery One of the major ways in which the grammar of ethics is developed in Johannine literature is through the use of family imagery, metaphorically activating ancient (Mediterranean3) family conventions to express the 1

Cf. also Chapter 3 on love and fellowship. These are not isolated concepts, but are networked throughout the Letter and therefore constantly overlapping. However, each theme is developed in such detail that they should receive separate attention. 3 References to ancient ‘Mediterranean’ societies function on a high level of abstraction. On a lower level of abstraction, focusing more on the differences, it might be more 2

58

Section 1: The First Letter of John

message.4 People in antiquity were generally regarded as part of an οἶκος (oikos – household or familia),5 which formed the core of ancient societies.6 The family imagery in the Letter (as well as in the Gospel7) is developed in a complex network of family-related metaphors. The imagery, for instance, includes familial references to birth, to having eternal life as children of God, to a Father, to a unique Son, to brothers and to the children who should know the Father. In this way the presentation of ethics is based on ancient family conventions. What applies to earthly families is applied by way of analogy to the family of God, giving the application the legitimacy of commonly accepted ‘family truths’. difficult to speak of a Mediterranean culture as if there were such a thing. Since the aim here is not a detailed analysis of ancient culture, but rather to explore the broader social fibre of ancient communities living around the Mediterranean Sea, a higher level of abstraction serves the purpose. Constant reference to smaller differences will not be made. 4 Cf. Van der Watt (2000) on the Gospel. Vol. 1, 149–81. Klauck (1991:285), referring to 1J 5:1, also noted that John applies information ‘aus dem Erfahrungsbereich der Familie’. Family imagery was indeed used in wider circles than the Johannine tradition. Bartchy (2003:146) emphasizes that Paul also refers to a well-functioning family in which each member aims at serving the others and thus enriches the quality of life for others. They are bound together by their commitment to God. This rings true also of John. The same applies to Aasgaard’s (2002:530) remark about Pauline ethics, ‘íf we are to provide a sufficiently broad and unified picture of Paul’s ethics, his ideas of a Christian siblingship must be included’. 5 The term ‘family’ (based on Latin familia) will consistently be used, though ancient family structure differed from present-day family structures and should not be confused or seen as identical (Roberts 1984:62). For instance, Rawson (1987:7–8) points out that familia does not only include blood relations, but all people under the control of the paterfamilias. Cf. also Allmen (1981:54). 6 Pilch and Malina (1993:70–77) opine, ‘the family is the center, not only of the social interactions of its members, but of the system of meaning out of which such cultures arose’, and further points out, ‘Family-centeredness then is a complex cultural phenomenon which receives expression at every level and in all times of society as reflected in the Bible and which provides the foundation of the society itself’ (ibid. 72). Briones (2013:37) similarly remarks, ‘The Graeco-Roman household was “the basis of social obligations, the means by and through which both status and wealth were essentially transmitted’. Malherbe (1986:96) further notes that ‘Hierocles … locates the immediate family at the center of society. All other relationships extend outward from it in concentric circles until all humanity is embraced’. Cf. also Stambaugh and Balch (1986:123) on the Graeco-Roman situation. Chester (2013:116) points out that the Jewish inscriptions vouch for the importance and centrality of the family in ancient societies, including the love between parent and child. Cf. further Lassen (1992:247, 254) on the situation in ancient Israel and early Judaism. 7 Cf. Vol. 1, 151–81. Van der Watt (2000:161–393) argued extensively that it is crucial to recognize the metaphorical nature of Johannine terms like ‘birth of God’, ‘eternal life’, ‘children of God’, ‘God becoming our Father’, etc., and that these concepts are directly related to family imagery. Cf. also Osiek and Balch (1997), Scholtissek (2000:374) and Blasi (2002:304).

Chapter 2: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (1)

59

It should be remembered that the literary form (i.e. complex metaphor or imagery) serves the message,8 or as Schnackenburg puts it, ‘daß die Heilswirklichkeit dem Verf. wichtiger als die Bildhaftigkeit ist’.9 Selection from the potential of the imagery is essential for the application of any imagery. Therefore, when familial imagery is used, not every aspect of family life is (or should be) applied as metaphor, but choices are made according to which aspects of the imagery are required to effectively convey the message. The message determines the choice of any aspects of the imagery that are used. What follows is a more detailed description of the different relational concepts used in the Letter. In identifying the family imagery in the Letter, two aspects stand out, namely, i) the use of names and ii) references to spiritual birth, leading to eternal life in (i.e. membership to) the family of God. 2.2.1 Use of family terms to identify members of the family of the Father God is called Father10 throughout the Letter, thereby associating the typical functions of a father with God the Father,11 like being head of the family, showing what love (4:8) is, begetting his children (3:9; 4:7; 5:1–4, 18) and calling them his own (3:1–2), giving commandments to his children (4:21), judging his family (2:1), showing loving care for and protection of his family (3:17; 5:18) and listening to their requests (5:14–15). Many of these functions have ethical implications (like his love, begetting his children, his loving care, his commandments, etc.), confirming that God the Father is the central and determining ethical agent. Jesus is frequently called the unique (µονογενής12) Son13 (of God).14 The word son (υἱός) is used only of Jesus, while believers are addressed as child(ren) (τέκνον). Combined with the word ‘unique’,15 the special position 8

Van der Watt (2000:161–393). Schnackenburg (1984:190). 10 Deissler (1995:118–20) notes that the concept of father was frequently used in ancient Eastern literature, also in the First Testament, as designation for (G)god. The king is described as the son of God (cf. 2 Sam 7:14), as is the people of Israel (Hos 11:1; Isa 1:2; Jer 3:19), expanding the concept of God’s fatherhood. It might play a role in the presentation of God as Father and the further development of the familial imagery in John. The conceptual parallels, at least, are noteworthy. 11 In 1J 5:20 it seems as if the reference of the term God is to the Son of God. If so, this is a single reference in the Letter. In all other cases the term God refers to the Father. 12 Cf. Louw and Nida (1996:ad loc.). 13 1J 1:3, 8; 2:22, 23, 24; 3:8, 23; 4:9, 10, 14, 15; 5:5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20. 14 Some argue that Son of God is not a metaphor, but a reference to the use of the term son, taken from the First Testament. However, the use in the Letter, as in the Gospel, is applied to a son who does what his father requires of him, moving into the metaphorical sphere of application. 15 1J 4:9. 9

60

Section 1: The First Letter of John

of the Son in relation to the Father, as well as to the other children of the family, is cemented. As unique Son, Jesus is the one who is sent by the Father as mediator of love, life, forgiveness and righteousness, who functions as Paraclete (2:1), giving his life (3:16) and blood (1:8) for others, thus serving as ethical example of what love is (3:16). These functions are basically all focused on the well-being of the Father’s family. As such, the Son is a mediatory and exemplary ethical agent, revealing the transcendent reality in human form (1:1–3). Referring to the members of the family of God, the word children (τέκνα) is used, although not that frequently16 – the more frequent term is brother (ἀδελφός), obviously apart from pronouns. The term children is used in contexts where being begotten into the family or being given the name as child of God is focused on, accompanied by the ethical implications of childhood, namely, acting righteously and lovingly, and obeying the Father’s commandments as children ought to do.17 The term brother (ἀδελφός)18 is virtually exclusively used in reference to mutual brotherly love that ought to be feature of God’s family.19 Love is thus mainly described in terms of inter-family relations – mutual love of a Father, his Son and children (brothers). Children and brothers ought to be obedient ethical agents based on their membership and consequent requirements within the family of God. These familial terms firmly locate the ethics of the Letter within the conventions of ancient families.20 These conventions form an important framework for interpreting the ethics of John within its socio-cultural and religious context.

16

1J 3:1, 2, 10; 5:2. 1J 2:29–3:11; 5:2. Pilch and Malina (1993:70) remark, ‘Staunch loyalty to the family and obedience to family authorities are constant features of the culture reflected in the Bible’. 18 1J 2:9, 10, 11; 3:10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17; 4:20, 21; 5:16. Cf. Lassen (1992:247–62) and Klauck (1991:277–78) on the term brother. The masculine use is typical of the grammar as well as mode of reference in antiquity. Hermeneutically speaking the term ‘brother’ semantically includes the congregation as a whole, irrespective of gender. 19 Klauck (1991:277) reminds us that the term ‘brothers’ was common in Jewish contexts (i.e. the First Testament, Qumran, Essenes) to refer to religious groups, creating the idea of being united by ties of blood. 20 Cf. Vol. 1, 149–67. 17

Chapter 2: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (1)

61

2.2.2 Membership in the family through birth, eternal life and faith 2.2.2.1 Birth of God as identity marker, motivating ethical behaviour Being born/begotten21 (γεννάοµαι) into the family of God22 is a key concept in John, describing the believer’s change of identity, that is, receiving eternal life by being begotten (γεννάοµαι) by God.23 As a defining and key moment in people’s lives, birth in ancient times determined not only people’s identity, but also their socio-cultural position, privileges and responsibilities, as well as legal status.24 By using the imagery of birth, the author actually combines several key areas of a person’s life affected by this change, not the least their identity and behaviour, since references to birth in the Letter are mostly networked with ethical concepts.25 By being begotten into the family of God,26 a person is re-socialized in terms of the transcendent family of God,27 which becomes the basic and determinative society within and towards which

21 There is an ongoing discussion about God the Father’s involvement in birth. Does the fact that the Father is involved in the birth of the children of God imply that the Father gives birth, or that the children are begotten? Or does this mean that God fulfils a motherly role? Deissler (1995:121), for instance, refers to passages in the First Testament where motherly language is used of God (cf. Jer 31:20; Num 11:12; Isa 49:15; 66:13). According to him, this is part of the image of God. He also laments the lack of emphasis on this motherly aspect in Christian writings. Cf. also Rusam (1993:113–17), who discusses the role of the mother in the process of birth and whether the expressions of birth in John might perhaps imply that God fulfils the role of a mother. Menken (2009) argues that ‘begotten’ and not ‘being born’ is the correct translation and understanding of the concept of birth in John, while according to others the possibility also exists that without implying sexual activity (of birth), a father could have been described in ancient times as the one giving birth, obviously in a patriarchal context. In 1J 3:9 such a possibility of the Father’s involvement is mentioned, where the seed of God is described to be in his child. 22 1J 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4. Cf. also Van der Watt (2004:1–22). 23 This is the case, both in the Gospel (cf. Vol. 1, 151–60) and in 1 John (4:7; 5:1). Trebilco (2019:501) emphasizes that birth expresses the priority of God’s salvific action. It comes purely from God and is continued in relation to God. Cf. also Schnackenburg (1984:168), Brown (1986:385) and Painter (2002:215–16). Klauck (1991:175–76) also notes that there are not many links to the First Testament when it comes to being begotten by God. 24 Cf. Josephus, Ant. 4.8.39 § 289. Philo, Decal. 118. Scholtissek (2000:368) reminded us: ‘Der Ursprung eines Menschen bestimmt und prägt bleibend sein Wesen, seine Existenz und Identität’. Cf. Golden (1990:102) and Malina and Neyrey (1991a:28). For a detailed discussion of the way Philo or Josephus thought of birth, cf. Rusam (1993:114–16). 25 Cf. the reference in 1J 5:18, however. 26 J 1:13; 3:3, 5. 27 Van der Watt (2000:161–393) and Turner (1976:276).

62

Section 1: The First Letter of John

such people orientate themselves, also when it comes to moral behaviour,28 acting according to the will of God, who is their Father. Excursus: Birth in antiquity29 Birth situated a person in terms of his or her status, social position and expectations, legal status, privileges and responsibilities, as Neyrey remarks, ‘notice of someone’s genealogy, ancestors, clan and parents constituted essential pieces of information about him’. 30 Apart from giving life to the child, parents31 had the responsibility to love, educate and care for their children.32 The love of the children is reciprocally motivated by the fact that the parents were the source of their being.33 The gift of life as well as the care taken by the parents in rearing the child obliged the children to return these gestures in gratitude34 by 28 Morgan (2007:166) notes that decisions on moral issues in ancient times, also in popular moral philosophy, were determined by group orientation – this suggests a ‘system in which being good means above all being good of one’s kind and where any action, so long as it is compatible with one’s kind, is acceptable. It also implies that one’s kind may be different in different circumstances’. The reason for this is that ‘popular wisdom never suggests that one can live well independently of society; it assumes that there will always be people to whom one will have to relate and on whom one will have to rely’. 29 For a more detailed description, cf. Vol. 1, 152–60. 30 Neyrey (1995:143). Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 8.3–5 remarked that love bound parents and children together. Epictetus gives a penetrating description of the duties of a ‘son’ in Book 2.19.7 of the Diatribai reported by Arrian: absolute help, respect, protection, etc. are required. Cf. also Philo, Spec. leg. 2.236. 31 This included both father and mother, although functionally some of their tasks differed. 32 In Proverbs remarks about this aspect abound. 33 Receiving life from parents underlies the importance of loyalty of children towards their parents in ancient families. Cicero (Off. 1.17.58) emphasizes the obligation parents lay on their children because they have done so much for them. Cf. also Seneca, Ben. 6.23.5. This is something which should be taken seriously and should influence the behaviour of the child for the rest of his or her life (Josephus, Ant. 4.8.39 § 289). For instance, the child should be severely punished if he or she ‘maltreats the authors of his life’, according to Philo, Spec. leg. 2.243. In Select Papyri 121 as translated by Shelton (1988:23) we read, ‘We ought to reserve as a goddess the mother who has given us birth, especially a mother as good and virtuous as ours’. 34 Gratitude was expressed not so much in words as in deeds. The truly good and grateful child will act in such a way that his parents are satisfied, implying that the child will act according to the parents’ will. Josephus (Ant. 4.8.24 §§ 260–264) clearly links the honour due to the parents to the loving care the parents have shown their children. This social convention explains why birth of God necessarily requires deeds according to the will of God. Hierocles (Off. 4.25.53) discusses the duties of a child towards his (her) parents in some detail. He starts his argument by noting, ‘we must begin with the assumption that the only measure of our gratitude to them is perpetual and unyielding eagerness to repay their beneficence, since, even if we were to do a great deal for them, that would still be far too inadequate … For what gain is so great to a child as piety and gratitude to his parents? … they are constant and unbidden friends and comrades, allies on all occasions and in all circumstances’.

Chapter 2: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (1)

63

being responsive and obedient,35 and thus honouring their parents.36 ‘The affection of children for their parents, like that of men for the gods, is the affection for what is good, and superior to oneself; for their parents have bestowed on them the greatest benefits in being the cause of their existence and rearing, and later of their education’.37 By denying or ignoring these obligations children were indeed regarded as acting against their social nature,38 which was regarded as ethically negative. This relationship between parent and child was inter alia based on reciprocity, in which, for instance, gifts by the parents like loving care were reciprocated by the child through obedience and showing honour to the parents. ‘As such, the father-child relationship was an asymmetrical, ongoing circle of exchange, sealed by the bond of kinship and maintained by mutual obligations toward one another’.39 In a family siblings ought to love one another because they share this common source, that is ‘being of the same blood’, and sharing the same ancestry. This identifies them with one another and constitutes them as unity and group, that is binding members of the family together in sharing the same being, so to speak, thus maintaining the honour of the family, by projecting a united and harmonious front to the outside world.40 The religious dimension should also not be overlooked. Parents were most often regarded as agents of God41 and children had to respond accordingly, showing pietas to their parents. Socially and religiously it was usually expected that a child should act according to the expectations of the family as it is expressed in the will of his/her father as the representative of the tradition and ethos of the family.42 Obviously, not all children were model children, as Cain clearly showed (3:11–12). 35 Gilbertson (1959:44) aptly remarks, ‘The principal duties of the children in this home were obedience and reverence’. 36 Cf. Ex 20:12. In Deus 17–18, Philo points out that honouring one’s parents results in honour and glory for oneself. Hierocles (Off. 4.25.53) describes family relations in the following words, ‘Children should therefore love their parents’ relatives and consider them worthy of care, as they also should their parents’ friends and in fact all whom they hold dear’. 37 Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 8.5 (translation from LCL). 38 Dio Chrysostom (Or. 12:42) says that ‘the goodwill and desire to serve which the offspring feel toward their parents is … present in them, untaught, as a gift of nature and as a result of acts of kindness received’. Schrenk (1967:950) points out that in the Greek situation a command to love one’s parents was superfluous; it was something natural. 39 Briones (2013:37). He also notes that these obligations lasted a lifetime: ‘children were obliged to reciprocate gratitude, loyalty, honour, and even provision when their parents became unable to support themselves, known as pietas (i.e. the obligation to fulfil one’s duties)’. 40 Cf. also Aasgaard (2002:524–25). 41 Philo (Decal. 120) opined, ‘for parents are the servants of God for the task of begetting children, and he who dishonours the servant dishonours also the Lord’. Josephus, Ant. 4.8.24 § 262 notes that ‘God also is distressed at acts of effrontery to a father, since he is himself father of the whole human race and regards himself as partner in the indignity done to those who bear the same title as himself, when they do not obtain from their children that which is their due’. Cf. also Christ (1984:10). 42 Cf. Lassen (1992:248, 254–55, 258–59) on both the Roman and the early Jewish situation and De Vaux (1974:20) on ancient Israel. Cf. also Schrenk (1967:949), Schrot

64

Section 1: The First Letter of John

Since birth of God results in a new identity as a child of God, the author makes sure to emphasize that a basic characteristic of this birth is that it leads to positive ethical behaviour. For instance, in 1J 2:29 identity and behaviour are directly linked, with an interesting rhetorical twist, starting from behaviour and then moving to identity. Correct behaviour ensures the person of his or her birth of God, as it is stated that ‘if you know that He43 is righteous …’ then: You know that everyone who does righteousness (ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην) has been born of Him. The righteousness of the believer ought to display the same qualitative nature as that of the Father of whom the believer is born. A clearer way to put this is to turn it around: birth into the family of God results in behaving like the Father (and Son) of that family, that is doing what is righteous. In 1J 3:9 (cf. also 5:1844) it is further explained that a person who is born of God (identity) does not commit sin (behaviour). The statement in 3:9 is more general than in 2:29, communicating the same message antithetically: A person who has been born of God does not and indeed cannot sin (but should do what is right), with an informative addition to the argument (3:9c): a person does not commit sin because he has God’s seed (σπέρµα) in him, a statement directly echoed by 3:9d–e where having the seed in him is paralleled with being born of God. This is ethically significant, since one of the reasons for not committing sin, lies in the person himself, in whom the ‘seed of God’ abides (v. 9c). Believers behave as they do because of who they are. Although there are ample references to the teaching of the Spirit who guides believers, that is external reasons for a particular behaviour, a primary motivation for correct behaviour comes from within believers themselves, based on their birth, that is, having God’s seed in them. Excursus: God’s seed (σπέρµα αὐτοῦ) in 1J 3:9 A basic statement in 1J 3:9, may be summarized as such: a person cannot sin (= behaviour) (because) who is born of God (= identity).45 This statement is expanded with the words ‘because His seed abides in him’. The reference to ‘seed’ (σπέρµα) is of course the source of wide speculation.46 Brown47 provides a valuable overview of some of the possibilities (1979:511–12), Christ (1984:10), Rawson 1987:7), Shelton (1988:18), Gielen (1990:135), Malina and Neyrey (1991a:26) and Dixon (1991:131, 138). 43 The subject of doing righteousness in 1J 2:29 is not clear – it may refer either to the Father or Jesus. Painter (2002:ad loc.) favours the Father while Schnackenburg (1984:166) and Strecker (1989:146–47) prefer Jesus as subject. The reference to birth at the end of 2:29 can only refer to the Father. 44 1J 5:18, ‘We know that anyone born of God does not sin’. 45 Cf. also 1J 2:29 and 3:4, 6, 9; 5:18. Dryden (1998:85–100). 46 Cf. Brown (1986:408–11) and Strecker (1989:171). 47 Brown (1986:408–11).

Chapter 2: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (1)

65

for understanding ‘seed’. He, like others,48 distinguishes between two basic semantic possibilities, namely, i) that seed might refer to ‘descendants’ (seed of Abraham = descendants of Abraham49) or ii) it might refer to the ‘male generating seed’. i) If the term ‘seed’ refers to descendants, the two possible references are Jesus or Christians. In the case of Jesus it would mean that Jesus (seed) abides in him (= Christian). If the reference is to Christians, it would mean that the Christian (seed) abides in Him (= God). Brown is understandably not very positive about either of these two possibilities.50 ii) If the term ‘seed’ denotes the male seed that refers to the generative power in causing life,51 the reference is to the seed of God who is the one who gives birth. Painter opines that one should not interpret this biologically (i.e. literally), but should interpret it as an image, namely, that as the male sperm generates life, so does the ‘sperm’ of God. This imagery then suggests that the seed is not only a power causing life, but one that continues to work in the believer and determines his or her reality.52 Several other possibilities are also proposed, for instance, that the seed symbolizes a spiritual reality, for instance, the new life from God, new nature from God (i.e. God’s nature53), God’s word,54 His grace, or the Holy Spirit.55 Within this array of possibilities, Brown then concludes, ‘in the long run the exact identification is not so important, so long as we recognize that the author is talking about a divine agency for begetting God’s children, which not only brings us into being but also remains and keeps us His children’,56 while Strecker opines that the author focuses on ‘das, was den Christen mit Gott verbindet und in ihm Wohnung nimmt’.57 Painter58 opts not for ‘either/or’ but for ‘and/and’ – because the reference is unclear, he argues that it should be assumed that the reference is more general, including both God’s word and the Spirit. One further possibility might however still be considered. Brown refers to the ‘crude anthropomorphism involved in speaking of God’s sperm’,59 a possibility that is often dismissed as problematic because of the explicit biological image suggested. If this analogy is taken seriously, it is possible that the ancient idea holds, namely, that the seed of the male contributes life as well as the character of that male (and family), and if one has the seed of that male, one also shares in his character, that is, life mediated through the seed determines a person’s personality and character in line with the character of the one whose seed it is.60 48

Cf. Strecker (1989:171–72), Klauck (1991:193) and Painter (2002:224–25). Cf. J 7:42; 8:33, 37. 50 Cf. also Klauck (1991:193) and Painter (2002:224). 51 Cf. Klauck (1991:193). 52 Ibid. 53 So the RSV. 54 Cf. Strecker (1989:171). 55 Cf. ibid. 171–72. Schnackenburg (1984:190–91) and Klauck (1991:194) opine that ‘seed’ can only refer to the Holy Spirit, since the Spirit is closely associated with giving life (cf. J 3:6) and is continually with believers. 56 Brown (1986:411). 57 Strecker (1989:172). 58 Painter (2002:224, 229–30). 59 Brown (1986:409). 60 Cf. Neyrey (1995:143), Roth (2000:189), Asher-Greve (2002:16) and Lincoln (2014:42–49). Levine (2002:341–42) concludes that in the Hebrew Bible there is no evidence that the woman contributes a form of life essence to the process, but serves as nurturer. The male gives the seed that grows inside the womb. The male partner’s seed was 49

66

Section 1: The First Letter of John

If seed is understood in this sense, the statement in 3:9 might be paraphrased as follows: a person will not and cannot sin because he or she is born of God, since the characteristics of God are given to him or her through the seed of God. In the same context, namely, 3:6, a similar statement is made, namely, that he who abides in Him does not sin (πᾶς ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ µένων οὐχ ἁµαρτάνει). Here the permanent presence of God’s functional influence in the life of the believer is suggested, which echoes what is suggested in 3:9. In the immediate context the children of God are contrasted with the children of the devil – because they are what they are, they behave as they behave. This is inherent in their personalities – the devil sins from the beginning (3:8) and so will his children (3:10). This possibility indeed offers a plausible and logic understanding of the reference to ‘seed’ in 3:9.

The birth imagery also explains the reason for mutual love within a family, since whoever loves the parent should love the child (5:1–3), an assumption based on ancient family conventions that the author fully accepts. This also applies to the family of God: a child of God, who loves the Father, should love his fellow siblings also (4:21). In 1J 3:1 there is a variation on the theme of being begotten by God (cf. 2:29). Being a child of God is the result of God’s love, since believers may now be called children of God.61 Here the focus is on the status (after birth) of being called children of God by the loving Father. This remark is sometimes interpreted in terms of adoption,62 but this is not convincing in this context where there are also direct references to being begotten, that is birth.63 Different reasons are proposed for this double confirmation of being the Father’s child. Brown understands ‘being called children’ as an echo of Israel being called a nation by the ‘covenant-God’. The readers are reminded that they are part of this loving action by God ‘calling to Himself this people who constitute His children’.64 Their status will therefore be known publicly.65 Strecker again proposes that calling ‘us’ the children of God refers to a seen as dominant and the source of procreation that gave the ‘life’ to the woman, while the role of the woman was to receive this life, incubate, nourish and give form to it. Reference is often made in literature to the influential Aristotelian view that the body of the woman is the receptacle for the man’s semen that provides the logos (rational cause) and pneuma (vital heat/animating spirit). 61 1a Ἴδετε ποταπὴν ἀγάπην δέδωκεν ἡµῖν ὁ πατήρ, See what love the Father has given to us 1b 1c ἵνα τέκνα θεοῦ κληθῶµεν, καὶ ἐσµέν. that we may be called children of God and we are. 62 Painter (2002:219). Cf. also J 1:12–13 that is sometimes (to my mind wrongfully) understood as adoption. Adoption is a typical Pauline concept that is not explicitly discernible in John. Birth is how one becomes a member of the family of God in John. 63 Cf. the direct context: 1J 2:29; 3:9. Klauck (1991:179) notes the link between birth in 2:29 and being called children of God in 3:1, pointing out that these expressions are not identical, but are contextually related. Cf. also Brown (1986:422). 64 Brown (1986:423). 65 Ibid. 388.

Chapter 2: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (1)

67

futuristic eschatological event when God will declare ‘us’ children of God.66 The second statement, namely, ‘we are children’ in 3:1c, would then refer to the present state of believers. Klauck associates another aspect of ancient culture with the Father calling ‘us’ his children. Names in ancient times were ‘eine reale Aussage über das Wesen des Namensträgers’.67 God himself declares the new identity of who believers are, and therefore it cannot be doubted – that is who they are. A plausible possibility of understanding the action of being called His children might be related to Graeco-Roman practices of the paterfamilias who, after birth, formally had to name the new-born baby as part of his family. The naming ceremony was called the amphidromia in ancient Greece, and took place between the fifth and seventh day after a child was born, while in Rome it was called a lustratio and usually took place nine days after birth. At these festivities the child was introduced to the guests.68 Supporting this view is the remark in 3:1 that the world does not know them, because they do not know the Father. The new-born was introduced to the guests at the festivities, and obviously ‘enemies’ were not present and would not recognize or know the new-born. Be that as it may, the basis for this ‘salvific’ action is God’s great love, a theme that forms the focus from 3:10 to 5:4. The childhood of the believer is grounded in and motivated by God’s love – He is the source not only of love, but also of salvation, that is becoming a child of God through birth thus receiving a new identity. In sum, the image of birth, establishing the identity of believers as children of God, informs the grammar of ethics by explaining and motivating why believers should behave in a particular way. Rhetorically, birth serves as identity marker, indicating the point where a person’s identity changes from death to life, the person becoming a child of God with the status and expectations that go with it. This whole process started with and is imbedded in God’s love. 2.2.2.2 Eternal life and ethics in 1 John Earthly birth in this world results in life, which is by analogy true of the spiritual birth (of God) resulting in eternal life.69 The terms birth/life metaphorically express the process of becoming and being part of the family 66

Strecker (1989:152). Klauck (1991:180). 68 The Johannine use of Graeco-Roman social and cultural conventions alongside typical Jewish ones is common and also a characteristic of the Hellenistic influence on the Letter. Cf., e.g., the reference to friendship in J 15:13, or the use of the concept of truth, Addendum 7. 69 The word-group ζῶ/ζωή (αἰώνιος) refers exclusively to (eternal) life in the Letter. Cf. Vol. 1, 160–63. 67

68

Section 1: The First Letter of John

of God. Birth, as once-off process, focuses on the moment a person receives life (becomes alive) also determining the nature of that life. On the other hand, life is not a stagnant gift, but a state of existence, referring to a person’s ability to be part of God’s family, by actively partaking in the activities of the family of God, that is to love, obey, know, enter into relationships, communicate with the Father, and so on.70 Living within this divine familial reality implies actions, obligations and expectations that determine ethical behaviour. That is why some71 use the term ‘life ethics’, emphasizing that ethical behaviour within the family of God is the result of having eternal life. Unlike the Gospel,72 the main emphasis in 1 John falls on birth rather than on eternal life, even though one of the reasons for writing the Letter is stated in 5:13: ‘These things I write to you so that you know that you have eternal life, you that believe in the name of the Son of God’, following on the statement in 5:12, ‘He who has the Son has life’.73 This, of course, echoes J 20:30–31. These phrases emphasize that eternal life is revealed and made available in this world through the incarnated Jesus,74 who is life (5:20) and who brings life (5:12–13). Though the concept of birth is well networked with concepts related to ethics, this does not fully apply to the concept of life, as the following table shows. Verse 1:2

2:25

3:14

3:15

70

Text καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη, καὶ ἑωράκαµεν καὶ µαρτυροῦµεν καὶ ἀπαγγέλλοµεν ὑµῖν τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡµῖν75 καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐπαγγελία ἣν αὐτὸς ἐπηγγείλατο ἡµῖν, τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον76 ἡµεῖς οἴδαµεν ὅτι µεταβεβήκαµεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν, ὅτι ἀγαπῶµεν τοὺς ἀδελφούς77 καὶ οἴδατε ὅτι πᾶς ἀνθρωποκτόνος οὐκ ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἐν αὐτῷ µένουσαν78

Function No ethical focus. The focus is on Christology.

No ethical focus. Emphasis is on the message and unity with the Father and Son. Ethical focus. Having eternal life and loving one’s fellow Christian go hand in hand. Ethical focus. Eternal life and hateful (murderous) acts are mutually exclusive.

Van der Watt (2000:203). Cf. also Stare (2012:227). Cf. Zimmermann (2012) and Stare (2012). 72 Cf. Vol. 1, 151–63. 73 Cf. also 1J 1:1; 5:20. 74 Cf. 1J 1:1–2; 2:25; 4:9; 5:11–13. 75 ESV translates, ‘the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us’. 76 ‘And this is the promise he promised us – eternal life’. 77 ESV translates, ‘We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers’. 78 ESV translates, ‘and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him’. 71

Chapter 2: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (1) 4:9

5:11

5:12 5:13

ἐν τούτῳ ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ἡµῖν, ὅτι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν µονογενῆ ἀπέσταλκεν ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν κόσµον ἵνα ζήσωµεν διʼ αὐτοῦ79 Καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ µαρτυρία, ὅτι ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔδωκεν ἡµῖν ὁ θεός, καὶ αὕτη ἡ ζωὴ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν.80 ὁ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει τὴν ζωήν· ὁ µὴ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν ζωὴν οὐκ ἔχει.81 ὅτι ζωὴν ἔχετε αἰώνιον, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνοµα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ82

5:16

αἰτήσει καὶ δώσει αὐτῷ ζωήν, τοῖς ἁµαρτάνουσιν µὴ πρὸς θάνατον83

5:20

καὶ ἐσµὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ84

69

Indirect ethical focus. God’s love (illustrated through the mission of Jesus) leads to receiving life. No ethical focus. The focus is on the testimony of God and on Christology. No ethical focus. The focus is on Christology. Indirect ethical focus. People have eternal life because they believe (as ethical action). Indirect ethical focus. God will give life to those who sin, but are prayed for. No ethical focus. The focus is on Christology.

Only in the Cain episode (3:14–15) life and ethical behaviour (mutual love vs. sin) are directly interconnected. It confirms the general emphasis in the Letter that children of God should love their fellow Christians. In some other cases life is networked with the love of God (4:9) or faith (5:13) but do not focus directly on ethical behaviour. As such, references to life contribute little to the grammar of ethics of the Letter.85 The author prefers the concept of birth to express his ethical ideas. The network of family imagery is of course wider than simply birth and life. It includes love for the Father and fellow members of God’s family (4:21–5:2), knowing and understanding God the Father and his Son (4:7; 5:20), protection of the one born of God against the evil one (5:18), care for brothers by helping those in need (3:16–17), obeying his commandments (3:22; 5:2–4) or asking of him according to his will what we need (3:22; 5:13– 15). Concepts like love, care, obeying commandments or prayer are all aspects explaining and motivating the grammar of ethics against the background of familial conventions.86

79

‘In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his unique Son into the world, so that we might live through him’. 80 ‘ And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son’. 81 ESV translates, ‘Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life’. 82 ‘… that you have eternal life, for those who believe in the name of the Son of God’. 83 ‘… he shall ask, and He will give him life, to those who sin not unto death’. 84 ‘We are in him who is true, in his Son, Jesus Christ’. 85 An important difference between the Gospel and Letter is that ethics in the Letter is more directly developed in terms of birth, while the Gospel develops ethics more directly in terms of eternal life. 86 These themes are discussed elsewhere (cf. subsection 2.2 above) in more detail and need no further treatment here.

70

Section 1: The First Letter of John

In sum, the concepts of birth and life activate the family metaphor as a basis for expressing and motivating key aspects of the grammar of ethics of the Letter according to the conventions and ethos of the family. Being born of God into eternal life obliges the children of God to obey the commandments and do the will of the Father, especially by loving God and one another and thus protecting the family and its members. No ethical neutrality is possible – you are either spiritually dead or you are spiritually alive, you either love as a child of God or hate as a child of the devil. You either know God or you do not. 2.2.2.3 Faith, in tandem with birth, changes identity Faith and birth in Johannine ethics are indeed two sides of the same coin,87 namely, functionally referring to two aspects within the process of receiving eternal live: in the process of a person becoming a child of God, believing in Jesus is what a person does and begetting such a believer is what God does. One of the reasons for writing the Letter is stated in 5:13: ‘These things I write to you so that you know that you have eternal life, you that believe in (τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς) the name of the Son of God’.88 The following table offers an overview of the use of πιστεύω/πίστις – in the sense of believing in Jesus/God89 – in 1 John (note the focus on chapter 5). Verse 3:23 (verb)

5:1 (verb)

5:5 (verb)

5:10 (verb)

87

Statement καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐντολὴ αὐτοῦ, ἵνα πιστεύσωµεν τῷ ὀνόµατι τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἀγαπῶµεν ἀλλήλους90 Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται91 τίς [δέ] ἐστιν ὁ νικῶν τὸν κόσµον εἰ µὴ ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ;92 ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ἔχει τὴν µαρτυρίαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, ὁ µὴ πιστεύων τῷ θεῷ ψεύστην πεποίηκεν αὐτόν, ὅτι οὐ πεπίστευκεν εἰς

Remarks * Faith is in the Son, Jesus Christ * Faith and love closely linked * Faith is a command * Faith is in Christ * Faith and birth two sides of the same coin * Faith is in Jesus, the Son of God

* Faith is in the Son of God [* Believe God’s witness about his Son who brings eternal life – v. 11]

Cf. Vol. 1, 117–35, 152–60. Cf. also 1J 1:1; 5:20. 89 References like 1J 4:1, 16 are not included. For a more detailed discussion on the grammatical uses of faith in the Letter, cf. Brown (1986:463). 90 ‘And this is His commandment: that we should believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another’. 91 ‘Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God’. 92 ‘Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?’. 88

Chapter 2: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (1)

5:13 (verb)

5:4 (noun)

τὴν µαρτυρίαν ἣν µεµαρτύρηκεν ὁ θεὸς περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ.93 Ταῦτα ἔγραψα ὑµῖν ἵνα εἰδῆτε ὅτι ζωὴν ἔχετε αἰώνιον, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνοµα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ.94 ὅτι πᾶν τὸ γεγεννηµένον ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ νικᾷ τὸν κόσµον· καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ νίκη ἡ νικήσασα τὸν κόσµον, ἡ πίστις ἡµῶν.95

71

* Faith is in the Son of God * Faith and eternal life closely linked * Faith causes victory * Faith and birth closely linked

In the Gospel the concept of authentic salvific faith is a key theme96 and may be described as a self-sacrificing, intellectual and existential acceptance of Jesus’ message and person to the extent that it completely transforms a person’s thoughts and deeds in accordance with this message and leads to an obedient life of doing what a child of God should do.97 The concept of faith is not developed to the same extent in 1 John, but similarities are displayed that suggest conceptual agreement with what is described in more detail in the Gospel. Firstly, the focus in 1 John is on faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, which is also the main focus in the Gospel (cf. J 6:29). However, Lieu98 correctly notes that in the Letter ‘belief that’ (content) rather than ‘belief in (commitment)’ is more in focus. Painter similarly remarks, ‘In John the problem is not unbelief but false belief. Consequently the whole weight of the treatment of belief falls on the correct content …’.99 Faith in Jesus Christ is closely connected to the correct confession. Secondly, faith and birth of God lead to eternal life that is characterized and expressed in love. The synergy between faith and birth is explicitly stated in 5:1, 4, 13, where faith in Jesus leads to birth of God (i.e. receiving eternal life and becoming God’s child):100 ‘Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God’ (5:1). As was the case in the Gospel, faith and birth are two sides of the same coin: a person is born of God (an action only God can perform) by believing in his Son (a human action). Thus both God and humans

93 ‘ He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of his Son’. 94 ‘These things I have written to you that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God’. 95 ‘For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world, our faith’. 96 Cf. Vol. 1, 117–35. 97 Cf. Vol. 1, 146–47. 98 Lieu (1991:101). 99 Painter (2002:99). 100 That this was the case in the Gospel – cf. J 6:29 (cf. Vol. 1, 117–29, 152–60).

72

Section 1: The First Letter of John

are involved when it comes to salvation: faith and birth result in having eternal life, being a child in God’s family. Thirdly, faith and love are together described as two aspects of God’s commandment (3:23) that if kept, illustrate the unity between God and believers (3:24): ‘For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments’ (5:3). Believing, as commandment, suggests that a basic ethical action,101 that is to accept Jesus, his mission and his message with conviction, is already doing what pleases God (3:22).102 This total existential acceptance of Jesus and what he stands for and reveals, involves not only true confession, but deeds done in truth (3:18): ‘through faith we learn about love’103 – that is first comes the vertical action of faith and then the horizontal continuation in love.

2.3 The role of Immanenz, that is unity by ‘abiding/remaining/ being in’, in the grammar of ethics The unity (Immanenz) between God the Father, the Son, the Spirit and believers is central to the arguments on ethics in the Letter104 and is expressed in varied and sometimes complex ways.105 Scholtissek’s remark on the Gospel also rings true for the Letter, ‘Die joh[anneische] Immanenz-Theologie ist eingeschrieben in verschiedene biblische oder zeitgenössische Bildfelder bzw. ethische Paradigmen, die sie aufgreift, adaptiert und mit der ihr eigenen Hermeneutik, dem Kanon der Vater-Sohn-Beziehung, interpretiert’.106 A variety of options of (P)persons or even qualities being/abiding in one another is found in the Letter; for instance, God being/abiding in the believer, the Spirit in the believer, the believer in God, the believer in Christ, the believer in God and God in the believer, the believer in Father and Son, love, God’s word or commandments in the believer all pointing to the unity (Immanenz) of these different characters. 101

Cf. Vol. 1, 117–35. Brown (1986:481) argues that a reason why faith is linked to an action, is because the Letter’s ‘theology has been shaped in controversy that required public confessions of faith’. 103 Ibid. 482. 104 Lieu (1986:200–201) correctly remarks, ‘The individual believer and the community as a whole are determined in the present through their relationship with God. It is this relationship which is the very meaning of their existence as believers’. 105 References to Immanenz occur often in the Letter, e.g., in 3:24; 4:13, 15, 16. Cf. Vol. 1, 211–20. Schnackenburg (1984:66–72, 105–10). Brown (1986:482) calls the expression ‘remaining in’ the ‘closest type of intimate union’. Menken (2010:77) links the reference to the Spirit here to J 14:16–17, 26; 15:26; 16:7–11, 13–15. Lieu (1991:43) also points out that Immanenz indicates more than a simple space inhabited, but does not imply ‘a mystical indwelling or union which annuls the separate identity of God or of the believer’. Cf. also Brown (1986:195–96), Klauck (1991:225, 264–68), Scholtissek (2000), Painter (2002:252). 106 Scholtissek (2000:316). 102

Chapter 2: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (1)

73

The Immanenzformeln107 like ‘to remain in’ (µένω with ἐν) or ‘to be in’ (εἰµι with ἐν),108 mainly refer to close relations between (P)people or unity in which (abstract) power or influence is transferred from one to the other. For instance, to stay in God’s love means to be influenced to act and think according to the principles of love as they were taught by God the Father (who is love) and revealed through Jesus. Brown109 rightly remarks that this ‘shows how far the author is from a legalistic understanding of keeping the twofold commandment’. A key word in the Immanenzformeln is the preposition ‘in’ (ἐν), a word with a complex lexicographical potential, making precise semantic description difficult.110 Important for our purposes is that a potential lexicographical meaning111 of the word is described as ‘a marker of close personal association’112 ‘in which the referent of the ἐν-term is viewed as the controlling influence’113 – ‘in union with, joined closely to’,114 ‘figuratively, of persons, to indicate the state of being filled with or gripped by something: in someone = in one’s 107 The word Immanenz (German for immanence or close unity) has become a technical term for the multiple Johannine expressions referring to unity, as Schnackenburg (1984:105) indicates. Cf. also Scholtissek (2000), Schnelle (2010:165) and Lieu (1991:41–45). The Immanenzformeln are discussed in some detail elsewhere (cf. Brown 1986:195–96). 108 The possible differences between these expressions will not be argued here, since they do not have significant impact on the ethical data. Scholtissek (2000:151, 310) in any case argues, with others such as Borig (1967:216), that these phrases are used as synonyms, ‘except that menein has the added note of permanence’. Smalley (2002:50) likewise notes that the expressions ‘to be or exist in him’ (ἐν αὐτῷ εἶναι) and ‘to abide in him’ (ἐν αὐτῷ µένειν) are used synonymously and that they should be read in parallel with ‘knowing God’ (ἔγνωκα αὐτόν, 2:4), since they describe an intimate relationship between the believer and God/Jesus. Borig (1967:216) also argues that the nuance in meaning is negligible. Cf. also Brown (1966:510). Others make finer distinctions, like Fischer (1975:71) who opines that menein adds a ‘willentlich-personales Element’ in some cases. This is not part of the semantics of the word, however, but of the associative contexts within which the word is used. 109 Brown (1986:482). 110 ‘The uses of this preposition are so many and various, and often so easily confused, that a strictly systematic treatment is impossible. It must suffice to list the main categories, which will help establish the usage in individual cases’ (Arndt et al. 2000:326). For full treatment cf., e.g., Arndt et al. (2000:ad loc.), Louw and Nida (1996:ad loc.), Liddell and Scott (1996:ad loc.). 111 It obviously also has other semantic functions, like referring to location or instrument, but these uses, that do not directly refer to unity, are not considered here. Some other possibilities include that it serves as a ‘marker of circumstance or condition under which something takes place’ (Arndt et al. 2000:329), it is a ‘marker of a position defined as being in a location, in, among’ (ibid. 326) or it could also be used as a ‘marker of a state or condition, in’ (ibid. 327). 112 Louw and Nida (1996:792). 113 Arndt et al. (2000:327). 114 Louw and Nida (1996:792).

74

Section 1: The First Letter of John

innermost being’ or ‘under the control of, under the influence of, in close association with’.115 This potential use is prominent in the Letter, as will become evident in the following discussion. 2.3.1 Unity and Immanenz among (P)persons Unity in the Letter is inter alia expressed in the mutual relationships between the characters, that is God the Father, the Son, the Spirit and the believer. When unity is mentioned, an explanation is always given in the context, indicating why it might be said that X is in Y. For instance, if it is said that believers are in God, there is reference to them keeping God’s word, or living as Jesus lived (2:5–6). In this way the author clearly indicates how unity should be understood.116 The concept of ‘abiding in’ (µένω with ἐν) is key to the understanding of the unity expressed in the Letter. From different dictionaries117 the following relevant lexicographical meanings may be noted: – An object remains or stays where the object is118 or alternately does not leave a realm or sphere, that is to remain, abide, continue, namely, the object remains in the same state or continues in an activity.119 – An object continues to exist or live, remain or persist.120 – A person abides by an opinion or conviction.121 Closely related is the use of εἰµι with ἐν (‘to be in’), sharing the semantic scope of abiding in. Louw and Nida122 think this phrase could be an idiom, meaning ‘to continue to perform certain activities with care and concern – “to practice, to continue to do, to cultivate”’. However, in the Letter the semantic range is wider.

2.3.1.1 Immanenz (unity) among the (C)characters a) God the Father From the outset, relational closeness and co-operation between God and believers are emphasized, for instance, they have koinōnia, believe or walk in the light as God is light (1:3–7). The expressions of unity describe God’s close involvement with the believers, sharing and influencing them, as well as how believers respond by obediently living in close proximity to this presence of God with them. This close relational dynamics, sharing and influencing, obeying and responding, loving and caring, are functional expressions of Immanenz. 115

Arndt et al. (2000:327). Cf. Addendum 5 on unity for a detailed list. 117 Their descriptions of the possibilities of the word are not all the same, but some significant overlap does exist. 118 Arndt et al. (2000:630). 119 Ibid. 631; Louw and Nida (1996:655). 120 Arndt et al. (2000:631); Louw and Nida (1996:158). 121 Liddell and Scott (1996:1103). 122 Louw and Nida (1996:655). 116

Chapter 2: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (1)

75

God is said to abide in believers123 always accompanied with reasons why this is so: Verses 3:24 3:24 4:13 4:12 4:16 4:15

God abides in us/him µένει (καὶ) αὐτὸς ἐν αὐτῷ µένει ἐν ἡµῖν αὐτὸς ἐν ἡµῖν ὁ θεὸς ἐν ἡµῖν µένει ὁ θεὸς ἐν αὐτῷ µένει ὁ θεὸς ἐν αὐτῷ µένει

Reason ὁ τηρῶν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ124 ἐκ τοῦ πνεύµατος οὗ ἡµῖν ἔδωκεν125 ἐκ τοῦ πνεύµατος αὐτοῦ δέδωκεν ἡµῖν126 ἐὰν ἀγαπῶµεν ἀλλήλους127 ὁ µένων ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ128 ὃς ἐὰν ὁµολογήσῃ ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ129

Reasons why it may be said that God abides in ‘us’ are as follows: – God has given his Spirit to believers. – Believers confess that Jesus is the Son of God. – Believers keep his commandments in them. – Believers abide in God’s love and love one another. People may be sure God abides in them when the following integrated situational description is true of them. God has given them of his Spirit that translates into the guidance and influence of the Spirit of truth. The Spirit teaches believers the truth and confirms it, especially regarding the true confession that Jesus is the incarnated Son of God. Believers accordingly obey God’s commandments, not only believing in Jesus but also loving one another. This description comes close to an essential summary of what it means to be a child of God. God abiding in a person implies that God’s presence in that person through his Spirit leads to unity in knowledge, thought and functionality. This confirms the centrality of Immanenz in the Letter’s grammar of ethics. The fact that Immanenz is expressed in the synergy of relational and functional terms, means that this is not a physical, ontological unity, that is, that believers and God physically unite (like ink mixed in water) so that believers become ‘semi-gods’. Neither should this unity be interpreted in mystical terms, that is, that somehow God and the believer exist in a mystical unity. To the contrary, being relational, the unity may be observed in the functional influence of the object on the subject that results in obedience and correct ethical behaviour.130 123

The remark in 1J 4:4, namely, that ‘he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world’, most probably refers to ‘among’ people as occupant of space. 124 ‘He who keeps his commandments’. 125 ‘Of the Spirit he has given us’. 126 ‘He has given us of his Spirit’. 127 ‘If we love one another’. 128 ‘He who abides in love’. 129 ‘He who confesses that Jesus is the Son of God’. 130 As example and by analogy: a teacher teaches a child – the child behaves according to the teachings of the teacher – that means, the teacher abides in the child through his or

76

Section 1: The First Letter of John

b) Jesus Christ, the Son The unity between Jesus and believers is an important theme in the Gospel, as the image of the vine and branches (J 15:1–8) shows.131 It is therefore somewhat surprising that no mention is made in the Letter of Jesus being in the believers, although the believers are said to abide in Jesus. The reason might lie in the nature of the conflict.132 The author consistently focuses on Theology rather than Christology, avoiding Christological arguments. He simply confirms the correct confession without any argument. His strategy seems to be to depart from the common acceptance (presumably of the opponents also) of God as the true God of light and love. With this acceptance of God he continues to describe the incarnated Jesus as God’s Son, who has koinōnia with God and whom he, as the God of love, sent to the world to bring eternal life (4:9–10). In this way the author rhetorically links the acceptance of God to the acceptance of Jesus, warning that whoever does not accept Jesus does not accept God the Father either (2:22–25). c) The Holy Spirit Statements in 3:24 and 4:13133 and possibly 2:27 specifically express the close connection between the Spirit134 and the concept of Immanenz. Schnackenburg correctly notes, ‘An den zwei Stellen, wo ausdrücklich vom Geistbesitz des Christen die Rede ist (3,24; 4,13), wird er als ein Kennzeichen der Gottesgemeinschaft gewertet’.135 In these two references it is not claimed that the Spirit abides in believers, but that believers have (received) of his Spirit,136 a gift that serves as proof of the mutual unity between God and believers (3:24). Firstly, 1J 3:23–24 refers to keeping the commandments of God (i.e. believe in the name of Jesus and love one another) which proves that God abides in the person who keeps the commandments and vice versa. It is then stated (3:24), ‘in/by137 this “we” know that He [= God] abides in “us” (µένει her functional influence. The teacher does not physically merge with the person of the child, but is in an abstract functional way active in the behaviour (and thoughts) of the child. 131 Cf. Vol. 1, 214–16. 132 1J 2:22; 4:2. 133 Cf. also Schnackenburg (1984:208), Klauck (1991:256) and Painter (2002:274). 134 The Spirit is mentioned several times in the Letter, e.g. 3:24; 4:1, 2, 3, 6, 13; 5:6. If the concept of ‘anointment’ (χρῖσµα) is interpreted as a (symbolic) reference to the Spirit, 2:20, 27 may be added. 135 Schnackenburg (1984:209). 136 On the meaning of ‘of his Spirit’, cf. Klauck (1991:256). Schnackenburg (1984:241) opines that this phrase was a general and stereotyped expression most probably belonging to early Christian catechism. 137 It is of course a question whether the reference to the Spirit, following the phrase ‘in this we know’ in 3:24 refers to what precedes or to what follows. It might be a bridge

Chapter 2: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (1)

77

ἐν ἡµῖν), by the Spirit whom He has given us’ (ἐκ τοῦ πνεύµατος οὗ ἡµῖν ἔδωκεν). Klauck138 correctly notes that this remark refers back to the unity between God and the believers who obey his commandments, suggesting that the Spirit influences and enables believers to keep the commandments,139 as well as guiding them in the correct Christological confession (4:1–6).140 Secondly, in 1J 4:13141 the Immanenz between God and believers is networked with the gift of the Spirit by the Father.142 Mention of this gift of the Spirit, that is believers having the Spirit, is directly linked to the confession of Jesus as Son of God and Saviour of this world (4:14–15), as well as through mutual love for one another.143 Thirdly, if the references to anointing in 2:20–27 are to the Spirit,144 which is most probably so, they refer to the Spirit abiding in believers. The anointing, that abides in them, leads to knowledge, since the anointing teaches believers everything they need to know (2:27). This also involves the confession of the Son and the Father (2:22–23), a message they heard from the beginning and that defines and influences (‘abides in’) them (2:24–27). This unity leads to believers having the correct knowledge of and insight into the teachings of and tradition about Jesus that result in the correct confession of Jesus.145 The Spirit’s presence in a person, as proof of God’s Immanenz in a believer and vice versa, refers mainly to the transference of functional influence and power: the correct confession is the audible and visible result of the Spirit influencing and guiding the believer. The author insists that when this

phrase, linked to both what precedes and what follows, although Brown (1986:465) wants to place the emphasis on what follows. 138 Cf. Klauck (1991:225). 139 Arndt et al. (2000:328) remark that ‘the expression ἐν πν. εἶναι is also used to express the idea that someone is under the special influence of a good or even an undesirable spirit – ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ κεῖσθαι be in the power of the evil one 1J 5:19’. Cf. Schnackenburg (1984:208). 140 Menken (2010:77) links the references to the Spirit in 1 John to J 14:16–17, 26; 15:26; 16:7–11, 13–15. Cf. Schnackenburg (1984:208) and Strecker (1989:206). 141 4:13a 13b Ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκοµεν ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ µένοµεν καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν ἡµῖν, By this we know that in Him we abide, and He in us 13c ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ πνεύµατος αὐτοῦ δέδωκεν ἡµῖν. because He has given us of His Spirit. 142 Cf. Schnackenburg (1984:242). Painter’s (2002:252) view that ‘neither 3:24 nor 4:13 specifies how the gift of the Spirit is manifest or recognized’ does not take the context into account and is not accurate. 143 If the phrase ‘by this’ in 4:13a refers to the previous verse then it would imply that the Spirit also influences actions of authentic love, as Schnackenburg (1984:241) argues. 144 Cf. subsection 5.8.2 below. Cf. also Schnackenburg (1984:208–209), Strecker (1989:205, 241) and Klauck (1991:225). 145 Schnackenburg (1984:209) points out that this experience is something different from visible charismatic expressions.

78

Section 1: The First Letter of John

functional power and influence are present, leading to authentic and visible confession, this proves that God is in the person (i.e. of Immanenz between God and believer).146 c) Children of God References to believers abiding in the Father or the Son are also all linked to reasons for claiming such Immanenz. However, there is, an important difference between believers ‘abiding in’ and God or the Spirit ‘abiding in’, that corresponds to the hierarchical difference between God and believers. God influences and believers are influenced. Believers who ‘abide in’ are exposed to a space (e.g. God’s family) where God’s influence is dominant, resulting in obedience to the Father’s will and commandments – for believers ‘abiding in’ is a matter of being influenced. Believers ‘abide in’ God (the Father and/or the Son) as well as in qualities related to God. The instances where believers abide in God (cf. table below147) will receive attention first. Verses 2:5

Believers abide in/are in Father/Son ἐν αὐτῷ ἐσµεν (God)

2:6

(ὁ λέγων) ἐν αὐτῷ µένειν (God/Jesus)150 ὑµεῖς ἐν τῷ υἱῷ καὶ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ µενεῖτε (Father and Son) µένετε ἐν αὐτῷ (God/Spirit?) µένετε ἐν αὐτῷ (Jesus) πᾶς ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ µένων (Jesus) ἐν αὐτῷ µένει (God) ἐν αὐτῷ µένοµεν (God)

2:24 2:27 2:28 3:6 3:24 4:13 146

Reason τηρῇ αὐτοῦ τὸν λόγον148 ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ τετελείωται149 ὀφείλει καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησεν καὶ αὐτὸς [οὕτως] περιπατεῖν151 ἐὰν ἐν ὑµῖν µείνῃ ὃ ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ἠκούσατε152 καθὼς ἐδίδαξεν ὑµᾶς153 σχῶµεν παρρησίαν154 οὐχ ἁµαρτάνει155 ὁ τηρῶν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ156 ἐκ τοῦ πνεύµατος αὐτοῦ δέδωκεν ἡµῖν157

Klauck’s (1991:225, 264–68) conclusion on the use of Immanenzformeln is, ‘Die johanneischen Immanenzformeln ermöglichen es, engste personale Gemeinschaft auszusagen und dabei doch gleichzeitig einem mystischen Verschwimmen der Personsgrenzen zu wehren’ (ibid. 268). 147 Italics indicate where the unity is mutual, i.e. God being in believers and believers being in God. 148 ‘He who keeps his word’. 149 ‘The love of God is perfected’. 150 In some cases it is not clear whether the pronoun refers to the Father or Son. 151 ‘He ought to life as He lived’. 152 ‘If what you heard from the beginning abides in you’. 153 ‘As it (the anointment/Spirit) has taught you’. 154 ‘We may have confidence’. 155 ‘He does not sin’. 156 ‘He who keeps his commandments’. 157 ‘He has given us of his Spirit’.

Chapter 2: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (1) 4:15

µένει (καὶ) αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ θεῷ (God)

4:16 5:20

ἐν τῷ θεῷ µένει (God) ἐσµὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ (Jesus)

79

ὃς ἐὰν ὁµολογήσῃ ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ158 ὁ µένων ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ159 ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἥκει καὶ δέδωκεν ἡµῖν διάνοιαν160

References to abiding in the Father (6x plus 2x unsure) and the Son (5x plus 2x unsure) (and Spirit? – 2:27) are used interchangeably in the Letter. Unity with God (i.e. the Father and/or the Son) is closely linked to the ethos of the Johannine group, focusing on knowledge and behaviour, for instance, in the following ways. The word or message believers heard from the beginning (2:5, 24), as they were taught (2:27) and given understanding (5:20), is evidence of the unity between them and God. Having this traditional knowledge, they confess that Jesus is the Son of God (4:15), guided by the Spirit.161 This traditional knowledge translates into appropriate deeds. Those who have this knowledge ought to live like Jesus lived (2:6), should not sin (3:6) and ought to obey his commandments (3:24). They ought to abide in God’s love that will reach its goal in them (4:16). This unity also has eschatological consequences, as is evident from 2:28. Again, physical (ontological) or even mystical unity is not intended, but qualitative, functional unity: believers obediently ‘function’ according to the qualities prescribed by God through his word and commandments. Believers should also abide in ‘abstracts’,162 like in light (not darkness),163 in love,164 and definitely not in death like those who do not love (3:14). Abiding in God, that is being in a relationship with him and thus being influenced by his presence as Father of the family, believers also find themselves within the framework of the qualities associated with God. 2.3.1.2 Abstract qualities abiding in (C)characters In the Letter several divine qualities or ‘objects’ are said to abide in believers or even in Jesus, thus influencing behaviour. Schnackenburg calls these ‘göttliche Attribute und Lebenskräfte’.165

158

‘Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God’. ‘He who abides in love’. 160 ‘The Son of God has come and has given us understanding’. 161 1J 4:13; 2:27. 162 The word ‘abstract’ is used here to refer to ‘objects’ that are not physical in nature, but that are personified or that function as an active unit in the text, i.e. doing things or exerting influence. Cf. Louw and Nida (1996:ad loc.). 163 1J 1:6; 2:9–11. 164 1J 4:16. 165 Schnackenburg (1984:106). 159

80

Section 1: The First Letter of John

a) The truth, the word of God and what believers have heard from the beginning, abide in them The word of God (1:10; 2:14) or the message believers have heard from the beginning (2:24) abides in believers. In 1:10 it is explained that if a person makes false claims that contradict the message of God, the word of God (ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ) is not in that person. The implication is that if the word of God is in a person, the words of that person will correspond to the word of God, that is the truth; indeed, if the message they have heard from the beginning abides in them, they will confess Jesus for who he really is (2:24). Having the word abiding in them does not just imply being aware of, or cognitively knowing what the word says, but being influenced by the knowledge166 conveyed by the word167 in such a way that it determines their thoughts and behaviour accordingly. The influence of this knowledge will be visibly expressed in correct actions, such as making the correct confession, remaining strong, overcoming the evil one (2:14) and not leaving the orthodox group as the antichrists did (2:18–19). Closely related to God’s word abiding in a person, are two statements168 about truth abiding in a person. The remark in 1:8 that if a person makes false claims regarding sin, he or she does not have the truth in him or her, parallels 1:10, where it is said that the word is not in such a person. Having truth in you means that your words will correspond to the truth, since your words will be determined by the truth. This is also true of 2:4, where it is emphasized that a person who claims to know God but does not obey his commandments, is a liar who does not have the truth in him/her. If the truth was in him/her, he or she would have realized and spoken the truth, since his/her thoughts and words would have been determined by the truth.169 In sum, the emphasis is on influence and power based on the truth and knowledge of God’s word which are expressed functionally – truth is spoken and true confessions are made.

166

Louw and Nida (1996:18, 27) define the denotative meaning of knowledge thus: ‘to learn to know a person through direct personal experience, implying a continuity of relationship – “to know, to become acquainted with, to be familiar with”’. 167 Smalley (2002:51) underlines the intimacy of the union between believer and God/ Jesus: ‘The use of µένειν at this point suggests an intensely personal knowledge of God; it presupposes an intimate and committed relationship with him, through Jesus, which is both permanent and continuous’. Cf. also Haas et al. (1972:42) and Akin (2001:94). 168 1J 1:8; 2:4. 169 Arndt et al. (2000:328) also acknowledge the idea of an object influencing a subject as part of the lexicographical meaning of ‘abiding in’.

Chapter 2: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (1)

81

b) Eternal life abiding in a person In 3:15 it is stated that a person who acts like Cain is a murderer and no murderer has eternal life abiding in him/her. Such a person identifies him-/ herself through his/her actions as spiritually dead. On the other hand, eternal life, abiding in believers, determines their identity, which influences and indeed becomes apparent in their loving behaviour.170 Closely related to having life in you, is the remark in 3:9 that the ‘seed of God’171 abides in believers (indicating their identity) and therefore they cannot sin (referring to behaviour). Like having life, the influence of God’s seed on a person ought to lead to a life without sin. Who you are should determine what you do. c) Love abides in believers The role of love in the relationship and unity between God and the believer is discussed in detail in the chapter on love and need not be repeated here.172 Suffice it to briefly note that the two references173 to love that abides in believers are both used in contrasting statements. If someone loves the world (2:15), that is, acts according to the demands of the world, it shows that the love of the Father cannot be in or influence such a person, simply because the person does not act according to what authentic love requires. This is underlined in 3:17, where someone with worldly goods is not willing to help a fellow Christian in need. Such negative behaviour shows that this person does not act according to the requirements of the love of God, namely, to lay down one’s life for others. When love abides in a person that love influences the behaviour of this person to act according to the requirements of love. When it is said that God’s love is perfected in believers (2:5; 4:18), the implication is that the character and nature of God’s love is imitated by believers. When they love one another, this love ought to be of the same character and nature as God’s love, thus reaching the aim of God’s love for the world. Where authentic love is expressed by believers, there God, who is love (4:8, 16), is deemed to abide in the believer and vice versa. d) The presence of light makes proper behaviour possible God is light, and therefore believers are living in the light, and not in darkness.174 In 1:5 the concepts of light and darkness are introduced by means of a key

170

Cf. subsection 2.2.2.2 above for more detail about eternal life. Cf. subsection 2.2.2.1 above for the meaning of God’s seed. 172 Cf. subsection 3.3.4 below. 173 1J 2:15; 3:17. 174 Cf. 1J 1:6; 2:9–11. 171

82

Section 1: The First Letter of John

metaphor,175 namely, ‘God is light’,176 followed by the remark in 1:7 that ‘in Him there is no darkness at all’,177 distinguishing God as light from any form of darkness.178 What is not said is that believers are light, neither is it claimed that light is in believers. Only God is light,179 which emphasizes his uniqueness, priority and hierarchical position. By analogy, he determines what and where light is.180 The metaphorical application means that God fulfils the same role in the world and the life of believers as light does in the earthly world and in the lives of people living ordinary lives. Because light enables them to be aware of what they are doing, it makes purposeful behaviour possible. The functionality of God as ‘light’ is explained in terms of having koinōnia with one another and with God (1:5–6). Such fellowship and co-operation explain what it means to live in the light, that is, living under the influence and in the relational presence of God and those who are in the light as he is (1:7). Living in the light further refers to accepted ethical behaviour, that is, to obey God’s commandments by loving your fellow Christians (2:8–10). This means that God’s presence and being in unity with him, living in his light by obeying his commandments and loving one’s fellow Christians, is, on an ethical level, analogous to living in the light, knowing what is expected and purposefully doing that without stumbling. Living in the light refers to a life in God’s presence, under God’s influence and authority. In contrast to living in the light, darkness is also identified as a space, but without light, that is without God. Someone can live ‘in darkness’ (1:6), which is explained in terms of negative ethical behaviour, being associated with lies and not living in the truth. This contrast between light and darkness is further explained in 2:9–11.181 Someone who lives in darkness, is described as a blind person who does not know where he or she is going and therefore stumbles. This points to a life without goal and purpose, which leads to an ineffective life of stumbling. Where darkness is, no meaningful life is 175 The shared commonplaces between God and light are multiple, but the context activates the metaphor by explaining what God and light have in common. 176 ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστιν. The grammar does not allow this phrase to be turned around, i.e. light is God. 177 This technique of moral argumentation, namely, stating common, accepted facts as basis for further ethical argumentation, was common in the Graeco-Roman moral philosophy (Morgan 2007 argues this in detail) and it is used elsewhere in moral arguments in Johannine literature, e.g. in J 12:24 (see also J 8:38). 178 God is described as light (1J 1:5), being in the light (1:7 – for believers: 2:9) and having no darkness in him, which by contrast implies that he has light in him. 179 Cf. Brown (1986:228) for the relation between God and light in the Hebrew Scriptures that could have served as referential framework for the remarks in the Letter. 180 Schnelle (2010:163) thinks that light as symbol expresses ‘göttliche Lebensfülle’. 181 Cf. the analysis in Vol. 1, 331–43 and see the imagery in 1J 2:10–11.

Chapter 2: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (1)

83

possible, since someone who does not know where he or she is going, will stumble, is blind and cannot see what he or she is doing. This is equated with a life without love but full of hate for the members of God’s family. In sum, like light shining in this world, making purposeful life possible, God’s presence in this world, by analogy, makes purposeful spiritual life possible for those who are living in the light. e) Qualities abiding in Jesus In 3:5 it is said that in Jesus there is not sin, but that he appeared to take away sins, short-circuiting the influence of sin and the works of the devil (3:8). Jesus is not to be associated with sin, sin has no influence on him and does not determine what he does. The same should be true of anyone who abides in Jesus (3:6) or is born of God (3:8). Sin is thus conceptualized as an influencing power, determining the behaviour of a person ‘in whom’ sin is. However, it has no influence over people abiding in Jesus (3:6) or the Father (3:9–10). There is indeed no sin in Jesus, but eternal life is. Because eternal life is in him, God gives life through him (5:11). Those who believe in Jesus (5:10), that is ‘have’ him, have life (5:12).182 f) Some concluding remarks The unity between God and believers is relational and is consistently shown and proven through functional expressions like practising concrete love, obediently keeping God’s word or commandments, not sinning, and so on. This confirms that the unity between attributes and people functions on the basis of exerting influence or power over a person who will functionally respond according to this influence or the lack of such influence. For example, if someone is or abides in authentic love, the influence of love on that person will result in him or her acting functionally according to the nature of such love. For the grammar of ethics this is significant, since acting ethically is described as the result of someone being under the influence or power of something.183 For believers the source of influence is God, also through his Spirit. His influence is evident through extension – divine qualities, like love and truth, or related objects, like his word or commandments, exert power and influence over believers who respond accordingly through corresponding behaviour. You are what you do and you do as you allow yourself to be influenced. This suggests a responsive ethics, reacting on the ‘influence’ that abides in a person. 182 183

Cf. subsection 2.2.2.2 above for further information on life. Cf. Judas being under the influence of the devil (J 13:27). Vol. 1, 267–73.

84

Section 1: The First Letter of John

2.4 Mimesis and reciprocity in the grammar of Johannine ethics As was indicated in the suggested scenario,184 pastoral concerns dominate, aimed at convincing the ‘you’ group to move closer to the ‘us’ group through closer co-operation and loving behaviour.185 Within such a situation, clear ethical guidance was crucial, inspiring the author to use inter alia two generally known ancient conventions, namely, reciprocity and mimesis to motivate his ethical guidance.186 The phenomena of mimesis and reciprocity are discussed in detail elsewhere and all the information needs not be repeated here.187 A brief recapitulation of essential points is necessary for the sake of clarity, however. 2.4.1 The practices of mimesis and reciprocity 2.4.1.1 Mimesis188 Someone’s practice of copying or emulating another person’s actions or attitudes (mimesis)189 was common in Graeco-Roman and even HellenisticJewish contexts.190 Mimesis refers to a form of behavioural imitation of an authoritative ‘model’, providing an exemplary standard for behaviour,191 such 184

Cf. subsection 1.1.6 above. As Kysar (1992:906) puts it, ‘The general purpose of 1 John, then, was to preserve a Christian community from dissolution, to protect the identity and composition of that community, and to arrest a movement which threatened the very heart of what the author understood to be a genuine faith and life …’. Cf. Klauck (1991:33). 186 Although the Greek word for µίµησις is only used once (as a verb) in the Letters (3J 11), this use strengthens the possibility that John was familiar with this practice and that it could be used as heuristic framework for the Letters. The word reciprocity is not used in the Letters, but the presence is undeniable. 187 Cf. Addendum 2 on mimesis and reciprocity and Vol. 1, 603–606. 188 This is a short abstract with basic information on mimesis taken from Addendum 2 on mimesis and reciprocity. Cf. also Vol. 1, 589–602. 189 µιµητής/µίµηµα are the primary terms, but other terms were also used to express the idea of imitation, like ὑπόδειγµα, εἰκών, ὁµοίωµα, καθώς, ὀφείλει καθώς or some ἐάν phrases. Brown (1986:98) as well as Lingad (2001:215) call it ‘kathōs ethic/just as ethic’. 190 Cf. Bennema (2014). 191 In ethical terms this moves close to the so-called ‘exemplarist’ view. ‘The idea of the “imitation of Christ,” which this v[erse] presents, appears with some frequency in 1 John (cf. the comment on 2:6; also 2:29; 3:2, 3, 7; 4:[11], 17). [Cf. also mimesis in the Gospel (Vol. 1, 589–602).] The concept is also deeply embedded in the theology of the NT generally (cf. 1 Cor 11:1; Phil 2:5–8; 1 Thess 1:6, using µιµηταὶ τοῦ κυρίου, “imitators of the Lord”; 1 Tim 6:13–14; Heb 12:2–3; 1 Pet 2:21); and, according to Dodd (85), it may have influenced the selection of incidents from the life of Jesus recorded in the Gospels. The Christian’s “mimesis” of Jesus is not a superficial exercise; like the “imitating” of Israel’s exodus in the OT (Exod 12:24–27; 13:8; Deut 8:2), it carries with it a deep sense of obedient participation in Christ, whose resources make this “imitation” possible. A supreme 185

Chapter 2: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (1)

85

as an important person, hero or leader, one’s father192 or tutor, who exerts influence on a receiving person, usually aiming at educational advantage and/or the improvement of the ethical character of the influenced person.193 Malherbe, for instance, underlines the importance of example in ancient moral discourse, especially personal examples which were ‘regarded as more persuasive than words. … A virtuous person was to offer an example … a philosopher’s practical example of the principles he taught … was thought to be a most important demonstration of his integrity’.194 Mimesis is thus always asymmetrical with the authoritative ‘model’ that is fixed, and the one who copies as the flexible one, ‘for imitation does not involve both elements moving simultaneously toward similarity, but rather one element being fixed and the other transforming itself or being transformed into an approximation of the first’.195 An authoritative figure forms the ethical ‘model’ for another person lower on the hierarchy (the ‘copier’) to imitate in a corresponding though creative way.196 Mimesis does not involve mechanical or precise imitation of deeds, that is acting exactly like the ‘model’. However, it does involve expressing the same basic attitude and character that the ‘model’ displayed. To use an ancient example: Achilles fought with a sword to show his courage; people who mime, however, need not do exactly that to show their courage – they may show similar courage in a different form of behaviour. Mimesis indeed has a conservative as well as a creative side: it wants to conserve the character, the true nature of the model’s behaviour (i.e. his or her courage), but also applies this true nature in new ways to new situations (by expression of courage through a different form of behaviour). Bennema aptly formulates it in the following terms, ‘Mimesis involves the understanding of the original act and the subsequent mimetic act that creatively but faithfully articulates this example of “imitatio Christi” (the imitation of Christ) is to be found in the “foot-washing” scene of John 13:1–17, where Jesus is found to be the perfect model of love and service, and enjoins this “example” (ὑπόδειγµα, 13:15) on his followers. There is every reason to suppose that, with John 15:13, the paradigm of humble Christian self-surrender described in John 13 was in mind throughout the present passage of 1 John’ (Smalley 2002:195–96). 192 Pliny (Ep. 8.13) acknowledges the value of having a personal model, like one’s father, ‘Happy … that he whom nature designed you should most resemble is, of all others, the person whom you should most imitate’. 193 Plato (Prot. 325C–326D) mentions that children were educated to imitate good and important people from the past. In this way proper and acceptable values are ensured. Cf. Van der Watt (2017:169–84). 194 Malherbe (1986:135). 195 Castelli (1991:21). 196 In this regard, Castelli (1991:22) notes, ‘Further, imitation implies, then, a critical relationship of power, insofar as the model represents the standard toward which its copies move. The model sets the terms of the relationship, which is both hierarchical and asymmetrical’.

86

Section 1: The First Letter of John

understanding’.197 Not the concrete actions, but the true quality and character of these actions are imitated.198 This assumes a cognitive process of applying the character of the model’s actions in a new situation under the influence of the example of that model.199 Part of mimesis inherently reflects on particular situations in order to decide which type of action would appropriately express the ‘character of the model’s behaviour’. This involves cognitive activity, challenging the actor to reflect, discern, decide and act, as part of miming the ‘model’. Ethically speaking, this is a long way from mechanically following rules, although guidelines are not absent, such as loving like Jesus, or being righteous like Jesus. How this love or righteousness should be expressed in new situations is a matter of consideration and discernment. 2.4.1.2 Reciprocity Reciprocity200 refers to the appreciative reaction a person shows to receiving something (from concrete objects to abstracts like love or goodwill) from somebody else.201 The socially expected response in ancient societies was to reply in kind, that is, to return the action or gift with a similar, comparable or proportionate (analogous) action or gift202 – ‘gifts were given with strong expectations of a return’.203 This social expectation of reciprocal action served as a cohesive force within a community, since by mutual reciprocal sharing everybody was obliged to everybody in the end,204 forming a cohesive network of interrelations, 197

Bennema (2014:273). In this vein Judge (2008:187) remarked, ‘The idea of imitation offered a means of expressing the replication of Christ’s experience, especially in social relations that could be passed on in turn to those who believed in him’. 199 This is also the difference between mimesis and mimicry, the latter predominantly remaining on the physical level only. 200 This is a short abstract with basic information on reciprocity taken from Addendum 2 on mimesis and reciprocity. Cf. also Vol. 1, 603–606. 201 Cf. Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 8.5.5. ‘For nothing gives more pleasure than the return of goodwill and the interchange of zealous service’, according to Cicero, Amic. 14:49. Cf. Konstan (1996:8–9). 202 Cf. Papyrus Bouriant 1, Gnome 8. Publilius favours reciprocity since it allows one to accept gifts freely, but it is also a means to put others under obligation. 203 Trebilco (2019:504–505). Plutarch, Amic. mult. 6 (Mor. 95D–E) underlines the expectation of somehow returning what was received: ‘But most people, apparently, look at the possession of a host of friends merely from the point of view of what such friendships are able to bestow, and overlook what these demand in return, forgetting that he who accepts the services of many for his needs must in turn render like service to many in their need’. Cf. Trebilco (2019:500, 502). 204 Cf. Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 7.1.2; 7.10.14ff., Seneca, Ben. 1.4.2 and Cicero, Off. 1.22. Schwartz (2010:14) correctly notes that societies were ‘bound together by densely over198

Chapter 2: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (1)

87

based on mutual dependency and responsibility and of course of co-operation and mutual support.205 Reciprocity was indeed a matter of ‘what we do comes back to us, often with interest: “what goes around, comes around”’.206 Reciprocity was not only a one-to-one affair,207 but also involved larger group networks with a wider circle of people involved. ‘A’s benefit to B might cause B to benefit C, and thereby be reciprocated to A by C (or D etc., with A benefitting eventually)’.208 In this way reciprocity among the wider group creates a moral framework in which social obligation and expectation inter alia ensured the strength of the social fibre of a group in the form of enduring relationships of dependency.209 An obvious problem (for us) is how reciprocity functioned when the parties were not socially or financially on the same level, as is the case with God and his people. How does an inferior ‘repay’ a superior in similar manner? This problem was dealt with in antiquity. Aristotle, for instance, notes that in friendships the problem is not so evident, since friendship usually existed between people who are of one spirit – ‘both parties render the same benefit and wish the same good to each other, or else exchange two different benefits, for instance pleasure and profit’.210 However, when one party is superior, ‘the benefits that one party receives and is entitled to claim from the other are not the same on either side’.211 In such situations the requirement would be that the response should be proportionate, although not identical or the same.212 For instance, if the superior gives money to the inferior (poor) person, the inferior person could respond with, for instance, strong affection for or honouring the superior publicly in different ways.213 This additional affection will ‘make them equal’.214 In Eth. Nic. 8.14.2, Aristotle formulates it thus: ‘the superior should receive the larger share of honour, the needy one the larger share of profit, for honour is the due reward of virtue and beneficence, while need obtains the aid it requires in pecuniary gain’. A lapping networks of relationships of personal dependency constituted and sustained by reciprocal exchange’. 205 Cf. Seaford (1998:2). 206 Morgan (2007:42). 207 Seaford (1998:6) argues that egoism, that forms part of economic activities, excludes the natural effects of reciprocity. 208 Ibid. 2. 209 Schwartz (2010:8). 210 Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 8.6.7; 8.7.3–4. Cicero, Amic. 19:69 is of the opinion that ‘it is of the utmost importance in friendship that superior and inferior should stand on an equality’. 211 Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 8.7.2. 212 Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 9.1.1. Cicero’s De amicitia 20:72 view differs a bit from that of Aristotle as to how equality is to be reached: ‘As, therefore, in friendship, those who are superior should lower themselves, so, in a measure, should they lift up their inferiors’. 213 Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 8.7.2. 214 Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 8.8.5; 8.13.1.

88

Section 1: The First Letter of John

person should at least repay what he or shes is able to.215 For instance, in the Letter reciprocating God’s love is realized by loving one another, or the Jesus’ love is reciprocated by helping the needy (1J 3:16). 2.4.1.3 Occurrences of mimesis and reciprocity in the Letter Mimesis and reciprocity have different points of focus. Mimesis mainly involves imitating behaviour without any obligation but for the improvement of one’s character, while reciprocity is the obligation of returning in a proportionate manner what was received. Reciprocity focuses on strengthening mutual relations while mimesis improves the moral character of the group members. The occurrences of mimesis or reciprocity in the Letter cover a wide spectrum.216 Surveying the Letters, the idea of actively responding in similar ways (mimesis and in some cases reciprocity217 or both) is expressed in a variety of ways (both implicit and explicit):218 1J 1:5, 7

1J 2:6

1J 2:29; 3:7

1J 3:3

215

ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστιν … ἐὰν δὲ ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατῶµεν ὡς αὐτός (God) ἐστιν ἐν τῷ φωτί … ὁ λέγων ἐν αὐτῷ µένειν ὀφείλει καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησεν καὶ αὐτὸς [οὕτως] περιπατεῖν ἐὰν εἰδῆτε ὅτι δίκαιος ἐστιν, γινώσκετε ὅτι καὶ πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται/ ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην δίκαιός ἐστιν, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος δίκαιός ἐστιν καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἔχων τὴν ἐλπίδα ταύτην ἐπ̓ αὐτῷ ἁγνίζει ἑαυτόν, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος ἁγνός ἐστιν

God is light … if we walk in the light as he is in the light … He who says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. If you know that he is righteous, you know that also he who does righteousness has been born of him/ He who practises righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. And everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself as he is pure.

Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 8.14.4. Cf. also Philo, Deus 4–7 and Trebilco (2019:506–507). For instance, a general expression is found in 2:6 regarding the behaviour of believers; the next two expressions (2:29/3:7 and 3:3 – regarding righteousness and purity) deal with two aspects related to identity, while the next one (4:11 – to love) deals with actions based on attitude – in 3:16 it is more narrowly defined through a reference to the physical action of ‘laying down one’s life’. Another example that might be considered is the use of, for instance, truth (ἀλήθεια) – God is truth and his followers should therefore live or be in the truth. 217 Direct and indirect passages suggesting reciprocity include 1J 2:6, 29; 3:3, 7, 16; 4:11, 19, 21; 5:2–3. Trebilco (2019:509) mixes the two categories when he remarks, ‘the language of imitation is used to express the concept of reciprocity to the gift-giver in 1 John 2:6, 29; 3:2–3, 7; 4:17, 19’. 218 The link between paraenesis (cf. subsection 4.6 below) and mimetic activity is noted by Pitts (2010:294) – mimesis was common as a pedagogical technique in Hellenistic schools: ‘It is consistent with practices in epistolary paraenesis’. 216

Chapter 2: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (1) 1J 3:12 1J 3:16

1J 4:11 1J 4:19 1J 4:21 3J 11

οὐ καθὼς Κάϊν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν καὶ ἔσφαξεν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν τούτῳ ἐγνώκαµεν τὴν ἀγάπην, ὅτι ἐκεῖνος ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἔθηκεν· καὶ ἡµεῖς ὀφείλοµεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τὰς ψυχὰς θεῖναι εἰ οὕτως ὁ θεὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡµᾶς, καὶ ἡµεῖς ὀφείλοµεν ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾶν ἡµεῖς ἀγαπῶµεν, ὅτι αὐτὸς πρῶτος ἠγάπησεν ἡµᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν θεὸν ἀγαπᾷ καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ µὴ µιµοῦ τὸ κακὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀγαθόν

89

Be not like Cain, who was of the evil and murdered his brother. By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. If God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. We love him because he first loved us … … he who loves God must love his brother also … Do not imitate evil but good.

A special ethical feature in the Letter is the exhortation to act or be like God or Jesus, which forms a foundation for correct ethical behaviour. The question as to why and when the believer ought to copy the behaviour of the Father or Son will be investigated in some detail in what follows. 2.4.2 Examples of mimesis and reciprocity in 1 John The ideas of imitating Jesus as the foundation of correct behaviour, or reciprocating the gifts received, especially from God, are key to the grammar of ethics in 1 John. As Chilton and Neusner remark, ‘The central insight of the first letter of John is that the imitatio Christi is not only an injunction, but the constitutive element of who the people of God are’.219 The exemplary standards that believers are obliged to follow, are set by key ethical Agents or ‘Models’, like God the Father and the Son, with terms like ‘as’, ‘like’ (ὡς, καθὼς … [οὕτως]) or ‘ought to’ (ὀφείλω), indicating the obligation to imitate the Agent.220 2.4.2.1 To imitate and reciprocate Jesus by walking (living) in the same manner as Jesus did (1J 2:6) As a key ethical statement, the way Jesus lived/walked (περιπατέω) is presented in 2:6 as an example for believers to follow, based on an intimate relationship between them:221 ‘whoever says he abides (µένειν) in him222 ought to (ὀφείλει) walk in the same way (καθώς) in which [οὕτως]223 he 219

Chilton and Neusner (2000:115). Cf. Bennema (2014; 2016:205–17; 2017) and Van der Watt (2015b; 2016). 221 Cf. Brown (1986:263) and Lieu (2008:74). 222 The reference to ‘him’ in 2:6 is difficult to determine, but is most probably to God, and also implicitly to Jesus. Cf. Smalley (2002:50). 223 Metzger (1994:639–40) notes that ‘the external evidence for and against the presence of οὕτως is rather evenly divided (‫ א‬C Ψ 81 al for; A B 33 2464* al against). From a 220

90

Section 1: The First Letter of John

walked’. The comparative καθὼς … [οὕτως]224 links the behaviour of the model, Jesus, to those who abide in him.225 Two key ethical terms are used in 2:6, namely, περιπατέω (to walk/live) and ὀφείλω (ought to). For our purposes, the lexicographical potential of περιπατέω may be divided into two areas, namely, a) the physical action of ‘walking around/go about’ and b) the way a person habitually conducts his or her life.226 The relevant lexicographical potential of the word ὀφείλω227 includes, to be under obligation to meet certain social or moral expectations, having previously received something of value, and is usually translated as, to be under obligation, ought to, to owe something to someone.228 This term is often used in contexts where reciprocity is suggested.

Mimesis forms a motivational basis for the exhortation in 2:6: the way Jesus lived is the example that should be imitated by those who claim to abide in him.229 Because of their unity with God and knowing him,230 believers ought to structure their everyday behaviour, that is, moving around among people in the same way as Jesus did.231 Marshall relates it to the practical behaviour of Jesus, when he says, ‘The test of our religious experience is whether it

transcriptional point of view, the word might have been accidentally omitted following αὐτός. On the other hand, it might have been added as an emphatic correlative with the preceding καθώς. In light of such considerations, the Committee considered it best to include the word but to enclose it within square brackets’. 224 Brown (1986:262–63) and Lieu (2008:74) give detailed descriptions of the use of the comparative particle in the Gospel and Letters of John. 225 Cf. Smalley (2002:52) and Akin (2001:94). 226 Liddell and Scott (1996:ad loc.) mention that περιπατέω is often used to refer to the Graeco-Roman philosophers walking around and talking, while Arndt et al. (2000:803) point out that in the New Testament it is always ‘more exactly defined’. ‘In the NT this language is particularly associated with Paul (cf. Rom 1:17; 3:21–26; 5:1); but it is also found elsewhere (cf. Matt 23:28; Luke 18:14; 1 Pet 4:18; Rev 22:11)’ (Smalley 2002:167). However, this expression reminds some of similar uses in the First Testament, such as, for instance, Panikulam (1979:136), ‘The term halak, a Hebrew synonym for peripatein, has the basic technical meaning of man’s religious response to God’. 227 The word ὀφείλω is used in three passages, namely 1J 2:6, 3:16 and 4:11, 228 These are the results from Arndt et al. (2000:743) and Louw and Nida (1996:581, 670). 229 ‘Abiding in him’ (Immanenzformel in 2:6) results in the imitation of Jesus, which is also expanded by the references to ‘knowing God’ (ἔγνωκα αὐτόν – 2:3–6). Cf. also Lieu (2008:75). 230 Knowledge does not only imply being aware of, but also having and sharing the knowledge of God in such a way that it determines the person’s behaviour accordingly. 231 Painter (2002:102) underlines that ‘fundamental to 1 John is the view that what Jesus is and does is grounded in God and what God does’. Schnackenburg (1967:313) formulates it this way, ‘This Christ who lives in complete unity with the Father, subject to him in love and obedience, seeking his honour only and fulfilling his command … requires of his disciples the counterpart of this …’.

Chapter 2: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (1)

91

produces a reflection of the life of Jesus in our daily life’.232 This suggests that the ethos or shared group knowledge of believers is directly linked to the remembered behaviour of Jesus.233 The use of the term ‘ought to’ (ὀφείλω) suggests that reciprocity also plays a role in 2:6, since the term often refers to the obligation234 to reciprocate based on what one has received. Abiding in God (2:6) and knowing him (2:3– 4), is expressed through obedience to God’s commandments and word (2:4– 5),235 leading to God’s love perfected in mutual love among believers, that is reciprocating God’s love. In this context, mimesis and reciprocity overlap to motivate believers to act obediently in the correct ethical way, based on their unity with and knowledge of God. The authoritative and hierarchical nature of the argumentation shows that the behaviour of those who abide in God and know him, ought to be determined by God through Jesus as ethical example.236 The reference to the way Jesus lived (walked) leads to the question: if walking like Jesus is a key requirement for the grammar of Johannine ethics, what does such behaviour involve, since the general remark in the text creates the impression that believers knew what was expected? Behaviour is qualified in 2:3–5 in terms of the context, namely, keeping God the Father’s237 commandments or His word, and is motivated inter alia by the fact that believers know God, confirming the unity (Immanenz) between God and believers. The source for knowing how to behave is the commandments of God, His word, which in the rest of the Letter is mainly linked to mutual love (cf. 3:7–5:3).238 Jesus illustrated what love really is and believers should follow that example (3:16), that is, they should live their lives in authentic love. Smalley formulates it aptly, ‘John develops the theme of obedience (as a condition of living as a child of God) by studying the 232

Marshall (1978:128). Brown (1986:262) compares this Johannine obligation to obedience of the Jews to the Law: ‘The Law is the source of Jewish obligation, while the example of Jesus is the source of Christian obligation’. 234 Haas et al. (1972:43) speak of obligation or duty and Klauck (1991:118) of a ‘Verpflichtung’. 235 Smalley (2002:52) opines that ‘The particular aspect of obedience mentioned on this occasion is Christlikeness’. 236 Cf. Brown (1986:285). Akin (2001:95) follows Strecker, formulating it a bit dogmatically: ‘In this verse the indicative and the imperative of the Christian life are joined together as a cause and effect. This union occurs only to the degree that the soteriological significance of the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ precedes the ethical imperative, so that the indicative of the Christ-event becomes the foundation for and the content of the imperative’. However, it is questionable whether the concepts of imperative and indicative are appropriate analytical categories for the Johannine literature. 237 Cf. the reference to the Father (2:1) and the brothers (2:9) in the immediate context. 238 Cf. also Smalley (2002:52). 233

92

Section 1: The First Letter of John

pattern of loyalty to the love command. In contrast to the models of hatred, typified above all by the attitude of Cain (vv. 12, 13, 15), the writer turns to a consideration of the positive exemplification of obedient love, supremely to be found in Jesus himself (cf. vv. 10, 11, 14)’,239 and ‘the Christian duty of self-surrender is probably best understood in this context as a direct response to the work of Jesus on the cross … The cross is an example to copy, and not simply a revelation of love to admire’.240 Considering the Letter’s sociolect and theological concepts, it is difficult not to conclude that knowledge came from the Gospel, even including the broader Johannine tradition. The Gospel is a gospel about the earthly life of Jesus. In the Gospel, Jesus’ example and behaviour are primarily defined in terms of unrestricted love that is illustrated in the death of Jesus.241 His death involves laying down one’s life for others, that is, being willing to give everything, even one’s life for one’s fellow Christians. Although the verdict on the relationship between John and the synoptic gospels is still open, it does not seem to be farfetched to assume that the synoptic or other early Christian traditions could also be known to the Johannine group. Parallels of such knowledge are at least attested to in the Gospel of John (cf. the passion narrative, and some of the signs, like the healing narratives or feeding the crowd and walking on water). These sources of knowledge should not be excluded by default, to the contrary.

However, is this the full picture? Apart from the above, two expressions in the Letter encourage the addressees to reflect on what could be called ‘ethical characteristics’ of Jesus, namely, to act righteously as Jesus is righteous (δίκαιος – 2:29; 3:7) and to be pure (ἁγνός) like him (3:3). These will receive attention in what follows. 2.4.2.2 Being righteous as God the Father and Jesus the Son are righteous (1J 2:29; 3:7) The word-group δίκαιος/δικαιοσύνη (normally translated as righteous/ness) is used relatively frequently in the Letter,242 as is evident from the table below:243 239

Ibid. 192. Ibid. 194. 241 Cf. Vol. 1, 287–311. Cf. also J 13:34–35. Klauck (1991:119) is of the opinion that the author has the total existence of Christ in mind, but concentrated on his death. 242 The uses of this term δίκαιος (righteous) in the Gospel largely correspond to that of 1 John. In the Gospel there are three references to righteousness, namely, to Jesus whose judgment is right (5:30) and implicitly in 7:24 where judgment by appearances is contrasted with the right judgment. The third reference is to the Father who is called righteous by Jesus (17:25), thus giving a qualitative description of the character of the Father. This echoes the reference to God who is righteous in 1J 1:9. 243 Cf. Brown (1986:209–10) for a detailed discussion of righteousness in 1 John. 240

Chapter 2: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (1)

1:9

2:1

2:29

δίκαιος ἐὰν ὁµολογῶµεν τὰς ἁµαρτίας ἡµῶν, πιστός ἐστιν καὶ δίκαιος, ἵνα ἀφῇ ἡµῖν τὰς ἁµαρτίας καὶ καθαρίσῃ ἡµᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀδικίας If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. καὶ ἐάν τις ἁµάρτῃ, παράκλητον ἔχοµεν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν δίκαιον And if anyone sins, we have a Special Helper (Paraclete) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. ἐὰν εἰδῆτε ὅτι δίκαιός ἐστιν, γινώσκετε ὅτι καὶ πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται

δικαιοσύνη

2:29

If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who does righteousness is born of Him. 3:7

ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην δίκαιός ἐστιν, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος δίκαιός ἐστιν·

3:7

he who does righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 3:10

3:12

93

ἐὰν εἰδῆτε ὅτι δίκαιός ἐστιν, γινώσκετε ὅτι καὶ πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who does righteousness is born of Him. ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην δίκαιός ἐστιν, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος δίκαιός ἐστιν· he who does righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. πᾶς ὁ µὴ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ὁ µὴ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ Everyone who does not do righteousness is not of God, also he who does not love his brother.

καὶ χάριν τίνος ἔσφαξεν αὐτόν; ὅτι τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πονηρὰ ἦν τὰ δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ δίκαια And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous.

With the use of the word-group δίκαιος ‘no single (unified) theme has carried the day’,244 simply because of the wide semantic potential of the word.245

244 245

Reumann (1992:748) and Scullion (1992:726). Cf. also the informative article on righteousness in ABD 5:724–73.

94

Section 1: The First Letter of John

The lexicographical potential246 of δίκαιος247 is to be in accordance with high standards of rectitude or in some contexts in accordance with what God requires (upright, just, fair).248 It may further be used to refer to a person being in a right relationship with someone, or being put into such a relationship. In the case of δικαιοσύνη, the reference is to the quality, characteristic or state of juridical fairness or correctness (e.g. justice, fairness, righteousness), in our texts often with the focus on redemption. It may also refer to doing what God requires or the quality of such upright behaviour. The word ἀδικία (1:9) refers to violating positive standards of right conduct (doing what is wrong) or the quality of such injustice (wickedness, unrighteousness, injustice).

Reumann’s249 description of the usage of the term is helpful and echoes the above mentioned lexicographical potential of these words. He points out that the term may refer to a) a (P)person or object that is righteous or something that is rightful, that is being in the state of righteousness, being just or upright (a quality); b) that which is in conformity with a standard or in a state of acceptability to God; or c) somebody acting righteously, that is according to God’s standard. In the First Testament250 the word-group refers predominantly to forensic issues, that is, how a person stands before God’s Law, or in a more general sense, it refers to God’s order in everyday life.251 Other usages also developed in Jewish literature, broadening the semantic scope of the word, for instance, in documents like Sir 18:2 or 2 Esdr 8:32 only God is described as being righteous, while Bar 5:9 and Jub. 16:26 identify God as the source of human righteousness. The author of Dan 9:18 moves further by bestowing this privilege upon people. This broader use of the term ‘righteous’, including God and humans, is prevalent in 1 John. God,252 Jesus,253 as well as believers (3:7) are identified 246 According to Arndt et al. (2000:ad loc.), Liddell and Scott (1996:ad loc.) and Louw and Nida (1996:ad loc.). 247 Morgan (2007:109) describes the use of related terms in popular ancient moral philosophy as follows, ‘Dikê in Greek, iustita in Latin and related words, have three broad ranges of meaning: those to do with divine or ideal justice; those to do with the law; and those to do with social harmony and balance: “normal”, “balanced”, “conventional” and the like’. References to the justice of gods are often found in popular moral philosophy. 248 Newman and Nida (1980:ad loc.) describe it as ‘conforming to the standard, will, or character of God’. 249 Reumann (1992:746). 250 Smalley (2002:167) thinks that ‘there is a clear OT background to the concept of acting “righteously,” and being “righteous” (δίκαιος). See Gen 18:23–26; Ps 1:6; Isa 60:21; Dan 12:3’. Others even see the expression ‘to walk the way of righteousness’ as a Semitism (see Prov 8:20; Isa 2:5). Cf. the remarks by Brown (1986:197), Klauck (1991:88), Smalley (2002:23), Rensberger (2001:20), Painter (2002:144) and Lieu (2008:52–54). 251 Scullion (1992:726, 736). 252 1J 1:9. Cf. Haas et al. (1972:30), Smalley (1984:31) and Johnson (1993:32–33). 253 1J 2:1, 29; 3:7. Schrenk (1964:189) paraphrases this expression: ‘The righteous Christ is the Doer of the will of God (his obedience is both passive and active) in the

Chapter 2: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (1)

95

as being righteous, describing a quality and status they share. As παράκλητος (Paraclete – Special Helper) and being righteous, the implication in 2:1–2 is that Jesus can be trusted to act in accordance with the will of God when it comes to the forgiveness of our sins. The same is true of God in 1:8–9 where He will act truthfully and righteously by forging confessed sins. The networking in the immediate contexts where the term righteousness is used, provides some semantic clues for the better understanding of this term. This righteousness is qualitatively determined by God the Father and his Son who are righteous.254 ‘Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as God/Jesus is righteous’ (3:7).255 God’s righteousness, as it is also practically revealed by Jesus (3:7),256 serves as exemplary standard: it is the ‘Vorbild und Maßstab’257 for the behaviour of God’s children. Painter258 notes that it is difficult not to interpret righteousness in terms of authentic love in the Letter. Cain’s259 evil and murderous deeds are contrasted with the righteous deeds of his brother (3:11–12). In the rest of the context (3:13–16) righteousness is then ‘replaced’ with references to love, while evil deeds are ‘replaced’ with the opposite of love, namely, hate. Although righteousness and love not synonyms, righteousness is expressed in terms of love.260 Jesus is the prime example of what righteous deeds of love involve (3:16).261 Believers should follow this loving and self-sacrificing example of Jesus if they want to do the will of God (3:16) and be righteous.

fullest sense’. The reference in 2:29 is most probably to Jesus (Haas et al. 1972:31), although there is some doubt about this (Johnson 1993:66, 72). It could also refer to God. Smalley (1984:133) discusses different views in this regard. He thinks that this verse was formulated ambivalently on purpose. The ‘him’ that is mentioned in connection with birth later in the verse refers to God, however, although Smalley (1984:133) also links Jesus to it. 254 1J 1:9, 29; 3:7. 255 Marshall (1978:167) describes righteousness in the Letter as ‘correct, moral behavior, acceptable to God’. 256 Klauck (1991:175) opines that Jesus is righteousness, ‘weil er in allen Dingen gehorsam den Willen des Vaters tat und darin sein Sohnsein bewahrte’. 257 Ibid. 211. 258 Painter (2002:214–15). Cf. also Brown (1986:411–13). 259 Deeds, and not persons, are described as righteous in the story of Cain and his brother (cf. Lieu 1993:467–72; Brown 1986:441–43). The deeds are an expression of their respective characters, however, as Akin (2001:155) remarks, ‘In Cain’s case the inner nature brought forth the outward action’. Cf. also Johnson (1993:80) and Smalley (2002:184). 260 Both Painter (2002:216–17) and Griffith (2002:127) relate righteousness to the love commandment. 261 1J 3:16; 4:9, 14–16.

96

Section 1: The First Letter of John

The concept of righteousness is further contextually linked to the family of God,262 for instance, ‘If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that everyone who practises righteousness has been born of him’ (2:29), or ‘by this it is clear who are children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not do right is not of God’ (3:10).263 This familial connection places the interpretation of the concept of righteousness within ancient familial conventions, for instance, imitating the father, doing his will, was part of the expectations within ancient families and was regarded as the right thing to do.264 Doing what is right, was doing what was expected by the father of the family and was deemed to be right by the family. Within the family, Jesus as Son made known the will of the unseen Father, both in his righteousness and as source for those who behave righteously.265 Jesus is the motivation, model and pattern of righteous behaviour266 within the family of God and it is expected that children of God should mime this model by living as he lived. Apart from love, another important term that is contextually associated with righteousness is sin. In 3:6–8, being righteous and acting righteously are contrasted to sin that is identified as lawlessness (3:4). In both 1:9 and 2:1 the righteousness of God and Jesus is linked to actions aimed at eliminating sin and its effects. Jesus appeared to take away such lawlessness (sin – 3:5), by eliminating it at its source, namely, destroying the works of the devil (3:7–8), implying the re-establishment of what is ‘lawful’, that is the will of God.267 This implies that practising righteousness refers to a situation where sin and its influence are absent, both in a person as well as in a person’s behaviour (cf. 3:4–8), and is replaced by loving actions done according to the will of God. 262 Cf. Vol. 1, 151–81, for a detailed discussion of the ethical implications of the familial imagery. It should be noted that it would be wrong to think of righteous deeds as simply mechanically doing what is right. The deeds are imbedded in a framework where they express identity and group adherence. 263 Cf. 3:12 where Cain and Abel are described as siblings. 264 Cf. Addendum 2 on mimesis. 265 1J 1:9; 2:1, 29; 3:10. It should be remembered that ‘it was an ancient commonplace that children inherited the natures of their fathers’ (Keener 1993:ad loc.). Cf. also Haas et al. (1972:86). 266 Cf. Smalley (2002:167). Sedley (1999:309–28) notes the importance of imitatio dei as part of Plato’s philosophical views. A person should become like the god as far as possible, although the person will never become identical with the god. The important point for us to note here is the remark in Theaetetus 176b where this becoming like god is explained as ‘to become like god is to become righteous (δίκαιον) and holy (ὅσιον) and wise’. The link between ethics and the unity with a god is clear: since god is righteous, the good person should also aim to be righteous. Although it is in no way suggested that John is dependent on Platonic ideas, the similarity is nevertheless striking, especially the way in which behaviour and assimilation to God is seen in tandem. 267 Haas et al. (1972:31). 1J 2:29; 3:9.

Chapter 2: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (1)

97

In sum, all the contexts where righteousness is dealt with are directly addressing ethical issues, like behaviour, sin, evil deeds, while the link between identity and deeds remains in constant focus. Righteousness as quality (identity) and righteous deeds (behaviour) go hand in hand;268 even more, righteous deeds should be inspired by righteous identity, which is derived from God and Jesus. 2.4.2.3 Miming Jesus: being pure as he is pure In 1J 3:3 it is stated that everyone who hopes (eschatologically269) in Jesus purifies (ἁγνίζει)270 him-/herself as (καθώς) Jesus271 is pure (ἁγνός). As is the case with righteousness, an exemplary standard is set that should be mimed (καθώς is used). The word-group pure/purify (ἁγνός/ἁγνίζω) is used only in 3:3 in the Letters.272 The lexicographical potential273 of the word-group ‘purify/pure’ (ἁγνίζειν/ἁγνός) might (for our purposes) be divided into three: (i) to purify and cleanse and so make acceptable for cultic/ritual use;274 (ii) to cause to be morally pure;275 (iii) to set one apart in dedication.

Already in the 19th century,276 Westcott277 suggested that the term ‘pure’ has both a cultic and ethical side. He interpreted the reference to purification in terms of the ceremonial preparation that preceded the appearance in divine presence.278 He continues by pointing out that the idea of purification ‘suggests the notion of shrinking from contamination, of a delicate sensibility 268 Smalley (2002:166) speaks of ‘doing is the test of Being’, meaning that ‘the truly “right” person is the one who acts rightly (cf. Matt 7:16 [Luke 6:44])’. Haas et al. (1972:89) also mention ‘the maxim that a person’s activity is decisive for his quality: one is what one does’. 269 Brown (1986:396, 424), Strecker (1989:158), Klauck (1991:179) and Johnson (1993:69). 270 Strecker (1989:158) favours the use of an imperative here. 271 Haas et al. (1972:85) opine, ‘The pronoun he, lit. “that one,” refers unequivocally to Christ’. So also Brown (1986:397). 272 Cf. Brown (1986:397). The word-group is also used just once in the Gospel (11:55), where the reference is to cultic purification of the Jews. 273 So also Arndt et al. (2000:ad loc.). 274 Louw and Nida (1996:13) define the use as follows, ‘pure, holy, cultic word, orig. an attribute of the divinity and everything belonging to it’. Klauck (1991:183) and Smalley (2002:149) also acknowledge the different possibilities, but prefer the ritual option. Cf. also Brown (1986:397). 275 Schnackenburg (1984:174) points out that the term ‘to purify’ was initially associated with cultic and ritual activities, but gradually developed into describing moral behaviour. 276 The first edition of his commentary was in 1883. 277 Westcott (1902:100–101). 278 So also Brown (1986:398).

98

Section 1: The First Letter of John

to pollution of any kind’,279 that explains why children of God, with their eschatological hope, should avoid sin. Painter notes that ‘no indication is given (in the context) as to what purity means’,280 but regards it as a ritual term. Brown281 also opts for a ritual use and tries to explain it against a broader background. He claims that Christians, in order to encounter the divine, must make themselves holy through Jesus’ cleansing blood that is referred to in passages like 1:7, 9 or 2:2. These arguments all have a hypothetical nature. A problem remains, namely, that there is no indication of ritual aspects in the context. Although the term ‘pure’ (ἁγνός) might refer to cleanliness and holiness with cultic/ritual undertones, another possibility offered by the lexicographical potential of the word group is that it may simply refer to positive, moral behaviour.282 The immediate context provides some clues in favour of such an interpretation. Although the eschatological phrase ‘this hope’ (τὴν ἐλπίδα ταύτην) in 3:3 refers back to the eschatological remarks in 3:2 about the children of God, there is no grammatical reason283 why the remark in 3:3 might not be a bridge sentence, also referring to the ethical remarks that follow in 4:4ff., where sin as a concept is reflected on in light of Jesus’ work and believers being children of God, that is, important ethical themes. This suggests that the semantic focus of the concept of ‘purity’ falls not so much on cultic aspects, but on positive moral behaviour. Several arguments support this possibility. The children of God are called into action in 3:3: believers should purify themselves284 by means of positive and conscious action285 to become pure as Jesus is, that is, to imitate him. The ethical argument following in 3:4ff. explains how positive action like doing what is right (3:7) means to avoid sin. This logically explains how one can stay morally pure – believers do not sin because they are God’s children, and by avoiding sinful behaviour they indeed imitate Jesus – by keeping themselves 279

Westcott (1902:101). He further describes the semantic quality of ‘to purify’ in terms of a person who ‘disciplines and trains himself that he may move more surely among the defilements of the world’. The latter refers to proper ethical discipline. 280 Painter (2002:222). Cf. also Strecker (1989:158). 281 Brown (1986:397–98). Cf. also Klauck (1991:183). 282 Cf. also Brown (1986:397–98) and Kruse (2000:116). 283 There is no particle or other grammatical feature that indicates even a small break between the remarks in the two verses. 284 The present tense seems to focus on the continuous nature of the activity. Cf. Haas et al. (1972:85) and Johnson (1993:69). 285 The change from the plural (in 3:2) to the singular in 3:3 emphasizes the personal responsibility of a person in this regard. This shows that in spite of strong group orientation within ancient societies, individuality was part of their cognitive framework – cf. Morgan (2007:68–69) and Smalley (2002:148). It is not the modern individuality we know in the liberal democratic system known by the West, however. It is individuality within community, with the latter determining the former.

Chapter 2: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (1)

99

clean from sin (cf. also 1:7–2:2). This echoes the theme in 3:1–3 where being God’s children is directly linked to purity286 contextually and associatively, and enhances the possibility that the purification has ethical undertones. The above explanation would fit the remark that believers are not yet pure like Jesus, but that it remains their aim and eschatological hope (3:2–3), since their present lives are still plagued by sin that must be confessed (cf. 1:7– 2:2). Nevertheless, their hope serves as encouragement for pure ethical lives, as Smalley also remarks, ‘The hope of being like Christ in the end, that is to say, should inspire (and can produce) Christlike behavior even now’.287 Believers must purify themselves already now as their model, Jesus, is pure, bringing them in line with what they are going to be when Jesus is revealed. Indeed, the process of moral purification by not sinning (or by confessing one’s sins)288 has already started and is in a constant process of realizing itself through their lives in this family (3:2).289 In sum, it seems preferable that the action of purifying oneself refers to ethically pure behaviour, avoiding sin in light of eschatological hope. It denotes ‘a continual290 moral purification process’,291 not completely discarding the possibility of a secondary undertone of cult or ritual. 2.4.2.4 To love like God/Jesus loved – to lay down one’s life like Jesus (1J 3:16–17) The concept of love as well as that of imitating and reciprocating love is discussed in detail elsewhere.292 Here a brief remark or two are in order.293 God is love who loved believers first (4:19).294 They ought to reciprocally respond by ‘perfecting’ his love through their mutual love.295 The love that 286 Being God’s children serves as overarching theme, ensuring the cohesion of the argument in 3:1–10. Being God’s children implies imitating Jesus by being pure and righteous like he is, avoiding sin and staying pure. 287 Smalley (2002:149). 288 So Brown (1986:398). Cf. Strecker (1989:159). 289 Akin (2001:137) emphasizes the link between eschatology and ethics here: ‘John joins his previous eschatological thoughts with a moral, practical conclusion. Being born of God creates a vibrant hope for the future, one that motivates pure living in everyday life’. 290 Present tense – ἁγνίζει. Strecker (1989:158) opines that a cultic meaning is intended here, although it should also be understood as an ethical expression. Cf. also Klauck (1991:183). 291 Akin (2001:137). 292 Cf. subsection 3.3 below. 293 Some overlap is therefore unavoidable. 294 Trebilco (2019:507) underlines that in the Letter reciprocity was basically a ‘default’ setting, expecting the return of gifts received. Cf. Brown (1986:449) and Smalley (2002:245). 295 Cf. subsection 3.3.4.1 below.

100

Section 1: The First Letter of John

(first) ‘flows from God’ through Jesus, reaches and ‘passes through’ believers, reaching its goal in this love for one another. Thus God’s love is reciprocated through mutual love for one another. The mimetic nature of love is evident in 3:16–17 where it is stated that Jesus lays down his life for believers and believers are expected (ought to – ὀφείλοµεν) mime this love. Following the example of Jesus, believers ought to actively express the same quality and character of love in their behaviour that was expressed by Jesus. The basic mimetic requirement is clear: a follower of Jesus ought to better the lives of brothers in need in practical ways, even if it might require sacrifices from the follower of Jesus, perhaps even to the point of laying down his or her life. 2.4.2.5 Walk in the light as God is (in) the light (1J 1:6–7; 2:8–11) – mimesis? As is the case with love, the concept of light has also been discussed in detail earlier296 and does not require detailed discussion here. A brief overview should suffice here. At the outset of the Letter, a metaphorical axiom states that God is light (φῶς – 1:5) and that he is in the light (1:7). In him there is no darkness at all (1:5). Claiming to have fellowship with God but living in darkness, is being a liar and denying the truth (1:6). However, if persons walk in the light, they are imitating God who is in the light, suggesting fellowship (koinōnia) with God, following his will and ways. This metaphorical application of light indeed illuminates the grammar of ethics of the Letter. Firstly, two ‘spaces’ are established that determine effective behaviour: that is where God (the light) is, and where he is not (the darkness). Secondly, the base, source and space of ethics is firmly located in God – he is light (1:5) and should be imitated by walking in the light. Thirdly, the way light influences proper and purposeful behaviour is by analogy similar to how God’s presence influences positive behaviour, and how his absence leaves a person stumbling in darkness. Mimesis does not play such a direct role in references to light. The argument is based on metaphorical application instead. If someone shares fellowship with God, that person will behave according to the influence of the God’s presence, that is he will walk in the light as God is in the light. This is the example believers should follow.

296

Cf. pp. 81ff. above.

Chapter 2: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (1)

101

2.5 Some summarizing and concluding remarks Although the different aspects treated in this chapter complicate a unified summary, some of the essential points will be briefly highlighted by way of a table. The author of 1 John made certain choices that determine the nature of his grammar of ethics.297 Some of the key aspects related to family and unity (Immanenz) may be highlighted: Some relevant areas

John’s choices

Source

* God gives eternal life through birth as Father of the family. * God is light. As light makes purposeful life possible (you can see what you do), God makes purposeful and good behaviour possible (people ‘see’ and understand what to do). * Jesus’ life serves as example (and thus the source) that should be mimed. He is righteous and pure and gives the example of love that should be mimed. * The Spirit teaches and guides as source of knowledge and truth. * On the formal level, family conventions form the interpretative framework (source) for many of the ethical remarks, for instance, that a person who loves the father should love the son, that a child should obey the commandments of the father, that siblings should love one another, etc. * God, giving birth and live, constitutes his family and as Father he gives his Spirit, commandments, love, knowledge, etc. in protecting and caring for the family. * God as light makes purposeful behaviour possible. * The Father sends his unique Son to mediate his righteousness, love and purity. The Son serves as example in this regard. * The Son also destroys the works of the devil and through faith in him believers are victorious. * Unity (Immanenz) between Father, Son and believers, ensures synergy of thoughts and deeds. Qualities of God, abiding in believers, like his word, love, righteousness, etc., causes believers to act according to the presence and influence of these qualities – that is, if love abides in you, you will act lovingly. * On a formal level, social conventions like mimesis and reciprocity focus the behaviour of believers on Jesus’ ethical examples.

Function

297 In light of the above, the ethical material in this Letter should hermeneutically not be interpreted in a too general way. It is very specifically tuned to the crisis situation evident in the Letter that threatens the unity of the Johannine group. This forms both the basis for and the motivation behind these ethical remarks.

102

Section 1: The First Letter of John

Context

Human nature

Cognitive awareness

* God is light and thus determines the context of correct ethical behaviour. * Authentic ethical life is lived according to the conventions of the family of God. * Unity (Immanenz) further forms the relational framework for ethical behaviour. * Behaviour is largely determined by the conventions of mimesis and reciprocity. * People are presumed to be in spiritual darkness and death, in need of eternal life, which is given through birth from God. They now share in this spiritual life although they still live their earthly lives. * The ethical agent has a choice and should discern how to behave in an ethically correct manner, however, the believer as ethical agent should act within the confines of the family. The words, commandments and will of the Father should be obediently followed, since these abide in the believer and thus influence his or her thoughts and deeds. The believer’s human ‘nature’ is overridden by the divine qualities that abide in him. * Faith involves the acceptance of divine reality as it is revealed through the mission of Jesus. This leads to the awareness of being a child of God who should live according to the confines of the family of God. * Discernment is necessary in the process of miming Jesus. * The unity (Immanenz) of God and believers makes believers aware of their ethical responsibilities, that is, obeying commandments, loving, accepting the guidance of the Spirit, etc. By behaving accordingly, they are sure of their Immanenz with God.

Apart from love and fellowship that will be discussed in the next chapter, relations are mainly developed in terms of family conventions and are intensified through the Immanenzformeln, focusing on the functional unity of thought and deeds between the (C)characters. The following table offers a brief overview of how the different aspects related to ethics are integrated and developed within the process of action formation (i.e. from worldview to concrete actions).298

298

This table just serves as an example and does not show the full picture.

103

Chapter 2: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (1) Worldview

Identity leads to

Worldview: Organizing and relating the totality of objects in one’s personal universe God, as Character that determines the narrative, constitutes his family through birth and eternal live for those who believe in Jesus. God forms the core of what is right and true. He is light and is in the light and his presence therefore sets the standards for ethics. God is also love and righteous. Believers are born into God’s family and as his children have eternal life. They share this identity through their fellowship and Immanenz with God.

Values expressed in

Norms/ principles concretized in

Prescription: action prescribed in

Conscious and accepted relative position in worldview

Expressing what is valuable based on identity

Expressing how values can be concretely realized

Prescribing actions based on norms or principles

Believers have eternal life as children of God who know him. Because God abides in them, the qualities of God also abide in them and they must obediently accept the influence of these qualities of God in their lives. Accepting their identity will become apparent in their mutual love and obedience to the will of their Father.

Being righteous, true, loving, walking in the light, helping others in order to care for the family, that is value the wellbeing for brothers and the family of God, are, for instance, important values. The qualities of God, like his word and love, his Spirit, abide in believers and they should be influenced and determined by them. It is valuable and expected that these values must be mimed and reciprocated. Believers should walk like Jesus walked.

People must live in light and love, be righteous and pure, that is, do what God the Father wants and avoid sin, miming the way Jesus lived, that is in love, purity and righteousness. They must cooperate with fellow believers within the confines of the family of God. They must discern how the life of the Son may be mimed in different new situations.

Create life and not death by helping others to the benefit of the Johannine group. Do what is necessary to cooperate with fellow believers for the sake of unity.

The structure of action formation illustrates the logical flow of relationships from the change in worldview and identity to actual actions required (morals), characterizing the grammar of Johannine ethics as an integrated and structured process.

Chapter 3

Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2): koinōnia and love 3.1 Introduction Two key terms in 1 John, namely, love (ἀγαπάω/ἀγάπη) and koinōnia (κοινωνία) focus on the intimate relationship between God and believers, as well as believers among one another. Love, as concept, dominates in the latter part of the Letter (from 3:10–5:3), while a purpose for writing the Letter is formulated at the outset in terms of fellowship (koinōnia).

3.2 Koinōnia with the Father and Son, and with ‘us’ 3.2.1 Koinōnia: an unfamiliar word in a key position At the outset of 1 John it is stated, that which we have seen and heard, we proclaim to you also so that (ἵνα) you may have koinōnia (κοινωνία) with us. Our koinōnia is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ (1:3);

and If we say that we have koinōnia (κοινωνία) with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. (1:6)

The use of the Greek word κοινωνία at the beginning of the Letter is remarkable for several reasons. Firstly, it is not a typical Johannine word and is used only here in Johannine literature.1 Secondly, it is used prominently as a key

1 Painter (2002:151–52) argues that κοινωνία is not part of the Johannine tradition and is also not prominent in the Letters. He therefore concludes that it was taken from the opponents who used it as slogan: ‘We have koinōnia with him (God)’. Stott (1988:68), however, claims that ‘“fellowship” is a specifically Christian word [italics mine] and denotes that common participation in the grace of God, the salvation of Christ and the indwelling Spirit which is the spiritual birth right of all believers’. The concept might be Christian but not the word. This is a matter of semantic overloading.

106

Section 1: The First Letter of John

term at the beginning of the Letter to describe the/a purpose (ἵνα-phrase)2 for writing the Letter, but is not used again in the rest of it. Thirdly, the author has several other semantically equivalent words and phrases at his disposal to express the relational concepts of ‘unity’, close relations, or Immanenz, but nevertheless prefers to use (for him, at least) this ‘uncommon’ word.3 This contributes to the rhetorical significance of this word. 3.2.2 The lexicographical potential of the word koinōnia The lexicographical potential of the word κοινωνία is complex and wide ranging.4 Considering this potential as it is described in major dictionaries,5 three major related conceptual areas should be noted for our purpose,6 namely, – sharing and co-operating in the sense of joint participation driven by mutual interest. It involves working/doing things together/having dealings with others. The idea of ‘having something in common’ and being willing to ‘share it’ (i.e. participation), underlies this potential meaning.7 2

Pfeiffer and Harrison (1962:ad loc.) also note, ‘This is the purpose (hina, “in order that”) of John’s message and is the theme of the epistle’, while Hughes and Laney (1990:707) describe koinōnia as the thrust of 1 John. Cf. further Klauck (1991:69). Cf. also Marshall (1978:104), who describes the aim aptly: ‘the writer clearly wants to make known his message to his readers so that by their acceptance of it they may become and remain his partners and thus be joined together in that Christian love which unites those who have a common faith in Jesus Christ’. 3 Schnackenburg (1984:66–67) and Klauck (1991:70) discuss John’s use of koinōnia in more detail by noting that other terms expressing union were indeed available to John. 4 For overviews of the use of koinōnia in ancient literature, see Sabourin (1981:109–15) and Ogereau (2014a:120–50). 5 Cf. Arndt et al. (2000:ad loc.), Louw and Nida (1996:ad loc.) and Liddell and Scott (1996:ad loc.). 6 The other lexicographical options do not seem to fit the context or are covered by the description given. 7 Rusam (1993:106) remarks that Aristotle notes, ‘Der Begriff κοινωνία beschreibt also eine Gemeinschaft mit jemandem, die “durch (gemeinsame) Teilhabe (an etwas) begründet ist”’. Marshall (1978:104) also regards the basis of koinōnia as ‘having something in common’, sharing them through active participation. Endenburg (1937:105) likewise translates the word as ‘deelgenootschap’ (share in common), ‘deelhebberschap’ (possess in common). John Young Campbell (1932:369) likewise argues that the use of the word koinōnia in ancient literature does not focus strongly on personal aspects but rather on sharing and participation. In his words, ‘But the primary idea expressed by κοινωνός and its cognates is not that of association with another person or other persons, but that of participation in something in which others also participate’ (ibid. 353). Seesemann (1933:19) furthermore claims that at the basis of koinōnia lies ‘Anteil haben oder nehmen an etw.’, without denying that it may also be used in the sense of ‘Gemeinschaft haben’. Cf. also Vincent (1888:309–10), Rusam (1993:105–106), Carson et al. (1994:1399), Baumert (2003:40, 126, 136–37) and Van der Merwe (2006:542).

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

107

– a close association or relationship8 based on mutual interest and involving sharing. This relational aspect is usually expressed in words like fellowship, communion or partnership; and – it is used to express an attitude of goodwill with relational interest (generosity, good feeling for the other). The popularity of this term in contexts where friendship is discussed9 illustrates the relational nature of the term.10 Basic to friendship is having everything in common since one is of one soul.11 Although friendship is not thematized in the Letter, the use of a term so closely associated with friendship underlines the intensity of the fellowship described. The term was also commonly used in economic contexts where agreements were made.12 Ogereau13 points out that since the important aspects keeping the society together were ‘consensus and fides … guaranteeing the fulfilment of obligations’, fulfilling the agreement was of paramount importance for maintaining koinōnia. Not complying to the agreement because of dishonesty, fraud or negligence may lead to a breakdown of koinōnia and could mean the end of the partnership. This seems to have been the danger in 1 John where 8 Brown (1986:170) calls it ‘the dynamic esprit de corps that brings people together’ including the results of this spirit of togetherness, while Baumert (2003:126) concludes that ‘Die Gemeinsamkeit ist das Grundlegende …’. 9 Stählin (1974:152) remarks, ‘The motif of κοινωνία esp. recurs with considerable monotony’ in the ancient literature about friendship (quoting: ‘Eur. Or., 735; Andr., 376f. and Plat. Lys., 207c; Phaedr., 279c; Leg., V, 739c; Resp., V, 449c; IV, 424a by way of Aristot. Eth. Nic., IX, 11, p. 1159b, 31f.; Eth. Eud., VII, 2, p. 1237b, 32f.; 1238a, 16; Pol., II, 5, p. 1263a, 30 to the later period, Diog. L. VI, 37 and 72; Philo Vit. Mos., I, 156; Muson. Fr., 13 (p. 67)’. Cf. also Plutarch, Adul. amic. 24 (Mor. 65A–B); Martial, Epigr. 2.43.1–16; Cornelius Nepos, Vir. ill. 15.3.4; Diogenes Laertius, Vit. 7.1.124. Plato (Lysis 207C) also remarks on this view by describing fellowship within the context of friendship, saying, ‘And, you know, friends are said to have everything in common, so that here at least there will be no difference between you …’. In the same vein, Rusam (1993:105) follows Wolter in claiming that, ‘der Begriff “κοινωνία” tatsächlich “der hellenistischen Freundschaftsethik entstammt” [Wolter 1988:26] …’ and then builds his argument about familial conceptual development on this view. However, it is doubtful if the word actually originated specifically in friendship ethics, although it is often used in that context. 10 Perkins (1983:ad loc.) links the understanding of koinōnia to the concept of Roman societas, that does not necessarily imply friendship, but does suggest close social relationships. Members of a societas usually had a common purpose based on mutual consent which encouraged them to follow a common course. The missionary activities of the early Christians reflected similar qualities. 11 Cf. Vol. 1, 567–88. 12 Cf. Ogereau (2014a:120–50) for a detailed discussion. Endenburg (1937:xi, 97–98) refers to ‘zakengemeenschappen’ (commercial associations) and provides examples of this use from ancient sources like Plato, Aristotle, Xenophon and Demosthenes. Cf. also Carson et al. (1994:1399). 13 Ogereau (2014a:120–50).

108

Section 1: The First Letter of John

the ‘you’ did not co-operate with the ‘us’ as they should, by neglecting their loving relationships. The above examples show the intimacy of the relationship, but also the obligation to co-operate in good faith. Both of these aspects are focused on in 1 John. In sum, the semantic focus of koinōnia is on a close relationship or association, including a positive attitude, as well as on the corresponding action of sharing, participation or co-operation. The focus may fall on either of these aspects, depending on the context, but they should not be separated – cooperation is difficult to imagine without some sort of association. The word fellowship will be used to refer to both of these aspects.14 3.2.3 Koinōnia in 1J 1:3–7 and its echoes throughout the Letter De Jonge and Swellengrebel15 said about the use of koinōnia in 1 John that ‘fellowship (v. 3 and vv. 6f)’, or ‘being fellows/partners/companions’, refers to ‘being together’, ‘doing something together’ and ‘sharing something’. This description correctly combines the two aspects of relationship and cooperation that is relevant in the Letter. The word koinōnia (fellowship) in 1:3,16 6–7 is part of a section that focuses on God as light. Living in the light as God is in the light (1:7), confirms believers’ fellowship with God (and fellow believers). Claiming to be in a relationship with God, that is having fellowship with him, is only true if the corresponding co-operation is displayed (1:6). Although the term koinōnia is not used in the rest of the Letter, its associative use in 1:3–7 with Johannine terms that do occur in the rest of the Letter, like ‘to proclaim’, ‘life’, ‘truth’ and ‘light’, conceptually networks this

14 The majority of commentaries consulted favour ‘fellowship’ as English equivalent for the Greek word koinōnia. John Young Campbell (1932:369) is not so positive about the idea that koinōnia be translated as fellowship, although he agrees that in 1 John that is the correct translation. In Bible translations, renditions of koinōnia basically correspond in their use of the term fellowship (i.e. KJV, NKJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, TNIV, RSV, NRSV, NLT, NAB, NCV, ISV, ASV and GNB). The CEV translates ‘share in this life’, emphasizing the basic idea of sharing, while the GW renders the word with ‘relationship’, steering away from the more specific idea of fellowship. Gemeinschaft is the German variant (Lut, GN). Other Germanic languages like Dutch (gemeenschap – SVV) and Afrikaans (gemeenskap – 1933/53, NAV) correspond to the German. In French NBS, TOB, BFC all translate with communion. 15 Haas et al. (1972:17–18). 16 Vincent (1888:309–10) opines, ‘The expression here, ἔχειν κοινωνίαν, is stronger, since it expresses the enjoyment or realization of fellowship, as compared with the mere fact of fellowship’.

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

109

term with the theological development in what follows in the Letter.17 It is integrated into the Letter ‘under its varied and connected aspects’18 so that it functions as an ‘umbrella concept’ for the message of 1 John, being echoed throughout the Letter – even though the actual term is not used after 1:7. It is indeed pointed out by many that koinōnia functions as a focal point19 according to which the rest of the Letter should be interpreted, as Malatesta,20 for instance, argues. Additionally, Panikulam,21 like some others,22 links koinōnia in the first place to the proclamation/declaration (1:3) that relates to the incarnated Son23 and echoes through the Letter:24 ‘ohne die recht verstandene Überlieferung, die auf die ersten Zeugen zurückgeht, ist Gemeinschaft mit Christus nicht zu haben’.25 Fellowship with the Son, who brought life26 (cf. 1:3), is developed throughout the Letter by employing conceptual

17 Brown (1986:232) argues that although the term koinōnia is not used in the rest of the Letter, the idea is continued through terms like εἶναι ἐν and µένειν ἐν, indicating the close relation between those sharing koinōnia. Menken (2010:24) likewise understands koinōnia in terms of unity (‘remain in’) and love. Bultmann (1973:26) also remarks that, ‘All such expressions characterize the believers’ relationship to God not as mysticism, but rather as a mode of life’. Cf. Panikulam (1979:140) and Rusam (1993:108). 18 Menken (2010:24). 19 Cf. also Hauck (TDNT 3:789–809) and Bultmann (1973:26). 20 Malatesta (1973:6–47). He divides the Letter into three sections, i.e. 1:5–2:28 = God is light; 2:29–4:6 = God is just; 4:7–5:13 = God is love. In his view, these three criteria form the basis of the understanding of koinōnia. Painter (2002:151–52) disagrees with Malatesta, pointing out that love is more typical of John. 21 Panikulam (1979:132–34). 22 Cf., e.g., Wengst (1978:43), Klauck (1991:69), Kruse (2000:57), Gundry (2010:969). 23 Parsenios (2014:46–47) also correctly states that ‘fellowship with God is possible through the incarnation, and only through the incarnation. If the opponents have a false view of the incarnation, they are imperilling their fellowship with God’. Cf. also Vincent (1888:309–10), Malatesta (1973:6–47), Panikulam (1979:130–39) and Klauck (1991:71). 24 Cf. Hughes and Laney (1990:707). 25 Klauck (1991:71). 26 The opinion is expressed by some, e.g. Johnson (1993:26–27) and Stott (1988:68), that koinōnia includes salvation (life). Johnson (1993:26–27) argues that since the antichrists neither have salvation nor share in the koinōnia, this implies that koinōnia includes salvation or life. The language used by Schnackenburg (1984:63–64) also implies that the author aims at drawing the addressees into the ‘(Glaubens-)Gemeinschaft’, or in other words ‘Gemeinschaft mit Gott durch den Glaubensanschluß’ (ibid. 65). This view overlooks the wider context of the Letter. The ‘we’ and the ‘you’ already share salvation, although their koinōnia is under pressure. The final result for the ‘you’ may be joining the antichrist which would imply loss of salvation, but that stage is not yet reached in 1 John. Klauck’s (1991:71) opinion supports this view, namely, that the real situation is not the loss of salvation or life (yet), but the situation that koinōnia is endangered: ‘Das Auftreten der Sezessionisten … führt zum Auseinanderfallen des lockeren johanneischen Gemeindeverbandes’.

110

Section 1: The First Letter of John

expressions related to family imagery27 or through words expressing close union like ‘being in’ (εἶναι ἐν) or ‘remaining in’ (µένειν ἐν), sharing identity and acting accordingly.28 These remarks about fellowship (koinōnia) also have a rhetorical function, implying that the addressees do not share in this fellowship. The problem of the ‘you’ therefore lies with their deeds, failing to love their fellow believers (brothers) properly or to co-operate in the actions required from those who have fellowship. The semantic emphasis of the word koinōnia falls on the cooperation or active participation (or lack of it), not excluding the relationship within the group. 3.2.4 Some summarizing remarks Fellowship (κοινωνία) includes a partnership and co-operation as result of a close relationship that results in sharing and caring. In 1 John, this koinōnia (mostly translated as fellowship) is networked in 1:3–7 with key Johannine terms like life, light, truth and to proclaim, themes that re-occur throughout the Letter. Emphasizing the inclusion of believers in this ‘Gottesgemeinschaft’,29 rhetorically encourages those who are wandering away from the ‘us’ group to seriously reconsider their fellowship with the Father and Son and consequently with the ‘us’.

3.3 Love as a basis for the grammar of ethics in 1 John Love forms the central focus of ethical behaviour in 1 John. Jerome mentions an anecdote about the elderly John being carried into the church. He repeatedly said, ‘Little children, love one another’. When he was asked why he repeats this so often he answered, ‘Because it is the Lord’s command. When only this is done it is enough’.30 These words echo Johannine sentiments, although the fuller picture proves to be more complex. 27 Rusam (1993:108) acknowledges the overlaps with the Immanenzformeln but thinks that koinōnia has closer affinities with the conceptual world of families. Cf. also Van der Watt (1988; 1999; 2014) and Van der Merwe (2005; 2006). 28 Cf. Haas et al. (1972:17–18), Brown (1986:232) and Parsenios (2014:46). 29 Schnackenburg (1984:72). 30 Here is perhaps the appropriate place to consider the words of Plutarch (Amic. mult. 1 [Mor. 93B]), ‘Menon … was asked by Socrates what virtue is; and when he replied impulsively and promptly that there is a virtue appropriate to a child and to an old man, to a grown man and to a woman, to a public official and to a private citizen, to a master and to a servant, Socrates exclaimed, “A fine answer! for when asked for one virtue you have stirred up a whole swarm of virtues,” inferring, not badly, that it was because the man knew not a single virtue that he was naming so many’. The point here is that if one

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

111

It should be noted that because of the repetitive or circular nature of the author’s argumentation, and of course the centrality of the concept of love in the Letter, some repetition is inevitable in this chapter. However, this repetition is necessary in order to get a balanced view of the treatment of the concept of love in the Letter. 3.3.1 The lexicographical potential of the word group ἀγαπάω/ἀγάπη The word group ἀγαπάω/ἀγάπη31 (to love/love) is used with high frequency, both as verb and noun,32 especially in 3:9–17, with the emphasis mainly on love for brothers33 in mimesis of Jesus, and in 4:7–5:4,34 with the emphasis on God’s love that must find expression in believers on the basis of unity between God and believers.35 In contrast to the Gospel,36 no other related words are used to refer to love in the Letters. The lexicographical37 potential of the terms ἀγαπάω/ἀγάπη is described in Arndt et al. as having ‘a warm regard for and interest in another (that may change to devotion38 in transcendent relations)/to have high esteem for or satisfaction with something’.39 Louw and Nida40 classify love semantically as an attitude, although the active side of love should not be overlooked. The understands exactly what a virtue means, then many are not needed. In considering John’s complex use of love in the Gospel and the Letters, this remark of Socrates rings true. The love commandment is so overarching and cuts so deep that multiple other ‘virtues’ would only obscure the true intensity of this commandment. This is life encapsulating, both in attitude and action. 31 For a detailed discussion of the use of ἀγαπάω/ἀγάπη in the Letters, cf. Brown (1986:254–58; Lieu 1991:66). φιλέω is not used and φίλος (friend) is only used in 3J 15. For the relation between φιλέω/φίλος and ἀγαπάω/ἀγάπη cf. Brown (1986:254). 32 The origin and nature of love are mainly expressed by nouns. 33 The word ‘brother’ in antiquity was often inclusive when referring to a group (including both male and female), as Klauck (1991:277) correctly formulates, women are ‘entsprechend antiken Sprachkonventionen in der maskulinischen Namensform mit eingeschlossen’. In order to stay true to the Letters the word ‘brother’ is used in that sense in this book. 34 Lieu (1991:66) includes the section to 1J 5:3. 35 1J 2:5, 10, 15; [3:1, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 23]; [4:7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21; 5:1, 2, 3]. (The square brackets illustrate the concentration of references to love). Cf. also 2J 3, 5, 6; 3J 1, 6 and Lieu (1991:66). 36 Both word groups ἀγαπάω/ἀγάπη and φιλέω/φίλος are used in the Gospel with high frequency (about 70 times) – cf. Vol. 1, 287ff. 37 Arndt et al. (2000: ad loc.), Liddell and Scott (1996) and Louw and Nida (1996) were used as basis for this lexicographical description. 38 Stauffer (1964:39) notes, in commenting on Hellenistic-Jewish documents like Wisdom and 4 Maccabees, ‘Supremely, however, ἀγάπη is a relationship of faithfulness between God and man’. 39 Arndt et al. (2000:ad loc.). 40 Louw and Nida (1996:ad loc.).

112

Section 1: The First Letter of John

concept of affection, that is to show high regard and sincere appreciation41 or to treat with affection somebody or something a person associates with, are common denominators of the term, which may be expressed with words like ‘to be fond of, cherish, desire, prize, be satisfied, contented or well pleased with “the other”’.42 Perkins correctly defines love as a concrete activity, at least in the Letters: ‘Love is not a subjective emotion or attitude, but positive activity in relationship …’.43 These two aspects of love, namely the emotional44 and active aspects, should not be separated, although the latter dominates in 1 John,45 as is the case in the Gospel.46 Apart from these lexicographical meanings, the Jewish emphasis (i.e. the First Testament) on the love of God should not be overlooked as conceptual context for understanding the love of God in 1 John.47 The view of God as focus of authentic love is not new, but is in line with what is found in the First Testament where ‘love of God is always a correlative of His personal nature’48 and on that basis everything of him should be loved, as Deissler49 noted. Based on an analysis of the First Testament, Quell showed that love is ‘basically a spontaneous feeling which impels to self-giving or, in relation to things, to the seizure of the object which awakens the feeling, or to the

41

Ibid. Malina and Rohrbaugh (1998:228) maintain that love ‘always had the underlying meaning of attachment to some group’ in the Mediterranean world and then make the following important observation about love within a group: ‘It takes on the dimensions of interpersonal attachment, of loyalty, and of the value of reliability revealed in practical actions … Such love is reliability in interpersonal relations; it takes on the value of enduring personal loyalty, of personal faithfulness’. Love is concretized in mutual loyalty, behaviour of commitment and solidarity. 43 Perkins (1992:288). 44 The degree to which emotion forms part of the concept of love in antiquity is debatable. Ebner (1998:42–45) discusses several examples of emotions linked to love in ancient times. Lattke (1975:18) again emphasizes the subject-object relation, but downgrades feelings as part of love. 45 Cf. also Wischmeyer (2009:207–20). 46 Cf. Van der Watt (2006; 2014). 47 In this regard, Keener (1993:ad loc.) refers to Ex 13:18; 22:21; Lev 19:34; Dt 10:19. Cf. also Quell (1964:22) and Deissler (1995:96). Quell (1964:27) notes that in the First Testament the legal covenantal emphasis often dominated the emphasis on love and adds that the idea of God’s love is emerging only in Hosea (ibid. 30). In Isaiah (1:4; 30:1, 9), God is presented as ‘Father-God’ but the emphasis is more on his authority. In 1 John this relationship between the reciprocal love of God and for one another is fully developed. 48 Smalley (2002:61) opines, ‘The biblical concept of “love” (noun, ἀγάπη; verb, ἀγαπᾶν) is distinctive, in as far as it is associated with a God who enters into a covenant relationship with his people and maintains it with undeserved “steadfast love” (cf. Deut 7:9)’. 49 Deissler (1995:96). 42

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

113

performance of the action in which pleasure is taken’.50 For instance, in Lev 19:17–18 hatred versus love is dealt with. People of God shall not hate their brothers in their hearts, but shall love their neighbours as themselves.51 This echoes what is said of love in 1J 3:11–17. In Deut 10:12–13 love of God and obeying his commandments are closely linked, just as in 1J 2:3–5; 3:23; 5:2–3.52 In Deut 15:7–8, 11 care for the poor is given as commandment,53 which finds its echo in 1J 3:1754 where the love of God is shown to needy fellow Christians by helping them in giving them what they need. What follows is a systematic overview of the use of the concept of love in the Letter and how it is networked with related concepts to form a part of the grammar of ethics of 1 John. 3.3.2 The love of God as blueprint for the ethics of John 3.3.2.1 A key metaphor: God is love The key statement, namely, ‘God is love’55 is made twice in 1 John (4:8 and 4:16). According to Schnelle, this ‘Definitionssatz’ introduces ‘ein neues Gottes-Modell in die Geistesgeschichte’56 and represents a unique way of conceptualizing God, although we already heard similar sounds in the First Testament. This statement underlines the notion that all authentic love is 50

Quell (1964:22). Cf. also Lieu (1991:67). Cf. Armitage (2021:154–62). He also mentions that the loving your neighbor as yourself ‘has been seen by Rabbi Akiva as the most important principle in the Torah’ (ibid. 156). 52 Cf. ibid. 167. Quell (1964:29) describes the relationship between God’s love and the response of humans as it is reflected in the Old Testament in the following way: ‘Thus we find such favourite combinations as to love Yahweh and keep His commandments [footnote: Ex. 20:6; Dt. 5:10; 1 K. 11:1; Dn. 9:4; Neh. 1:5], or to love Him and serve Him (Dt. 10:12; 11:13; Is. 56:6), or to love Him and walk in His ways (Dt. 10:12; 11:22; 19:9; 30:16; Jos. 22:5; 23:11). These powerfully link love with cultic and ethical conduct and thus militate to some degree against a deeper understanding. As against this, Dt. 30:6 impressively teaches us to understand love for God as a deeply inward and finally Godgiven experience.’ In John these two approaches are linked, with God’s love as the source and the love of the believers as the reciprocal and obedient response. 53 Armitage (2021:168) explains the remarks in Deut 15:1–11 as follows, ‘Deuteronomy 15:1–11 links Israel’s generosity to their relationship with God. Israel’s obligation to be generous is reciprocal: as God has been generous to them, so must they be to the needy brother’. 54 So ibid. 173–74. Armitage remarks, ‘First John 3:17 … is paralleled in Deuteronomy 15:1–11, with its requirement of “open handed” giving to the needy brother … In both texts the requirement is theological, and immediately connected with God’s attitude to the giver’. 55 Söding (1996:306–57) offers a broad survey of the different possible backgrounds for the metaphorical expression ‘God is love’. Cf. also AJ Kelly (1999) and Beutler (2019). 56 Schnelle (2010:149). 51

114

Section 1: The First Letter of John

characterized by, and should be defined in terms of, the person and character of God.57 Schnelle correctly concludes that ‘das ethische Wesen Gottes Liebe ist’,58 while Smalley notes that this ‘means not simply that love is one of his activities, but that all his activity is loving’,59 in contrast to darkness, hate, sin and evil. The author expresses this by stating in 4:8 that if somebody does not show this authentic love, it proves that he or she does not know God, neither does he or she have life nor does he or she share in the family of God (4:7). Where this love is absent, God is absent. Where this authentic love is present (4:16), it is said that this loving person abides in God and vice versa.60 ‘Die Gemeinschaft mit Gott, die sich als Liebe zu Gott darstellt, ist kein Abstraktum, sondern ereignet sich dort, wo sie in der Praxis der Bruderliebe Gestalt annimmt.’61 It should be noted that the Greek words for ‘love’ (ἀγαπάω/ἀγάπη) are not reserved for God alone. It is not, so to speak, a ‘divine word’, but as such simply indicates affection, holding something in high esteem, etc. There are other instances of the word love, not focused on God, used in 1 John, for instance, showing love for the things of this world (2:15–17) which should be distinguished from God’s authentic love.62 It is evident from the way the tenor (God) and vehicle (love) of the metaphor ‘God is love’ function that the main emphasis is on God and not on love as such. The tenor and vehicle cannot be switched (i.e. ‘love is God’), since that would create a new metaphor. Such a switch would militate against the function of the metaphor and would also personify love as godly. The author aims rather at emphasizing that love originates in, and is determined by, a personal God, and does not insinuate that God is an abstract expression called ‘love’: rather, he is a Person who (shows) love.63 This view is substantiated in 4:7–8 where a nuance is added to the statement that ‘God is love’ (4:8b), by syntactically linking it via a chiasm 57 As is the case in the Gospel, the term God is most often used to refer to the Father, but may also include the Son (e.g. 1J 2:1; 3:1; 4:14–15; 5:1; 2J 3). 58 Schnelle (2010:167). 59 Smalley (2002:239). 60 Schnackenburg (1984:250) formulates it as follows, ‘Nicht durch Schau kann man zur Gottesgemeinschaft gelangen, vielmehr nur durch tatbereite Liebe’, or as Klauck (1991:276) remarks, ‘wir haben unsere Heimat im Raum der Liebe gefunden’. Cf. also Strecker (1989:260). 61 Strecker (1989:261). Cf. Westcott (1902:162). 62 The statement of Olsson (1999:162) that ‘all love … has its origin in God’ should therefore be amended, namely, all true/authentic love has its origin in God. From here on the word ‘authentic’ is not going to be used every time there is a reference to God’s love, or love corresponding to God’s love (i.e. love of believers), although it will be implied. 63 In any case, God is also more than simply love – he is also light (1:5), he begets and is Father (5:1–4), etc. Cf. Lieu (1991:67).

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

115

(A:A1)64 to the remark that ‘love is of/from (ἐκ) God’ (4:7b).65 God is not only love, but he is also the source66 of love, that is, all authentic love originates with him. He showed that he loved people first by sending his Son (4:9–10), as 4:19 states, ‘we (should)67 love, because He68 first loved us’. In 4:11 there is even more: ‘if God so69 loved us [i.e. as source], we also ought to love one another’, thus underlining God’s love as the example of the love for believers, implying that they should imitate God’s love by learning how to love by observing the source as model, that is God who loves. God is thus 64 A chiasm is a stylistic mechanism drawing attention or pointing to the cohesion of aspects to be linked together: 4:7a Ἀγαπητοί, ἀγαπῶµεν ἀλλήλους, Beloved, let us love one another (A) 7b ὅτι ἡ ἀγάπη ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν, because love is of/from God (B) 7c καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν 7dἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται 7eκαὶ γινώσκει τὸν θεόν. and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God (B1) 8a ὁ µὴ ἀγαπῶν οὐκ ἔγνω τὸν θεόν, He who does not love does not know God (A1) 8b ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν. because God is love. Both of these ὅτι phrases serve as motivation for the exhortation to love one another (a hortatory subjunctive/subjunctive of encouragement or exhortation is used), in other words, it motivates why mutual love is required and the exhortation could be made. 65 The term love of God is expressed in different forms, all basically with the same reference: – The love God has for us (4:16 – τὴν ἀγάπην ἣν ἔχει ὁ θεὸς ἐν ἡµῖν), – He (God) loved us (4:10,11,12,19 – αὐτὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡµᾶς) – The love of God for us (4:9 – ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ἡµῖν) – The love of God (2:5 – ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ) The genitive (τοῦ θεοῦ – ‘of God’) may be an objective or subjective genitive, but could also be a genitive of quality, referring to God’s type of love. In some cases all three may be implied, as Smalley (2002:197), referring to Westcott, suggests, ‘the love of which God is at once the object and the author and the pattern’. 66 Cf. Stauffer (1964:40), Quell (1964:283) and Lieu (1991:66). 67 The word ἀγαπῶµεν in 4:19a may be understood as either an indicative or hortatory subjunctive (i.e. with imperative sense – cf. Haas et al. 1972:130). Strecker (1989:256) prefers the latter, while Smalley (1984:262), Klauck (1991:273), Painter (2002:283) and Lange et al. (2008:145) prefer the former. Brown (1986:562) notes that this shows that there is no tension between the author encouraging people to believe and the fact that they do believe. Within the scenario of the Letter, the ‘you’ indeed need encouragement, which is inter alia what is happening here. In any case, both possibilities stress the relation between God’s love and that of the ‘us’ with the latter being dependent on the former. Cf. also Johnson (1993:116). 68 In 4:19b it is simply stated that ‘he’ (αὐτός) loves, but the context suggests God as subject, as Strecker (1989:256) points out. 69 The οὕτως (‘so’) in 4:11 refers to 4:9–10.

116

Section 1: The First Letter of John

described as the primary ethical agent that sets the tone for all ethical behaviour. In the grammar of ethics, God is the focal point of all positive ethics, not only as source, but also as example. 3.3.2.2 How God loves … active and visible If God is the source of love and believers should love him so (οὕτως in 4:11a), what does God’s love look like? What is the mode of authentic love that should be followed? This question is complicated by the fact that ‘no one has ever seen God’ (4:12a).70 This leads to a question of logic, namely, how does God’s love become visible to be imitated if the subject of such love is invisible? At least two ‘actions’ reflect on the visible presence of God’s love,71 namely the mission of his Son and the expression of his love among believers. i) The mission of his Son. One of the answers to the above question comes by way of parallelism in 4:9–10.72 Although nobody has ever seen God, his love73 nevertheless became visible among us.74 The way this happened is

70 Cf. Strecker (1989:259), who opines that the God’s invisibility echoes a general ancient idea of the invisibility of gods. It is in any case a theme in Johannine literature as may be seen in J 1:18 where the argument is Christological in nature, while the emphasis here falls more on ethical and communal aspects. Cf. also J 5:37; 6:46. Schnelle (2010:149). 71 Smalley (2002:239) refers to the active expression of love by God: ‘The presentation of God’s being in a practical, rather than in a speculative, mode may in addition include an antignostic thrust’. Schnackenburg (1984:240–41) also warns against gnosticising these references to the unseen God. 72 9a ἐν τούτῳ ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ἡµῖν, In this the love of God was manifested toward/revealed among/to us 9b ὅτι τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν µονογενῆ ἀπέσταλκεν ὁ θεὸς εἰς τὸν κόσµον that God has sent His only/unique Son into the world 9c ἵνα ζήσωµεν διʼ αὐτοῦ. so that we might live through Him. 10a ἐν τούτῳ ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγάπη … In this is love … 10d ἀπέστειλεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἱλασµὸν περὶ τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν ἡµῶν. and sent His Son as the propitiation/expiation for our sins. 73 Cf. Brown (1986:518–19). The interpretation of the clause ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ (‘love of God’) in v. 9a grammatically has different possibilities (cf. Smalley 2002:49), i.e. as subjective or objective genitive, or even as the genitive of quality. The most logical option within this context is that it is a subjective genitive, referring to God’s love as it was manifested among people in this world. 74 The phrase ‘among us’ (ἐν ἡµῖν – 4:9, 16) might also be interpreted in different ways (cf. Smalley 2002:240). In 4:9 it may be translated as ‘among us’ or ‘to us’. The former translation places the emphasis on a broader group which might include the world, while the latter focuses more on the Johannine believers. Some suggest that it may be equivalent

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

117

spelled out with two parallel phrases (4:9b–c and v. 10d), both associated with the broader category of salvation.75 He sent (ἀπέσταλκεν) his Son (into the kosmos) – so that ‘we’ (believers) may have life through him (v. 9b) – to be the expiation for ‘our’ sins (v. 10d). The authentic love of the invisible God became manifested (revealed) and thus visible inter alia through the historical event of the mission of his Son. The essence of authentic, divine love is revealed by the Father, sending his Son as expiation for the sins of people so that they may have life, that is, offering a costly gift to the benefit of others. Through the incarnation of Jesus, authentic, divine love and life ‘physically entered’ into this historical, material world (1:1–2), thus offering believers the vision and example of what divine love looks like in visible, functional form (3:16). ii) Love of the brothers. The invisible God becomes visible not only in the mission of Jesus, but also in the true, loving actions of believers,76 that is in the family of God. For instance, in 4:12 the invisibility of God is mentioned, followed by a reference to the love of believers for one another, perfecting the love of God.77 These remarks about love are further directly linked to a reference to God abiding in them (Immanenz), thus expressing God’s closeness to people in this world in terms of love. In expressing their love of God among themselves, God is immanently present among and with believers. This implies that God, as love, is deemed to be present or ‘visible’ through the active and mutual love of God’s children that is expressed in visible, active78 ways among one another (cf. 3:16–18). As Wengst remarks, ‘Liebe ist bezogen auf das, was vor Augen ist; sie hat ein konkretes Gegenüber … Liebe zu Gott gibt es konkret nur in menschlicher Solidarität und niemals außerhalb ihrer’.79 This is a specific mode of describing and identifying spiritual presence. Somatic presence is not necessarily required to be actually present. If the qualitative actions associated with a person (God) are present, that person to εἱς ἡµᾶς and should then be translated as ‘for us’. In any case, the main point is that God loves, and that the ‘us’ are the focus of this love (1J 4:10–11). 75 Smalley (2002:61) notes that ‘God’s essential activity is saving love (although divine love cannot be separated from divine judgment); and in NT terms we find this activity centred in the person and work of Jesus’. Cf. also Stauffer (1964:41). 76 Strecker (1989:260). Brown (1986:564) refers to 3:17 as proof that the ethos of the group required visible love. 77 This concept of perfecting the love of God will be dealt with in detail later in subsection 3.3.4. 78 As was pointed out already, love in John is much more action than emotion, although these two aspects cannot be separated (cf. p. 112). Cf. Smalley (1984:263) and Marshall (1978:225–26). 79 Wengst (1976:70–71).

118

Section 1: The First Letter of John

(God) is deemed to be present.80 In short, presence does not necessarily refer to physical presence but could equally be expressed in functional and qualitative terms. Schnelle81 correctly notes that a further implication is that the inseparable interrelatedness between identity and behaviour forms a basis of the argument about love and the presence of the unseen God. In 4:12 the Immanenz of God and believers forms an integral part of the believers’ love for one another. Loving one another (behaviour) shows that God abides in them (identity). It must again be emphasized that this love of God and believers is not just any or general love. It is very specific, authentic love defined by the Father (cf. the mission of Jesus) and expressed by believers (mutual love). It is the reciprocal response of God’s children to their Father’s love,82 that is referring to those people who are part of the family of God (called ‘brothers’ in 1 John) and who are influenced by the divine, qualitative nature of his love. Hahn expresses it aptly, ‘Das sittliche Verhalten des Menschen soll gleichsam “eingebunden” werden in eine Bewegung, die von Gott ausgeht und auf Gott hinzielt’.83 This should be kept in mind, since the opponents (children of the devil – 3:10) equally ‘loved’ the members of their group, but then in terms of their own group restrictions. They seemingly also love the world, of which they are part (4:4–5) and the things of the world (2:15–17). This is not the type of love that believers should imitate. The essence of the argument does not lie with the term love (which is neutral – anybody can love anything), but with the subjects and objects of love. Having the love of God and having the love of the world are two completely different things, although the word ‘love’ is used in both cases. 3.3.2.3 God’s love changes identity through birth of God and faith of believers A basic presupposition and underlying point of departure of John’s anthropology is that the kosmos (= people in the kosmos) is spiritually dead and in darkness, and is therefore in need of salvation.84 This motivates God’s loving action (4:10, 19) of sending his Son to bring life to anyone who believes in

80 This is also the basis of the argument in J 14 where the Father is with Jesus in his words and deeds, as Jesus is present in the words and deeds of believers (cf. Vol. 1, 212– 20). 81 Schnelle (2010:160). 82 This idea will be dealt with in detail in subsection 3.3.4 below. 83 F Hahn (1977:36). 84 Cf. the discussion in Vol. 1, 53–54.

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

119

him. With the incarnation of the Son, salvation85 became present in the world, as 4:9–10 states: He sent his Son (into the kosmos) – so that ‘we’ (believers) may have life86 through him (v. 9c) – to be the expiation for ‘our’ sins (v. 10d).87 Receiving expiation for sins and receiving eternal life mark the major change in the identity of believers, both in relation to God and the world.88 They are called the children of God and so they are (3:1) in contrast with the rest of the people in the kosmos who are children of the devil, not obeying God or loving the children of God (3:10). They are in the power of the evil one (5:19). Two concepts in particular are highlighted by the author as points where the identity of believers changed, with direct impact on the grammar of John’s ethics. These two concepts are faith and birth of God. a) Birth of God – being his child and behaving like his child As was mentioned previously,89 the major imagery used to describe the change of identity of believers is familial, that is receiving eternal life by being begotten by/born of God, a concept that is intimately related to love of God.90 The significant role of birth within families as well as the family imagery was also discussed in detail in the previous chapter.91 For a proper perspective on love few short notes should suffice here. By being begotten/born (γεννάω) into the family of God believers are resocialized as children of God. They are now part of the transcendent family of God, which becomes the basic and determinative society towards and within which believers orientate themselves, not the least when it comes to 85 Cf. Vol. 1, 151–63 and subsection 2.2.2 above for John’s use of salvific concepts related to life and birth in ancient families. Wengst (1976:67) notes that love plays a key role in these salvific events, not the least because the mission of Jesus and its effects are a direct expression of God’s love. 86 The term ‘life’ is used frequently, cf. also 1:1–2; 2:25; 3:14 (15); 4:9; 5:11–13 (16), 20. 87 The term ἱλασµός (propitiation/expiation) is used only twice in the New Testament (1J 2:2; 4:10), although its cognates are used throughout the New Testament (cf., e.g., Lk 18:13; Rom 3:25; Heb 2:17; 9:5). This means that it does not belong to what may be regarded as typical Johannine vocabulary. The lexicographical meanings according to Arndt et al. (2000:ad loc.) are appeasement necessitated by sin or instrument for appeasing (Liddell and Scott 1996:828 formulate it as a means of appeasing), sacrifice to atone (Liddell and Scott 1996:828 list atonement as lexicographical meaning). Louw and Nida (1996:501), on the other hand, formulate it as means of forgiveness. The focus clearly falls on an act where wrongdoing (sin) is appeased or forgiven. Cf. also Smalley (2002:38). 88 Smalley (1984:243) calls these statements ‘the explication of love’s essence’. 89 Cf. subsection 2.2.2.1 above. 90 1J 4:7; 5:1. 91 Cf. subsection 2.2.2 above.

120

Section 1: The First Letter of John

moral behaviour, acting according to the will of God, who is their Father. Birth within the family of God is further used as metaphor to explain why people who love God by default should love their siblings92 also (4:21). The family convention referred to, namely, that whoever loves the parent should also love the child, further motivates why children of God who love the Father, should love their fellow members of God’s family also. In sum, the image of birth, indicates the point where a person’s identity changes from death to life, becoming a child of God with the status and expectations that go with it. This whole process started with, and is imbedded in, the love of God. b) Faith as turning point in a person’s life Faith as concept is also discussed elsewhere93 and is only mentioned here as reminder of the relation between love, faith, birth and life. One of the reasons for writing the Letter is stated in 5:13: ‘These things I write to you so that you know that you have eternal life, you that believe in (τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς) the name of the Son of God’.94 In 1 John, faith and love are connected, not the least because ‘we have known and believed the love that God has for us’. Through faith believers are born of God,95 indicating the moment when the identity of believers changes and they become the children of God. In line with their new identity within the family of God, they must now live in obedience behaving like children of God. This new life is characterized by love.96 Indeed, ‘through faith we learn about love’.97 3.3.2.4 Love and knowledge of God Knowledge of God is a concept that is used in tandem with love and birth of God, as the author states, ‘he who loves is born of God and knows God’ (4:7). Although the concept of knowledge is networked much wider than love in the Letter,98 noting the link to love confirms the relational aspects dominating the grammar of ethics in the Letter. 92 1J 4:21; 5:1. The author presupposes that there cannot be any argument against this statement. 93 Cf. subsection 2.2.2.3 above. 94 Cf. also 1J 3:23. 95 Faith and birth are explicitly linked in 1J 5:1, 4, 13. In 5:1 it is stated, ‘Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God’. 96 In 1J 3:23, faith and love are described as two aspects of God’s commandment, i.e. ‘For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments’ (5:3). 97 Brown (1986:482). 98 Occurrences of the verb: 1J 2:3, 4, 5, 13, 14, 18, 29; 3:1, 6, 16, 19, 20, 24; 4:2, 6, 7, 8, 13, 16; 5:2, 20. The italicized verses network directly with the concept of love. Cf. also the section on commandments and knowledge (subsection 4.3.2.2 below).

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

121

Knowing God not only includes cognitive knowledge but also communicates strong relational and existential dimensions like attachment, obedience, loyalty, respect and so on, of which love is not the least, forming a central focus within this existential and cognitive-relational context. Within this network knowledge plays an essential part in the ethics of 1 John. For instance, the triad of love, life and knowledge is networked in 4:7–8 which might be paraphrased as follows: A person is begotten by God and as God’s child gets to know God who is love. He loved people first, resulting in the believers’ reciprocal love for one another. Knowledge of God, as the result of birth from God, works in two directions – it is to know God as love, but also to know the reciprocal responsibility to love one another. This illustrates that soteriology (birth and life), theology (knowledge of God) and ethics (love for one another) are inseparably bound together, as Schnelle also argues, ‘Theologie und Ethik gehören in der johanneischen Theologie uneingeschränkt zusammen, weil Gott selbst Liebe ist (vgl. 1Joh 4,8.16)’.99 3.3.3 Love of Jesus and the Spirit? Remarkably, reference to love of believers for Jesus100 or his love for them is largely lacking in 1 John.101 The only exception might be the (indirect) reference in 3:16, where no subject of love is identified, but the nature of love is described in terms of Jesus laying down his life. The suggestion is that to lay down his life ‘for us’, he had to have love, or else he would not have done that.102 Obviously, in a broader sense the mission of Jesus, including laying down his life, is also an expression of God’s love.103

99

Schnelle (2010:163). Stuhlmacher (1999:258) sees a connection between the love of God and Jesus in 5:3, arguing, ‘An Joh 10,30, am Vergleich von 1 Joh 5,3 und Joh 14,15 und an Joh 15,9–10 kann man sehen, daß die Liebe zu Gott (im Sinne von Dt 6,4) und die Liebe zu Jesus nach johanneischem Verständnis deckungsgleich sind’. Cf. also Reese (2011:424–25). 101 Lieu (1986:204) remarks, ‘Jesus does not play an active or central role in that reciprocal love between God and believers which is at the heart of religious experience (4.7–5.2)’. Of the seven possible relations of love (God – Jesus; Jesus – God; God – humans [= believers]; humans – God; Christ – humans; humans – Christ; humans – humans) only three are emphasized in the Letter, namely, God loves people (1J 4:9, 10, 11, 16, 19; possibly 1J 2:5, 15; 3:17 depending on the interpretation, whether it is an objective or subjective genitive); believers must love God (1J 4:20, 21; 5:2; possibly 1J 2:5, 15; 3:17; 5:1, 3 depending on the interpretation, whether it is an objective or subjective genitive); believers should love one another (1J 2:10; 3:10, 11, 14, 23; 4:7, 11, 12, 20, 21; 5:2; 2J 1, 5; 3J 1:3; possibly 1J 4:8, 19 depending on the interpretation). 102 The example of Cain serves as contrast (3:12) – where love is, life is championed, while murder signifies hate. 103 Cf. 1J 2:9–10; 4:9–10. 100

122

Section 1: The First Letter of John

Similarly, the Holy Spirit is also absent from the network of love – it is neither stated that one should love the Spirit nor that the Spirit loves believers. There is reference to the Spirit in the context of the discussions on love, but then in relation to the Immanenz of God and believers (4:13).104 The implied author seems to limit remarks to the dynamics of love between God the Father and the believers, which might sound strange, for the simple reason that in the Gospel, love of the believers for God is not mentioned,105 while the love of Jesus for the believers and their reciprocal love for him are prominent.106 In 1 John it is the other way round. This is a notable difference that needs some explanation. Efforts to explain this will obviously remain in the realm of speculation, but nevertheless need attention. An obvious and indeed fruitful possibility presents itself in the nature of the conflict. The main point of contention was Christological, with the opponents denying that Jesus was the Messiah or a human being (flesh), thus by implication denying both the Father and Son.107 Apparently, the antichrists still confessed Jesus, but in an erroneous way according to the author.108 This would mean that they might also have been able to say that they love (their version of) ‘Jesus’. It seems logical to assume that they would also claim to love one another within their group and even the worldly things (2:15–17), but obviously not according to the authentic love as God revealed it. The author seems to prefer not to argue about Jesus entering into a Christological battle, but simply states the error of the opponents. His strategy seems rather to focus on God as light and love, something both the ‘us’ and the ‘they’ seem to agree on. He identifies the ‘us’ (1:1–4) with this God, confessing the close relationship between the Father, his Son and themselves.109 The ‘us’ side with God and God with them. This God is linked to the incarnated Jesus as the Messiah,110 the Son of God,111 who became man112 and was seen and touched by the orthodox eye-witnesses and was witnessed

104 Panikulam (1979:140) seems to overstate a bit when claiming that ‘The Spirit … is the dynamism of the koinōnia because it is the Spirit who continually arouses faith and love in the believers enabling them to respond to the demands of koinōnia’. The Spirit does seem to convey knowledge according to 2:20, 26–27. 105 Cf. Vol. 1, 311–12. 106 Cf. Vol. 1, 312–14. 107 Cf. 1J 2:22; 4:2. 108 They were part of the orthodox group, but broke away due to a different view of Jesus. They did not turn against Jesus, but against the true confession about Jesus of the orthodox group. It can therefore be assumed that they ‘loved’ Jesus, but as they saw and confessed him. 109 1J 1:3; 2:24; 4:3, 15; 5:5. 110 1J 2:22; 5:1. 111 1J 4:15; 5:5, 20. 112 1J 2:23; 4:2, cf. also 1:7 and 5:6.

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

123

to by God.113 If this God is accepted, his loving gift, that is, sending his Son into the world as human and the Christ, should also be accepted. The argument then works both ways – if you accept God, you are obliged to accept Jesus as human and as Messiah, and if you do not accept Jesus, you reject his Father, God (2:23). In this way the antichrists, who do not confess this Jesus (1:3) do not confess, or have fellowship with, God, the light and love.114 The relationship between the Father and the Son in John unfolds in a complex way, distinguishing between the Father and Son, but also associating them very closely.115 The difference between them is clearly defined: for instance, Jesus116 is the Son117 and God is the Father;118 the Father sends his unique Son,119 testifies to Him120 and His Son acts as Paraclete in the presence of his Father (2:1). On the other hand, there are remarks that closely associate the Father and the Son, mentioning them in one breath.121 Believers have fellowship with the Father and Son (1:3), and remain in them (2:24). What makes it even more complex is that in some passages, like 2:28–29, it is difficult to determine who is referred to – the Father or the Son.122 In 2:28 it is said that believers should abide in Him – this expression usually refers to the Father, but in the same verse ‘his’ coming (return) is mentioned, which obviously refers to Jesus.123 Doing righteousness, in 2:29, might refer to God or to Jesus124 (1:9; 2:1), but when ‘being begotten by Him’ is mentioned later in the verse, it can only refer to the Father. The relationship is pictured as even closer when the Son is said to bring life, which was with the Father125 and is even called God in 5:20. In some cases in the Letter where the subject of an action is to be identified, it is also difficult to distinguish between the Father and the Son.126

113

1J 5:9–11. 1J 4:9–10; 5:11–12. 115 Cf. Bultmann (1973:45–47) and Strecker (1989:147). 116 In half of the occurrences of the name ‘Jesus’ there are references to him as Son (1:3, 7; 2:22, 23; 4:15; 5:20) and all the uses of the term Christ are accompanied by the name Jesus (with 2J 9 as exception). Apart from the numerous uses of ‘Son’ to refer to Jesus (1:3, 7; 2:22, 23, 24; 3:8, 23; 4:9, 10, 14, 15; 5:5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20), the name Jesus is the most common way to refer to him in 1 John. 117 1J 1:3, 7; 2:22, 23; 4:15, 20. 118 1J 4:15; 5:5, 20. 119 1J 4:14, cf. also 4:9–10 and 5:20. 120 1J 5:9–12. 121 1J 1:3; 2:22–24. 122 Cf. Klauck (1991:172–73). 123 Cf. Bultmann (1973:45), Strecker (1989:142) and Smalley (1984:129). 124 Painter (2002:ad loc.), for instance, prefers the reference as to God, while Schnackenburg (1984:166) and Strecker (1989:146–47) prefer Jesus as referent. 125 1J 1:2; 4:9; 5:11. 126 Cf., e.g., 1J 2:2–5; 5:20. Strecker (1989:147) sees the solution in the fact that ‘Gott ist in Christus gegenwärtig!’. 114

124

Section 1: The First Letter of John

3.3.4 Believers ought to love as God loves The proposed scenario suggests that the addressees (the ‘you’ group) seem to be in flux between the ‘us/we’ (orthodox group) and the ‘they’ (= opponents). The call to fellowship and co-operation (koinōnia – 1:3–7) signals a deteriorating relationship between the ‘us’ and the ‘you’, although the author still regarded the ‘you’ as part of the ‘us’.127 The author therefore beseeches the ‘you’ to love their fellow Christians, since only then their mutual relationship would be restored, not only with the ‘us’, but also with God. The author provides several reasons why loving one another is not negotiable within the context of believers who are part of the family of God. He motivates mutual love in the following ways. i) Reciprocity and mimesis as typical ancient social practices are used as motivation for proper behaviour and love (4:11). Thus, God’s love is perfected. ii) Perfect love casts out fear of the eschatological judgment (4:17–18). iii) To love one another and to believe is a commandment of God that should be obeyed (3:23–24). iv) Being born of God and thus being his child leads to familial responsibilities that are expressed in loving one another.128 Closely related, but broader in scope, is the Immanenz between God and believers that results in perfected love (4:12). v) Obedient love is an essential part of the tradition or ethos of the orthodox Johannine group (3:11).129 As motivation for the grammar of ethics, these aspects need closer scrutiny. 3.3.4.1 Believers (‘we/us’) ought to love – this is a responsibility based on reciprocity and mimesis The mission of Jesus, as expression of God’s love, shows that the essence of love is that it actively aims at the benefit, advantage and well-being of others (‘for our sake’ – 3:16), offering life and forgiveness to them, in spite of the ‘costs’.130 The focus is on others and not on the self. The author remarks in 4:11, following the reference to God who sent his Son, that if He131 so (οὕτως132) loved ‘us’, ‘we’ ought to love one another 127

Cf. subsection 1.1.2.1 above. Cf. 1J 4:7; 5:1–2. 129 Wengst (1976:75) and Beutler (2000:26). 130 Cf. Kysar (1992:911) and Rusam (1993:110). 131 This ‘He’ refers to the Father. 132 This term is only used here and in John 3:16. Strecker et al. (1996:155) point out that the word οὕτως (‘so’) may refer to quality (in this way) or intensity (so much). Both options are possible. Cf. also Klauck (1991:252–53), Brown (1986:519) and Smalley (2002:245). 128

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

125

(ὀφείλοµεν ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾶν), alternatively stated in 3:16, namely, that love is that the Son laid down his life for ‘us’, and therefore ‘we’ ought to (ὀφείλοµεν) lay down ‘our’ lives for the brothers, obviously if ‘we’ want to claim that ‘we’ abide (persist or persevere)133 in God’s love.134 Smalley reminds us that ‘the present tense of the verb contains a durative force: surrendering ourselves for others is a regular Christian obligation, and should be regarded as an “ordinary duty” rather than “a transcendent deed of virtue”’.135 The use of the term ought to (ὀφείλω)136 points to a common ancient practice, namely, reciprocity, that is, that within a sound relationship a gift ought to be returned in similar or proportionate fashion.137 God’s unconditional love, who loved ‘us’ first (4:19),138 started the cycle of reciprocity, placing the obligation on believers139 to reciprocate the love they received from God. Obviously, God’s initial love (who loved first) was not based on any obligation or reciprocal requirements. God’s love is not responsive: he loved first, because he is love and where he is or where he acts, love is by default present. Indeed, he was under no obligation to love. However, receivers of this love are placed under the obligation (ought to) to reciprocate: ‘We love because God first loved us’ (4:19).140 As was already mentioned,141 although reciprocity was not forced upon people and was not an absolute requirement that was sanctioned when not adhered to, social 133

Cf. Malatesta (1978) and Strecker et al. (1996:44–45). Barton (2003) points out that the imitation of God’s love by believers is also witnessed to in the Hebrew Bible. In Dt 10:17–19, God’s care for the poor and powerless is described and then his people are commanded to show similar love (to the stranger/proselyte/convert = καὶ ἀγαπήσετε τὸν προσήλυτον). 135 Smalley (2002:194). 136 The verb ὀφείλω (‘ought to’) with the infinitive (1J 4:11) is used to implore and motivate people (cf. also J 19:7; 1J 2:6; 3:16; 4:11; 3J 8). According to Arndt et al. (2000:ad loc.) it may be used as follows: ‘to be under obligation to meet certain social and moral expectations’, while Louw and Nida (1996:ad loc.) mention ‘necessary, to be obligatory in view of some moral or legal requirements’. 137 For a more detailed discussion, cf. Addendum 2 on mimesis and reciprocity as well as the discussion on reciprocity in subsection 2.4.1.2 above. Cf. also Trebilco (2019:500, 502). 138 This corresponds with what Stauffer (1964:43) remarks about the Jewish view of love: ‘The love of which the Rabbis speak is neither love between God and man exclusively, nor love between man and man exclusively, nor the two alongside, but both together and at the same time. It is the basic principle of the threefold relationship of God, man and man’. 139 Klauck (1989:166) underlines, ‘Es kann kaum ein Zweifel daran bestehen, daß diese Liebe erst einmal programmatisch im Raum der Gemeinde zu realisieren ist’. 140 Stauffer (1964:39) points out that this is a common idea in Hellenistic Judaism by remarking, ‘Hence the love of God includes love for God. The source, however, is to be found in God, as is emphasized in the epistle of Aristeas. ἀγάπη, which constitutes the power of piety, is the gift of God (Ep. Ar., 229)’. 141 Cf. Addendum 2 and subsection 2.4.1.2 above. 134

126

Section 1: The First Letter of John

expectations were high that deeds should be reciprocated or else there might be social repercussions, since breaking the cycle of reciprocity actually damaged the networking and social cohesion of the group, and this was not really acceptable. There is an interesting twist in 4:11, however. The reciprocal phrase that might have been expected in 4:11 is, ‘since/because142 God loved you so, you should similarly (reciprocally) love God’ – however, on surface level the reciprocal action is not aimed at God, but at one another.143 The suggestion seems to be that reciprocal love that should have been aimed at God, is actually directed at one another, implying that reciprocating God’s love happens when believers love one another – loving one another equals reciprocally loving God.144 This ‘change in focus’ is not unique or even strange. Reciprocal response is often diversely networked in a community, for instance, ‘A’ gives to ‘B’ and ‘B’ gives to ‘C’ who reciprocates to ‘A’, as Seaford145 pointed out. This reciprocal statement in 4:11 is followed by an unexpected and seemingly ‘unrelated’146 statement in 4:12a, namely, ‘No one has ever seen God’.147 This poses the question as to why it is mentioned here that no one has seen God and how and where a person should reciprocate God’s love. The remark that no one has seen God (4:12a) is followed by a statement (v. 12b–d) that reverts back to 4:11b by claiming that if148 believers love one another, two things happen that are directly related to the unseen God: i) God abides149 in ‘us’ (ἐν ἡµῖν µένει) who love one another, and ii) God’s love is perfected in ‘us’ (ἐν ἡµῖν τετελειωµένη ἐστίν) who love one another. 142 Cf. Smalley (2002:244) and Haas et al. (1972:124). Johnson (2011:105) points out that εἰ (v. 11a) has factual rather than conditional power, while Painter (2002:267) opines that this is ‘a straightforward condition’ that ‘leads to certain consequences’. 143 Cf. Klauck (1991:253). 144 Cf. 1J 4:20–21; 5:2; and also Mt 25:34–40. 145 Seaford (1998:2–3). 146 Cf. Smalley (2002:246). 147 The theological idea of the unseen God is mentioned several times in John, e.g., J 1:18; 5:37; 6:46 – cf. also 1J 3:2. Strecker et al. (1996:156) and Klauck (1991:253) discuss the First Testament roots (e.g. Ex 33:20; Deut 4:12). Klauck also refers to passages like Philo, Post. 168 or Josephus, Bell. 7.8.7 (§ 346). Scholars like Schnackenburg (1984:240–41) interpret this remark in light of Gnostic views about ‘Gottesschau’, a view that has currently fallen out of favour. 148 Smalley (2002:248) correctly emphasizes that the ἐάν-phrase in v. 12b should not be interpreted in the sense that God’s actions are dependent on human actions: ‘We love because God dwells in us, and not the reverse’. 149 Some Bibles translate ἐν … µένει with words like ‘live in’ (NIV, NRSV, NCV, CEV), ‘reside in’ (NET), ‘dwell in’ (KJV), ‘bleibt in’ (Lut) or ‘blijft in’ (NBG1951) to express the close relationship between God and believer.

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

127

i) The first statement, namely that God abides in150 those who love one another, describes God’s presence in persons who love one another.151 As is explained elsewhere,152 this Immanenz of God is not an Immanenz of mystical or physical somatic nature, but of functional, qualitative presence through love:153 where love is shown by a believer to someone else, God is also immanently present, since he abides in the person who shows love. Schnackenburg remarks, ‘Wer durch die Weitergabe der empfangenen Liebe an den Bruder die Gottesgemeinschaft in der Tat auswirkt, in dem ist göttliches Wesen, eben die Liebe, vollendet da’.154 This is the way God might be ‘seen’ (4:12a), or in Painter’s words, ‘this is the Johannine version of the vision of God’,155 and to expand, it is the Johannine version of God’s presence among people. ii) The second statement claims that when believers love one another, God’s love156 reaches its goal or is perfected (τετελειωµένη ἐστίν) in or through ‘us’ (ἐν ἡµῖν – v. 12d). This is not the only reference to love that is perfected in the Letter. There are four occurrences, each with its own emphasis. Verse 2:5–6

4:12 4:17 4:18

150

Statement in the verse But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked. No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us. Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love.

Smalley (2002:248) opines, ‘“to dwell (in),” in John suggests an intimate and ongoing relationship between God in Christ and the believer’. Cf. also Schnelle (2010:152–53). 151 On a broader level, Schnackenburg (1984:250–51) links the unity of love in the Letter to the synoptic ‘Hauptgebot’ of Jesus, arguing that it serves as proof of the author’s correct understanding of Jesus. 152 Cf. subsection 2.3 above. 153 For a similar argument by John, see John 14 (Vol. 1, 212–16). 154 Schnackenburg (1984:241). 155 Painter (2002:271). On this issue, see also Klauck (1991:253), Strecker et al. (1996:157) and Smalley (2002:245). 156 The reference to the ‘love of God’ (ἡ ἀγάπη αὐτοῦ) in 4:12d can be interpreted in different ways, for instance, as objective genitive, meaning love for God, or subjective genitive, saying that God loves ‘us’, or qualitative, implying love that has the quality of God’s love. Although all three possibilities are contextually possible and plausible, the context might favour a subjective genitive (God loves), since the issue is how God is made visible. Cf. Bultmann (1973:68), Haas et al. (1972:124), Brown (1986:257–58), Strecker et al. (1996:157), Smalley (2002:248) and Painter (2002:272) as opposed to Schnackenburg (1984:241) or Johnson (2011:105) who interpret it as a qualitative genitive.

128

Section 1: The First Letter of John

The word τελειόω, translated as ‘to perfect’ is a key word in the Letter. The following lexicographical potential of τελειόω is of relevance: Arndt et al.157 provide the following possibilities: complete, bring to an end, finish, accomplish158 or bring to its goal,159 make perfect, genuine or real,160 or to bring to full measure or fulfil,161 while Liddell and Scott162 add the possibility of bringing to maturity. Arndt et al.163 also note that in John 4:34, 17:4 and 5:36, the idea is found of to do what should have been done. An important thrust of the word seems to lie in the idea of accomplishing a goal aimed at, thus fulfilling the measure so that the process may be described as perfect – nothing more is needed.

In light of its lexicographical potential, the Johannine expression ‘love of God is perfected’ (ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ τετελείωται – 2:5) might be understood in terms of love reaching the point that was intended, that is its goal, being what it is intended to be. The statement in 4:12 may therefore be paraphrased as follows: God’s love reaches the goal it is intended for, when and where believers practise this authentic love among one another.164 Actively expressing this authentic love confirms that God abides with (in) them, that is, is ‘present’ where they are. It would be an error to interpret the expression that God’s love is perfected as implying that God’s love was previously somehow imperfect.165 Klauck166 explicitly rejects the idea that God’s love is perfected in the sense that God’s love is seen as developing through stages (‘einen Prozeßcharakter’). The focus is rather on the process of love. Love originated with God as its source, was expressed through the mission of Jesus in order to reach its intended goal of becoming part of the believers’ actions among one another. As was mentioned elsewhere,167 this implies a specific mode of being present. It is not physical somatic or mystical presence, but qualitative, functional presence: qualitative in the sense that God is love and that this authentic love is active among people, and functional in the sense that through this love God is lovingly involved with people (cf. 3:16–17). By observing people 157

Arndt et al. (2000:996). So also Liddell and Scott (1996:1770) and Louw and Nida (1996:746). 159 So also Louw and Nida (1996:746) and Bultmann (1973:68). 160 So also Liddell and Scott (1996:1770) and Louw and Nida (1996:746). 161 So also Louw and Nida (1996:746). 162 Liddell and Scott (1996:1770). 163 Arndt et al. (2000:996). 164 Schnackenburg (1984:241) understands it in terms of describing love in ‘ihrer Ganzheit und Fülle’. 165 Rensberger (2014:249) prefers the phrases ‘completed love’ or ‘love reaching its intended goal’. ‘The point is not that God’s love has been “perfected,” as if delivered from a flawed condition. Rather, it has been completed, carried out, its purpose achieved’. 166 Klauck (1991:254). 167 Cf. subsections 2.3.1.1 and 3.3.2.2 above. 158

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

129

expressing this authentic divine love, God is experienced to be qualitatively present and is ‘seen’ in these loving actions. Of course, the relational basis is the Immanenz between God and his children.168 Their acts of love should imitate God’s acts, which equals the visibility of God in that particular situation where authentic love is shown, as Strecker correctly remarks, that ‘daß Bruder- und Gottesliebe untrennbar zusammengehören’.169 Logically this focus on Immanenz makes perfect sense here – God is love, and when the God of love is in a person, that person lives with love in him, actively expressing it towards fellow believers who observe the love in him as God’s presence and therefore as the love and presence of God. Klauck’s formulation is worth quoting: ‘Die Bewegung der Liebe, die von Gott ausgehend uns ergreift, verlangt eine Antwort, und diese Antwort muß in der Praxis gegeben werden. Nur wo Glaubende in Gemeinschaft geschwisterliche Liebe üben, findet Gottes Liebe eine dauernde Bleibe, gewinnt sie jene Vollendung, für die eine Antwort des Menschen unverzichtbar ist’.170 This addresses the issue that nobody has seen God, but must love like him – the love of the unseen God is (and should be) evident in and through the love of believers. A last instance in this regard, in 2:5 keeping God’s word is mentioned as the proof of perfected love, which refers to His commandments according to the previous two verses (2:3–4). However, in the Letter the content of His commandment(s) is repeatedly described as loving one another.171 The consequences of experiencing love as part of the reciprocal process should not be overlooked, as the following example illustrates. If the man in need in 3:16 receives what is needed from a member of the Johannine group, he is obliged to reciprocate. As has been explained, reciprocity creates and strengthens social relations within a group and results in social networking in which reciprocal care for one another is expected. By physically (and emotionally) experiencing the practical expression of love, the receiver is reciprocally bound to the group. Love breeds love, implying that the receiver is now under the obligation to also give to the needy brother when he in turn has enough to help others. In any case, he is at least under the obligation to respond to the giver in some or other way. This underlines that acts of love are by no means one-directional, but that they constitute a circular process, functioning as bond within social relations. This is what happens when love is perfected. Thus, the social obligations within the family become more and more pronounced, except, of course, if this cycle is broken, as Cain did (3:12). 168

Cf. 1J 2:5–6 and 4:12 in the table above. Strecker (1989:259–60). 170 Klauck (1991:254). 171 Cf., e.g., 1J 3:23; 4:21–5:3; 2J 5. 169

130

Section 1: The First Letter of John

Mimesis, that is following the example of Jesus, also serves as motivation for love, as is aptly expressed in 3:16: ‘By this (ἐν τούτῳ) we know love, because He laid down His life for us (ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν). And we ought to (ἡµεῖς ὀφείλοµεν) lay down our lives for the brethren (ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν)’. Since mimesis is widely used in a rhetorical sense in the Letter as motivation for ethics, it will be discussed in more detail elsewhere.172 In sum, since love for the unseen God is given practical and visible expression in brotherly love, the loving actions of believers should create an atmosphere wherever they go that corresponds with the ethos of the lifegiving and loving God. This is how they reciprocate God’s love for them. Where they are, God’s love ought to be seen. In this way God does not only become ‘visible’ but his love is ‘perfected’, that is, it reaches its goal. 3.3.4.2 Perfect love casts out fear of the eschatological judgment In 4:17–18 the perfection of love among ‘us’ is linked to fearless courage in the Day of Judgment. Klauck describes the content of fear here as ‘die Angst vor dem künftigen Gericht mit seinen schrecklichen Begleitumständen und die Angst vor einem verdammenden Urteilsspruch des Richters’.173 Living in love ‘perfected’, that is, being in harmony with God’s love (4:19) includes174 confidence or fearlessness175 in the face of the eschatological judgment.176 A maxim-like statement,177 namely, ‘there is no fear in love’ follows in 4:18a, clarifying the fearlessness of believers. Having the God of love abiding in them and being active participants in perfecting this authentic love, imply that their lives are filled with love, leaving no place for fear of the 172

Cf. Addendum 2 and subsection 2.4.1 above. Klauck (1991:270). 174 Arndt et al. (2000:476) note that ἵνα in 4:19 is used to take the place of the explanatory infinitive after a demonstrative, explaining how love is perfected. 175 The particular use of παρρησία should be noted – O’Cearbhalláin (1975:12–28, 42– 49) offers a more detailed discussion of the term. John frequently uses this word (cf. John 16; 1J 2:28; 3:21; 5:14 and here in 1J 4:17), that is often used for openness, frankness and directness of communication in friendship (cf. Vol. 1, 181–94). It may also be used to communicate confidence, courage or fearlessness, especially in the presence of an important person in forensic (eschatological) contexts and as is the case in 4:17 (Arndt et al. 2000:782; cf. also 1J 3:20 that might have eschatological dimensions). Strecker (1989:248) refers to Jewish-Hellenistic wisdom literature (he quotes 4 Esra 7:98ff.), suggesting that παρρησία here means ‘freedom from fear’. 176 Cf. 1J 2:18, 28; 3:2. Reference to the day when Jesus will appear again in 3:1–2 echoes the realizing eschatology (they are now already children of God) of the Gospel (cf. J 12:47; cf. also Vol. 1, 151–63), but goes further with positive remarks about Jesus’ eschatological return. Cf. Schnackenburg (1984:246), Painter (2002:281) and Schnelle (2010:157). 177 The use of maxim-like expressions is in keeping with Johannine style, cf. Addendum 8 at 3.2. 173

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

131

eschatological judgment;178 as Brown states, ‘When God comes and abides in love, there is no room left for fear’.179 In sum, because God is with ‘us’ in this world, love is with ‘us’, and because of this love ‘we’ love one another, thus living in a ‘space of God’s love’ that gives us confidence now and in the Day of Judgment. Klauck correctly notes, ‘Das Gericht Gottes bleibt … der letzte Horizont unserer Verantwortlichkeit und unseres Handelns’.180 In determining the origin of the maxim-like saying, ‘there is no fear in love’, Schnelle181 is of the opinion that it is most probably based on Jewish apocalyptic views. Klauck182 also finds its origin in prophetic and apocalyptic literature.183 It might also just echo Jewish and Hellenistic-Jewish ideas.184 Quell remarks, ‘If sometimes it (love in the OT) is brought into connection with fear, this is obviously an improper use for the sake of plerophory of expression. For love in the OT is contrary to a feeling of fear, striving to overcome distance between God and people, thus participating as a basic motive in prayer’.185

3.3.4.3 This is God’s commandment: to love one another As has been indicated, the social expectations created by reciprocity were indeed powerful, but not absolutely binding. The need for mutual love is emphasized even more strongly by pointing out that love is commanded by God and that this commandment should be obeyed186 if one dares to claim to be a child of God (4:21). 178 So also Schnackenburg (1984:248). Brown (1986) mentions several options proposed by scholars to understand the relation between fear and punishment, like, ‘fear has punishment in view’, ‘fear had to do with (includes) punishment’, ‘fear has its own punishment’, while he translated, ‘fear carries with it punishment’. Cf. also another argument in this regard in Rom 8:31–39. 179 Brown (1986:530–31, cf. also 528) argues that fear might be general in this passage, since in John fear and the presence of God do not co-exist. 180 Klauck (1991:273). 181 Schnelle (2010:156). 182 Klauck (1991:271). 183 Strecker (1989:248–49) likewise links the reference to the Day of Judgment to apocalyptic literature. Cf. also Rensberger (2014:237) and Aasgaard (2004:261). 184 Stauffer (1964:39) refers to views in Hellenistic Judaism relating love and fear: ‘Philo speaks in mystical tones of ἀγάπη, the turning to true being, in which man overcomes all fear and attains to true life (Deus Imm. 69); ἀνάβηθι, ὦ ψυχή, πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ὄντος θέαν, ἀφόβως … ἀγαπητικῶς (Migr. Abr. 169; cf. Cher. 73: τὸν νοῦν ἠγαπηκέναι)’. Cf. also Philo, In Flacc. 96. 185 Cf. Quell (1964:28). 186 Lieu (1991:50) regards obedience as an important aspect of ethics in the Letter. Keeping God’s commandments (τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶµεν – a common word in the Letters; 1J 2:3, 4, 7, 8; 3:22, 23, 24; 5:3, etc.) or word(s) (τηρῇ αὐτοῦ τὸν λόγον – 2:5; cf. also ‘his words staying in them’ – 2:14) are expressions that emphasize obedience. Also cf. Rusam (1993:111).

132

Section 1: The First Letter of John

In 3:23 important content of the commandment is outlined. Faith and love are networked as ways to obey God’s commandments:187 A

3:23a

A1 23d

Καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐντολὴ αὐτοῦ, And this is his commandment 23b ἵνα πιστεύσωµεν τῷ ὀνόµατι τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ 23c καὶ ἀγαπῶµεν ἀλλήλους, and love one another καθὼς ἔδωκεν ἐντολὴν ἡµῖν. just as he gave us commandment.

Rhetorically, the ring composition (A-A1) emphasizes that both faith in Jesus and loving one another are part of God’s commandment.188 The confessionlike description (‘believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ’)189 of what should be believed (2:23b) carries emphasis, while the phrase ‘love one another’ is used repetitively in the Letter to emphasize the obligation of believers to love one another.190 These are two sides of the same coin of God’s commandment, that is, needing faith in Jesus as way to change your identity, and needing love191 to express your new identity through your actions towards fellow believers, thus confirming unity with God (3:24 – i.e. Immanenz192). This networking between faith, birth and love confirms the unity of identity and ethics. The synergy between the commandments of God, faith and love193 is also expressed in 5:1–5. Whoever believes becomes a child of God (v. 1), is part of the reciprocal circle of love within the family, again confirming that love and keeping God’s commandments cannot be separated (vv. 2–3); where God’s commandments are not obeyed, there is no love of God.194

187

See the ring composition (A–A1) emphasizing the commandment, encircling the confession-like statement about faith in Jesus and the statement to love one another that is often repeated in the Letter. 188 Stauffer (1964:39) remarks the following about love in Hellenistic-Jewish documents, ‘Supremely, however, ἀγάπη is a relationship of faithfulness between God and man’. This commitment and faithfulness are the foundations for obedience. 189 Schnackenburg (1984:251) opines that this is a shortened version of what is believed but should be seen as ‘eine kurze zusammenfassende Formel’. Cf. also Strecker (1989:261–62). 190 Cf. 1J 3:11, 12, (23); 4:7, 11, 19; 2J 5; and also J 13:34; 15:17. 191 Wengst (1976:79) reminds us that love is ‘keine zusätzliche Bedingung für das “Heil”’, but a practical expression of being saved. 192 Cf. 1J 3:23–24; cf. also 3:17; 4:12, 16. 193 Cf. Strecker (1989:261). 194 This echoes the functional use of obedience in the Gospel, where love and obedience are flip sides of the same coin. It is actually not said in the Gospel that one should love

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

133

Terms like commandment or obedience presume authority of some sort. In the Letter, this authority is not primarily based on fatherly power, but on fatherly love.195 God is not only the source of love but also its authoritative inspiration. By loving one another, believers are reciprocally and obediently doing what the Father’s love requires of them (4:12). It would therefore be a serious misunderstanding to associate the commandments in the Letter with legalism or a-relational power. The reason for loving one another is not based on contractual legalism, but on existential and cognitive-relational realities (who a person is [4:7: born of God – ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ] and what he or she knows). The commandment to love also impacts on the unity and closeness among believers by frequently using the reciprocal pronoun ἀλλήλων (one another),196 referring to egalitarian reciprocity.197 To love one another communicates mutual or reciprocal love, which implies lowering or indeed eliminating social boundaries between those who love, thus relativizing the social distinctions within the group.198 Wolter199 also points out that the word ἀλλήλων ‘one another’ in ancient Greek is not used to refer to just anybody, but the reference is usually to family or friends. Apart from that the phrase, ‘loving one another’ also aims at unified interpersonal behaviour, involving all the members of the group – it does not move in one direction only. To the contrary, it ensures that every member of the group is loved by all, while every member should also love all others, which ensures the cohesion and unity of the group.200 In the grammar of ethics, this interrelatedness between identity and behaviour cannot be overlooked or under-emphasized.201 It is a key element of the grammar of ethics that re-occurs over and over again. Strecker correctly God, but instead that one should be obedient to him, which translates into love for him. Cf. Vol. 1, 311–13, Lieu (1991:55), Kruse (2000:162) and Smalley (2002:248). 195 So Rusam (1993:111). 196 In 1John the word ἀλλήλων (one another) is used five times with ἀγαπάω (3:11, 23; 4:7, 11, 12) and once with κοινωνία in 1:7. It is also used in 2J 5 – this frequency underlines the importance of the egalitarian reciprocity among believers in the love commandment. The egalitarian aspect applies to believers and not to God. 197 Cf. Wolter (2001:61–90). 198 Wolter (ibid. 61–90) refers to 1 Cor 7:19; 12:13; Gal 3:28; 5:6; 6:16; Col 3:11. 199 Cf. ibid. 61–90. Wolter mentions the following examples: Test. Seb. 8:4–6; Test. Dan 5:3; Test. Gad 6:1; Test. Jos. 17:2–3; Jub. 36:4; Xenophon, Mem. 2.7.1; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 74:12; Philo, Virt. 225. The frequency of use in the New Testament should not be overlooked: Mk 9:50; J 6:43; 13:14, 34; 15:12, 17; Rom 12:10, 16; 13:8; 14:13, 19; 15:3, 7; 1 Cor 11:33; Gal 5:26; 6:2; Col 3:9; 1 Thes 4:9; 5:11, 13, 15; 2 Thes 1:3; Heb 10:24; Jas 4:11; 5:9; 1 Pet 5:5; 1J 3:11, 23; 4:7, 11; 2J 5. 200 Armitage (2021:178) remarks that ‘love in 1 John promoted internal solidarity in a community beset by division and hostility from without’. 201 Smalley (2002:245) correctly notes, ‘As always, John’s theology and ethics belong together’.

134

Section 1: The First Letter of John

remarks, ‘Dogmatik und Ethik sind im johanneischen Schrifttum nicht gegeneinander auszuspielen, vielmehr hat jede Glaubensaussage eine ethische Qualität’.202 3.3.4.4 Being a child in the family of God requires love for one another Being begotten by God and thus being his child, leads to familial responsibilities that are expressed in loving one another.203 Closely related, but broader in scope, is the Immanenz between God and believers that results in perfected love (4:12), while perfected love again proves the unity between God and believers.204 Love is related to family imagery, mainly by referring to love between family members (Father, Son, children and brothers). – Reference to love for brothers205 is most common and a key requirement for anybody who claims to be part of the family of God.206 – Perhaps a bit more inclusive are the references to love of the children of God.207 Love inter alia serves to identify them as members of the family of God. – God sent his Son, described as an act of love by the Father which is continued by the Son.208 – God, the Father, loves his children.209 This love for his children motivates his salvific actions. – The love for the one who begets (i.e. the parent) requires love for the one who is begotten,210 emphasizing the centrality of love within the family of God. The close synergy between the concept of love and familial terminology shows the author’s intention to define love in terms of family relations, that is, the love a father has for his children, the love of children for their father, and the love children ideally have among one another. These family conventions, which were supposed to be the most intense relations in ancient times, serve as analogy (metaphor) for the loving relationships that are expected 202

Strecker (1989:262). Cf. 1J 4:7; 5:1–2. 204 Since both of these concepts are discussed in detail elsewhere, they will not receive further attention here because of the danger of unnecessary repetition. It will suffice just to consider the interrelatedness between the concept of love and the concepts of family and Immanenz in the Letter. Cf. subsection 2.3 above. 205 This term should be seen as inclusive of all believers. 206 Cf. 1J 2:10; 3:10; 3:11 (ἀγαπῶµεν ἀλλήλους) continuing with references to the brothers, Cain and his brother; 3:14; 4:20, 21. 207 Cf. 1J 3:1, 10; 5:1–2. 208 Cf. 1J 4:9–10. 209 Cf. 1J 2:15; 3:1; 4:10. 210 Cf. 1J 5:1–2 and 4:7. 203

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

135

within the family of God, and also within the Johannine group. This analogy should guide the interpretation of the love God requires from his children. Love is also often used in contexts where the unity (Immanenz) between God and believers is discussed. – If believers love one another, God abides in them.211 In other words, whoever abides in this love, also abides in God (who is love) and God in him or her.212 – Believers may be sure to be in Him when God’s love is perfected in them because they obey his words.213 – God’s commandment requires love for one another and whoever obeys this command ‘abides in him and he in them’.214 Showing authentic love, is interpreted in terms of unity (Immanenz) between God and the believer. This requires a specific perspective on space, namely, where a person loves, there the God of love is present, and it can be said that God the Father is in the person because that person shows love. There is even more, by loving one another believers also show their intimate relation with God the Father, that is, they are abiding in God, which means that where they act in love God is also present. 3.3.4.5 Love is an essential part of the ethos and tradition of the ethics of the Johannine group Faithful obedience is ‘part of their [= the Johannine group’s] identity and to be faithful to the command is to be faithful to the community’s identity; to fail to obey the command would be a denial of and destructive of the community’s existence’,215 as Lieu points out. The commandment to love is part of their tradition and ethos from the beginning – it is both old and new, meaning that although the motivation for mutual love is new, loving one another is part of their ethos from the beginning when they became Christians.216 Linked to the commandment is ‘keeping God’s word’ that is typical of what ethos is about. The phrase itself refers to something that is not explicitly described any further, very much like parents asking their children to ‘behave’.217 What the child should do is not explicitly stated, but because it is part of the thinking and expectations of the group that everybody shares, they know what to do in order to behave themselves. Likewise, the Johannine group will know what to do in order to keep God’s word. 211

Cf. 1J 4:12. Cf. 1J 4:16. 213 Cf. 1J 2:5. 214 Cf. 1J 3:23–24. 215 Lieu (1991:55). 216 Cf. 1J 2:5, 7–11; 3:11. Cf. also 3:23; 4:21; 5:3. 217 Meeks’s example. 212

136

Section 1: The First Letter of John

3.3.4.6 What does love look like in concrete, practical situations? God’s love is inter alia expressed in the mutual love among believers, as Schnackenburg reminds us: ‘Das praktische paränetische Interesse zeigt sich darin, daß der Verf. die grundsätzliche Forderung nach Liebe sofort auf die praktisch wirksame und erkennbare Bruderliebe anwendet’.218 However, to say one should ‘love’ is a principle for behaviour rather than describing what is expected in concrete terms (i.e. particular moral actions). What should be done practically to call that action an expression of love? The following statements give some indication of what love in active, practical terms involves in 1 John.

3:11–12 3:16

Love is manifested/known … Not like Cain By this we know love

4:9

In this the love of God was manifested toward us

4:10

In this is love

4:11

How love is manifested and known who murdered his brother that He laid down His life for us [And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren] that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as the propitiation for our sins [if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another]

It is possible that faith might also be regarded as concrete action, as is the case in the Gospel.219 In 3:23 the commandment of God is formulated in terms of belief in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, which might suggest that by doing it concretely, one does what pleases God (3:22). Practical actions that are mentioned as negative behaviour include murder, with hate and not love underlying this action (3:11–15); lies and deception,220 through which love cannot be perfected; lust of the eyes (resulting in actions to fulfil the lust) as well as pride in earthly possessions that do not correspond with the love of God (cf. 2:16). The limited scope of the practical expressions in 1 John should not be overlooked. The author limits his references to Jesus laying down his life and giving life to ‘us’. Klauck, for instance, mentions the widespread opinion that there is ‘“das fast vollständige Fehlen konkreter Weisungen oder ausführlicher paränetischer Abschnitte” im 1 Joh’.221 The author does not touch on 218

Schnackenburg (1984:240). Cf. Vol. 1, 117–35. J 6:28–29. 220 Cf. 1J 1:6, 8, 10; 2:4–5; 4:20. 221 Klauck (1989:152) quoting Schrage. 219

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

137

general issues that are common in other books of the New Testament, for instance, in virtue and vice lists,222 in paraenetic literature like James,223 or in some of the guidance of Jesus, for instance about paying taxes.224 The author is specifically focused on the influence of Jesus’ mission on the behaviour of believers, which is most probably influenced by the situation the group faced (see the proposed scenario). a) God’s love is seen in practice in the mission of His Son The practical expression of God’s love is basically manifested or might be known through the mission of Jesus that is formulated in terms of: i) Jesus laying down his life for ‘us’ (3:16) and not taking life away (3:11– 12); ii) God sending His Son so that ‘we’ might live (eternally) through him (4:9); iii) God sending His Son to be the expiation for ‘our’ sins (4:10). Although all three expressions focus on the salvific nature of God’s loving gift, they differ in their theological emphasis, covering a wider theological spectrum. In 3:16 the emphasis is on Jesus laying down his life to the benefit of ‘us’. In 4:9 the gift of God’s love is Jesus who is the bringer of life,225 thus indicating the aim of the mission and the purpose of the gift. In 4:10 the focus falls on the gift of forgiveness of sin, which in the context is linked to 4:9226 by way of parallel, which means that forgiveness of sin and having life should be seen in tandem. The latter two (life and forgiveness) are gifts of the loving God that resulted from the mission of His Son, while in 3:16 the gift involves an act of Jesus laying down his life for ‘us’.227 All these remarks focus on the important aspect of ‘giving’.228 Actions are focused each time on giving for the benefit of others, especially in their relationship with God (i.e. the soteriological emphasis). The main focus when it comes to the practical expression of love is found in 3:16–17, where the nature of authentic love is expressed in terms of 222

Cf., e.g., Gal 5:19–23; Col 3:5, 8, 12–15. Cf., e.g., the reference to the use of the tongue (Jas 3), or to partiality (Jas 2:1–11). 224 Mk 12:13–17. 225 Cf. 1J 5:11–12, 20. 226 1J 4:9: ἐν τούτῳ … ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ἡµῖν … (In this … the love of God among us …). 1J 4:10: ἐν τούτῳ … ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγάπη … (In this … is love). 227 In 1J 3:16 ‘love’ may refer to God’s love that is seen in Jesus, or the love of Jesus or both. In light of the mention of God’s love in 3:17, the more logical option is to the love of God. Cf. also, e.g. J 10:11, 15, 17–18; 13:37, 38; 15:38. Cf. also Vol. 1, 245–48. 228 God sent (gave) his Son to lay down his life for people, God made life available for people by giving His Son, God offers forgiveness through His Son, i.e. to be the expiation for the sins of believers. God’s gift is not the result of ‘us’/people loving Him, but of His loving them first (4:10). 223

138

Section 1: The First Letter of John

a) Jesus laying down his life b) for ‘us’. As was the case in the Gospel,229 the cross,230 focusing on the death of Jesus, is a key example of what authentic love involves, emphasizing the self-sacrificing love of Jesus, being willing to lay down his life (τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἔθηκεν).231 In Jewish circles the idea of giving your life for somebody else was resisted,232 basically because God is the God of life and death – the choice to give your life is therefore not in your hands. However, there are some examples in Jewish contexts of someone giving his life for his people (nation), but not for individuals as such. Giving your life for others therefore points to a Graeco-Roman, rather than a Jewish social context.233 In the GraecoRoman context such an action was admired, although not without criticism.234 It must be noted, however, that although it was expressed as an ideal, it is doubtful whether it was widely practised,235 but this did not negate its existence. Be that as it may, Christianity, not excluding the Johannine group, was confronted with the reality of Jesus’ death and had to interpret the significance of his death within the socio-religious contexts in which the Christians found themselves. An action socially regarded as extremely negative, namely being crucified, was positively reinterpreted in terms of salvific results236 and as such a variety of interpretative moulds, mostly taken from their everyday surroundings, were used, for instance, reconciliation, baptism, spiritual circumcision, propitiation, sacrifice or offering, and so on.237 In John laying down one’s life is the prime example for showing love, 238 since it is for the members of the family, and not for the sake of oneself.

229

Cf. Vol. 1, 244–48. Concepts related to the cross surface in different contexts, as the blood of Jesus (1:7), the expiation for ‘our’ sins (2:1; 4:10), Jesus came by water and blood (5:6) and more indirectly, Jesus destroys the works of the devil (3:8), or to bring life and understanding (4:9; 5:13, 20). 231 Cf. Vol. 1, 245–48, 310. 232 Beasley-Murray (2002:274) is one of the rare cases supporting the idea of a Jewish context for this idea, by saying, ‘Possibly so, but the context of mutual love and sacrifice for others, as well as the Jewish tradition relating to the friends of God, makes it needless to look for the inspiration of the saying elsewhere’. His view is not widely accepted. 233 Cf. Vol. 1, 188–92, 567–89; cf. Schnackenburg (1976:110) and Keener (1993:ad loc.). 234 Cf. Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 9.8.1169a18–20, 25–26; Plato, Symp. 179–180, Phaedo 62C; Euripides, Alc. 689–690; Epictetus, Ench. 32:3 and Cicero, Amic. 7:24–25. 235 Euripides, Alc. 12–18; Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 9.8.5; Seneca, Ep. 9:10; Epictetus, Ench. 32:2; and Lucian, Tox. 36. 236 Within the Christian context, with the death of Jesus as central event, this makes even greater sense. It does not take much to imagine how the death of Jesus on a cross could have been interwoven with the Graeco-Roman thought of ‘laying down one’s life for others/friends’. Cf. Schnackenburg 1976:109. Several scholars do not exclude the possibility of Hellenistic-Jewish influence, however (cf. Schnackenburg 1976:110 and Beutler 2017:ad loc.). Becker (1981:484) speaks of a ‘dem hellenistischen Freundschaftsideal verbundene Gnome’. 237 Cf. also Vol. 1, 580–82. 238 Cf. also J 10:17–18 where laying down his life is explained in terms of God’s love. 230

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

139

b) Believers ought to love like Jesus, laying down their lives for their brothers The words ‘in/by this’ in the phrase ‘in/by this239 we know love’ (3:16a) are expanded by a parallelism (cf. 3:16b–c) that simultaneously expresses the knowledge of what love is, as well as the obligation for ‘us’ (ἡµεῖς ὀφείλοµεν) to follow this example.240 A

16b

A1 16c

ὅτι ἐκεῖνος241 that that man καὶ ἡµεῖς ὀφείλοµεν and we ought to

ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν for us ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν for the brothers

τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἔθηκεν· laid down his life. τὰς ψυχὰς θεῖναι. lay down lives,

i) The act: laying down lives. The similarity in this parallelism lies in the phrases ‘laid down his life’ (v. 16b) and ‘lay down lives’ (v. 16c). The significance of this act of laying down lives should be appreciated. Laying down one’s life for others represents the highest gift one can offer, that is giving everything, including one’s life. If you are willing to give your life, nothing else will be refused – everything less is by default also included with such an all-inclusive act. It therefore serves as an umbrella concept for everything one has to offer – nothing will or should be held back. It is therefore not necessary to say that a person should be willing to share other things also, like food, loyalty, care, service, etc., since being willing to give one’s life includes all these things. Does this mean that believers who should follow the example of Jesus must also physically die (on a cross) in order to show authentic love? The answer is no. Mimesis does not require a photocopy of the ‘model’s’ deeds, but a creative expression of the character and nature characteristic to the actions and person of the ‘model’.242 This means that wherever believers are present, the expression of the nature and character of God’s love must be evident in what they do, creating an atmosphere that corresponds with the ethos of the life-giving and loving God. An example of what it means for believers to lay down their lives is indeed given in 3:17, to which we will return. ii) The aim: for the benefit of others. The reason (or aim) of laying down one’s life is expressed by the two parallel ‘for’ (ὑπέρ) phrases in v. 16b and v. 16c: Jesus laid down his life243 ‘for us’ and ‘we’ must lay down ‘our’ lives ‘for the brothers’. This emphasizes the aim of authentic love: it is to the

239 The phrase ‘by this’ (ἐν τούτῳ – v. 16a) refers to what follows after the ὅτι (‘that’ – v. 16b). 240 These ‘others’ in 3:16 are identified as ‘us’ (v. 16b) and brothers (v. 16c), both referring to the same group of people – the family of God (3:13–15). 241 There seems to be little doubt that the reference here is to Jesus. 242 Cf. Vol. 1, 257–61, 589–602 and subsection 2.4.1.1 above. 243 Cf. J 10:17–18; Smalley (2002:193).

140

Section 1: The First Letter of John

benefit of others.244 As Jesus laid down his life ‘for us’ (ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν) with definite positive results and benefits for believers, ‘we’ must lay down ‘our’ lives with definite positive results,245 benefitting others. The character and nature of such assistance to others will be to consistently ask what believers can do for others. Different situations may require different loving responses, but all will be according to the character of divine love as it was expressed by Jesus.246 This is a far cry from ‘rule-based’ ethics, since it is based on consistently making choices based on one’s evaluation of the situation in light of the obligation to love as Jesus loved. Responsible discernment is an essential part of ethical behaviour. The focus of authentic love is not on the person who loves, but on the person who is loved (i.e. ‘for whom’ the loving act of laying down one’s life is performed), creating required and indeed needed benefits for the receiver of love. iii) The reason: reciprocity and mimesis. An important term used in v. 16c, namely ὀφείλοµεν (ought to),247 gives the reason for laying down one’s life for ‘the brothers’, invoking the ancient ethical practice of reciprocity.248 Receivers of the benefits of Jesus laying down his life in v. 16b (i.e. ‘us’) here in v. 16c become the obliged givers of their lives to their brothers. This is required as reciprocal obligation to Jesus’ act of love, thus networking social relations between believers. Not only does the ancient practice of reciprocity play a role here, but also the ancient ethical convention of mimesis.249 Jesus sets the example for what 244 The so called ‘ὑπέρ phrases’ in John are debated (cf., e.g., J 15:13), with opinions moving between salvific substitution to simply dying without any clear benefits for the other (cf. Schnackenburg 1967:326–27). The question therefore is whether the phrase ‘for us’ (ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν) here refers to the salvific benefit of ‘us’ or whether it implies that a person gives his life so that others may benefit, but not as type of substitution or expiation, or whether it could simply be exemplarist, i.e. his death is an example that we can follow, without any other benefits. It seems that in this context believers laying down their lives simply want to benefit others, not in terms of substitution (this Jesus does), but simply by helping others. Cf. 1J 1:7; 2:2; 4:10; 5:11–13; and also Brown (1979:122–23) and Smalley (2002:193). 245 Cf., e.g., the benefits of Jesus’ blood cleansing ‘us’ from all sin, being the expiation, bringing life, destroying the works of the devil, etc. The references to the benefits Jesus brings are mostly to the salvation of believers. 246 Klauck (1989:155) remarks, ‘das Liebesgebot folgt aus dem christologisch vermittelten Gottesbild, ruht auf ihm auf und findet in ihm seine – im Sinne des Wortes – theologische Begründung’. The model of Jesus forms a fixed point of orientation for believers. 247 This states an obligation and is typical of reciprocal language – Brown (1979:449). The present indicative tense here suggests an expectation that is generally and usually applicable. Law (1909:391) even regards ὀφείλοµεν (‘we ought to’) as semantically stronger than δεῖ, a point that can be debated. 248 Cf. Addendum 2 on reciprocity and mimesis for clarification of this term. 249 For a detailed discussion of mimesis, see Addendum 2 and Vol. 1, 256–61, 589–602.

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

141

love is, and this example ‘we’ should follow, that is showing the same character of love he showed. Schnelle is indeed correct when saying, ‘Deshalb ist Jesu Lebenshingabe Grund, Vorbild, Maßstab und Verpflichtung für den tatkräftigen und nicht begrenzbaren Liebeseinsatz der gesamten Gemeinde’.250 iv) The context: family imagery. Considering the wider context (3:11–18), of which 3:16 is the apex, reference to ‘brothers’ suggests family imagery, thus implying that the context for understanding what is intended by this love is the love found in the most basic and intimate social circle, namely, the family. Within ancient families it was generally accepted that a child was reciprocally obliged towards the parents, not the least for giving him or her life as well as livelihood (food, education, etc.). The children were expected to respond reciprocally and in kind by obeying and serving their parents, caring for them up to their death. The parents were also basic ‘models’ for the children’s behaviour, who were expected to imitate their parents – indeed children were supposed to do what their fathers did (J 8:39).251 The difference between the children of God and the children of the devil (i.e. the two contrasting families) is found in their actions (of course, based on their identity as children – 3:10): it is a matter of doing what is right (i.e. what God requires) and loving one’s brothers (i.e. fellow believers or children of God). The difference this makes is illustrated in the semantic interplay in 3:12–17 between the concepts of life or death, love or hate, namely, taking the life of another or laying down one’s life for others, being a murderer or helping others irrespective of the cost to oneself: action reason

Cain (child of the devil – 3:12–13) murders his brother; hate, his deeds were evil (cf. 3:10)

Believers (children of God – 3:16–17) lay down their lives (3:16); love their brothers, help them (cf. 3:10)

In the case of the children of the devil (3:10 – Cain and the opponents), they take lives, being motivated by hatred for their brothers. Inherently, their deeds are evil (3:12) and therefore they harm others by taking away all they have, namely, their lives. A key explanation is that they are spiritually dead, emphasizing that they do not know God and are not of God (3:14–15). By contrast, the children of God (3:10 – Jesus and believers) are spiritually alive, having eternal life, with love proving that they are God’s children.252 Therefore, they do not take the lives of their fellow siblings, but instead lay down their own for others, implying a willing action motivated by love and not hate, benefitting others whatever the cost. By doing this, they do not take away what others have (i.e. their lives) but give to their brothers what they

250

Schnelle (2010:128). Cf. Vol. 1, 151–63. 252 1J 2:10; 3:10, 11, 14, 23; 4:7, 11, 12, 21; 5:1–3. 251

142

Section 1: The First Letter of John

need, thus assisting in creating life (also ordinary life by giving what is needed) instead of taking it. In discerning the correct ethical response, the question would therefore be: How can I foster or create life, not only on the spiritual level but also on the level of caring for the needy? Although the major emphasis falls on eternal life, caring for physical life is a crucial part of what authentic love is. God is not only the God of eternal life, but also of life in general. This again affirms that identity and consequent behaviour are inseparable as two sides of the same coin; as Lieu remarks, ‘If there is a single theme in 1 John, it is that claims to religious experience or status have no validity if they remain independent of life as it is lived’253 – this is consistently emphasized by John254 and is inherently part of early Christian tradition.255 v) The practical application: helping others (believers) in need. In line with mimetic expectations, the loving act of ‘laying down their lives’ for the brothers should be imitated as compassionately helping brothers in need.256 This would be a valid mimetic expression of the example Jesus gave of authentic love: 17a

17d

ὃς δʼ ἂν ἔχῃ τὸν βίον τοῦ κόσµου Whosoever has the world’s goods 17b καὶ θεωρῇ257 τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ χρείαν ἔχοντα258 and he sees his brother in (having) need 17c καὶ κλείσῃ τὰ σπλάγχνα αὐτοῦ ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ, and closes his heart/bowels against/from him πῶς ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ µένει ἐν αὐτῷ; how does the love of God abide/remain in him? 253

Lieu (1991:106). Cf. also 1J 5:1–3 where the ancient convention of family members loving one another is utilized further to convince the addressees that they should love one another (also cf. Van der Watt 1995:71–80; 2013b). 255 Cf. Mt 7:17–20; Jas 3:10–12. Of course, this issue has a long philosophical tradition, starting with the Sophists. Socrates argued that if a good man knows what is good, he will act good, linking behaviour to character. Since then, this has become a central point of philosophical discussions. 256 For a discussion of κλείσῃ τὰ σπλάγχνα αὐτοῦ ἀπ̓ αὐτοῦ, see Smalley (2002:197). He correctly points out that ‘almsgiving, and the sharing of goods with those in need, was a feature of the early Christian Church inherited from Judaism’. Brown (1986:474) also reminds us that this is not a new command, but is part of Christianity’s Jewish heritage (Dt 15:7). Klauck (1989:165) similarly points out that the responsibility to help the poor is part of the Jewish and early Christian traditions (Dt 15:7–11; Jas 2:15–16). 257 The idea does not seem to be a superficial ‘seeing’ of a person, but rather becoming aware of the need of the other (cf. Smalley 2002:196). 258 Lieu (2008:151) opines that the phrase ‘in (having) need’ (χρείαν ἔχοντα) in v. 17b offers a glimpse of the poverty that was common in ancient times and which was also shared by many early believers. 254

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

143

The author makes effective use of rhetoric by putting the example in negative terms and then correcting it with a rhetorical question, thus suggesting the correct and expected response. A hypothetical259 situation is given as example: a person with the world’s goods/material possessions260 sees a brother in need. He ‘closes his bowels for him’ (this is an idiom referring to having no pity or compassion for him261), that is, does not help his brother to the best of his ability, because he does not feel affected by the situation.

A rhetorical question,262 that has a performative effect on the readers, namely, challenging them to a response to this situation, follows: ‘How does the love of God263 abide in him?’ The obvious answer is that love of God is not in the person who refuses help, which emphasizes that if the believers do not help fellow believers, they do not imitate or reciprocate the love of Jesus, and therefore practically show that they are not part of the family of God. In this context such negative behaviour would align them with Cain (3:12), who did not care for his brother and in fact murdered him. However, the desired 259

The use of ὃς δʼ ἄν (whosoever – v. 17a) as well as the third person singular suggest that the focus is not on a specific case, but that a more general example is given. Smalley (2002:196) opines, ‘The use of the relative pronoun, with the particle ἄν (or ἐάν) and a verb in the subjunctive mood, expresses a situation which occurs generally (and, with the present tense of the verb, repeatedly)’. 260 Haas et al. (1972:91) and others like Painter (2002:242) point out that the phrase ‘the world’s goods’ (τὸν βίον τοῦ κόσµου – v. 17a) refers to things one needs for everyday life. Bible translations use different phrases. NLT paraphrases with ‘enough money to live well’, while NAB chooses ‘worldly means’ and ISV ‘earthly possessions’. The question is asked whether the expression ‘material possessions’ refers to rich people or to ordinary people who have enough or have something to share. The use of the term βίος in 2:16 might suggest a more lucrative life, but there is no contextual indication that this is the case in 3:17 (cf. also Smalley 2002:196). The point seems to be that if someone has material possessions left to share, irrespective of how much, he or she should share when encountering a brother in need. 261 For a more detailed discussion of the phrase κλείσῃ τὰ σπλάγχνα αὐτοῦ ἀπ̓ αὐτοῦ, cf. Smalley (2002:197). The NRSV indeed translates the phrase as ‘refuses help’, while the KJV introduces an emotional dimension by translating, ‘shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him’. Translations like the NLT, ISV, ASV or NAB also translate the phrase with having compassion. Some translations focus more on the meaning than the literal words, like the CEV with ‘If we have all we need and see one of our own people in need, we must have pity on that person’, or the NCV with ‘Suppose someone has enough to live and sees a brother or sister in need, but does not help’. 262 Cf. Haas et al. (1972:101) and Johnson (1993:160). 263 The phrase ‘love of God’ (ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ) might be an objective or subjective genitive, referring to the love God has as well as the love one has for God. Both seem to be implied or insinuated here, especially in light of the unity (Immanenz) between God and believers. Smalley (2002:197) prefers: ‘a love like God’s’. Also cf. Haas et al. (1972:101) and Johnson (1993:160).

144

Section 1: The First Letter of John

rhetorical effect is reached if the addressees respond correctly to the question: the addressees then associate and align themselves with the responsibility to loving care for one another. The principle of love must indeed be made visible – it is ‘dynamic rather than static’.264 It is the ‘fruit of the invisible reality’265 of what is called ‘love’, to use Lieu’s words. Love is also pro-active as is evident in the example: if the believer sees his brother in need, he is obliged to help even before the one in need asks for help. In this way the invisible reality of God’s love becomes visible for all to see and experience in practice.266 An ethic of intention (‘Gesinnungsethik’267) is not asked for, but rather an ethic of active love that is visible – love as principle is not enough, it should be love as action. The remark in 3:18 also echoes the ancient view that ‘one’s deeds should agree with one’s words’.268 Words alone are not sufficient, but should be confirmed and expressed in deeds, a warning that does not seem fictive in the context of the Letter; for instance, people should not claim to be in the light and then live in darkness (1:6; 2:9), and neither should they claim to know God and then disobey his commandments (2:4). Care for the family (the group) was of paramount importance. In 3:17 authentic love focuses on the protection of and care for fellow believers, that is the family of God, here the Johannine group, by living according to one’s identity as a child of this family (cf. also 3:1–10). It is a major priority of loving brothers to look after and protect their family,269 by caring for their brothers. Wengst formulates it aptly, ‘Die Bruderliebe ist ein Lieben und Geliebtwerden, das Gemeinschaft stiftet und bewahrt, das Gemeinde hervorruft und erhält, die in der alten Welt schon die neue darstellt’.270 The addressees (‘you’) are directly challenged by this practical example. They know what is right: they should lovingly care for their fellow believers (the ‘us’) and not follow the erroneous ways of evil, like Cain lacked in love and therefore did not care but rather murdered. 264 Lieu (1991:67). She (ibid. 66) opines, ‘Thus the invisible and visible realities are not just interdependent but in some sense co-extensive’. 265 Ibid. 65. 266 Cf. J 13:34–35. Schnelle (2010:80) is correct in opining, ‘Weil das Christentum des 1 Joh ein ethisches Christentum ist, steht der Gedanke der sichtbaren, tatkräftigen Liebe im Zentrum des Schreibens’. 267 Ibid. 129. 268 Malherbe (2004:300). 269 Hierocles (Off. 4.27.23), for instance, remarked, ‘The person who loves his kindred must treat his parents and brothers well and, on the same analogy, also his older relatives of both sexes, such as grandfathers or grandmothers, and uncles and aunts; those of his own age, such as his cousins; and those younger than himself, such as his cousins’ children’. Cf. also Schlier (1970:243). 270 Wengst (1976:68).

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

145

vi) The implication: not rules, but discernment. The answer to the question, What are the concrete deeds expected? is the obligation of believers to help others who are in need – laying down their lives for others, seeking the benefit of others. Responsible discernment within particular situations, which also implies free will,271 is therefore by default part of the package of the grammar of ethics of the Letter. Rather than a list of rules, relations dominate. Lieu is therefore correct in maintaining that ‘the author (of 1 John) sees the believer’s life in relation with God as the source of ethical behaviour’.272 What is expected is principle (i.e. love) driven ethics based on relations. Deeds cannot be separated from who a person is, and who a person is cannot be separated from his or her relationship with God who is the orientation point of the relationship.273 Within this relationship, a person discerns what authentic love requires of him or her in a particular situation in order to benefit the other, enhancing life. It is indeed a matter of discerning what God would have done. In this sense marriage, economic activities, social relations, and so on, are all covered within the principle of loving the other to their benefit, creating life. This indeed requires responsible discernment in every interaction. Rather than a list of do’s and do not’s, a relational, interpretative and cognitive approach is suggested, which is based on the principle of divine love, as Schnelle opines, ‘Die Bestimmung Gottes und Jesu Christi als Liebe und die daraus folgende Bestimmung des Menschen, aus dieser Liebe heraus zu leben und gemäß dieser Liebe zu handeln, ist zweifellos die zentrale Einsicht des 1Joh und der gesamten johanneischen Theologie’,274 including ethics. vii) Why this example: to challenge the addressees? A question might be asked: Why this example in 3:16–17? The obligation to love one’s brother is not something out of the ordinary, since it reflects the ancient communal and familial way of thinking about family relations and mutual assistance. Sharing common ownership of resources in a co-operative spirit (κοινωνία) is seen as part of the natural cosmic order – seeking self-interest and personal possessions was frowned upon, to say the least. Unwillingness to share property (i.e. helping the needy brother) within close relational contexts like family or friendship, is a misnomer. Why then this example in 3:17? A plausible reason seems to be that the addressees are thinking of joining the opponents (the ‘they’), thus neglecting their fellow believers and their needs, that is not appropriately showing love

271

Free will plays an important role in the ethics of John (cf. Vol. 1, 135–41). Cf. also subsection 4.8 below. 272 Lieu (1991:54). 273 Cf. Segovia (1982), Söding (1996:306–33) and Olsson (1999:160). 274 Schnelle (2010:164).

146

Section 1: The First Letter of John

and fellowship. In 3:10–5:3275 the addressees are encouraged to love.276 In this light, this well-known social and familial expectation of love in the family is given as an example to illustrate what joining the opponents would involve and what the consequences would be of such a move (3:11–13). Somebody who turns against his brother in need does not reflect familial love: this everybody knows. This shared knowledge ensures that there would be little chance of getting the rhetorical question wrong, and by getting it right, the addressees are obliged to love and help their brothers, that is the orthodox Johannine community (the ‘us’) and thus re-establish their fellowship. Excursus: Tertullian on the gathering of the congregation An example worth noting of how love and care were part of an ancient Christian congregation is given by Tertullian (155/160–220 CE). He offers a lengthy description of Christian meetings during his time. Although later than our documents (late second, beginning of third century CE), it does give some idea of the nature of such meetings illustrating practical love. It helps the modern day reader to visualize a context in which mutual love functioned. He writes: ‘I shall at once go on, then, to exhibit the peculiarities of the Christian society … We are a body knit together as such by a common religious profession, by unity of discipline, and by the bond of a common hope … We assemble to read our sacred writings, if any peculiarity of the times makes either forewarning or reminiscence needful. However it be in that respect, with the sacred words we nourish our faith, we animate our hope, we make our confidence more steadfast; and no less by inculcations of God’s precepts we confirm good habits. In the same place also exhortations are made, rebukes and sacred censures are administered … On the monthly day, if he likes, each puts in a small donation; but only if it be his pleasure, and only if he be able: for there is no compulsion; all is voluntary. These gifts are, as it were, piety’s deposit fund. For they are not taken thence and spent on feasts, and drinking-bouts, and eating-houses, but to support and bury poor people, to supply the wants of boys and girls destitute of means and parents, and of old persons confined now to the house; such, too, as have suffered shipwreck; and if there happen to be any in the mines, or banished to the islands, or shut up in the prisons, for nothing but their fidelity to the cause of God’s Church, they become the nurslings of their confession. But it is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. See, they say, how they love one another, for themselves are animated by mutual hatred; how they are ready even

275

It has already been noted that a strong appeal to love one another is made, especially in 4:7–5:3 where the reference and focus are consistently to the ‘us’. In this section the ‘you’ and ‘us’ should not be separated. 276 Cf. Schlier (1970:235). This implies that these antithetical remarks are not directed to the opponents, but are rhetorically used in the paraenesis in order to influence the behaviour of the addressees. Strecker (1989:257) therefore describes the antithetical remark as ‘gegnerische These’. Kruse (2000:169) tries to argue both ways by saying, ‘By stressing this theme in his letter the author sought to achieve two ends: to reassure his readers that they really knew God, and to show them that the claims of the secessionists were false’.

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

147

to die for one another, for they themselves will sooner put to death … At the same time, how much more fittingly they are called and counted brothers who have been led to the knowledge of God as their common Father, who have drunk in one spirit of holiness, who from the same womb of a common ignorance have agonized into the same light of truth! … that the family possessions, which generally destroy brotherhood among you, create fraternal bonds among us. One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives. … Our feast explains itself by its name. The Greeks call it agapē, i.e., affection. Whatever it costs, our outlay in the name of piety is gain, since with the good things of the feast we benefit the needy; not as it is with you, do parasites aspire to the glory of satisfying their licentious propensities, selling themselves for a belly-feast to all disgraceful treatment, – but as it is with God himself, a peculiar respect is shown to the lowly.’277

3.3.5 Love for the world and the things in the world? (1J 2:15–17) In 2:15–17,278 the author contrasts the love of the world (kosmos) and the things of the world with the love of God. Some scholars feel uncomfortable with these verses, for instance, Lieu,279 who opines that 2:15–17 reflects a ‘separate ethical tradition that … has no further effect on the rest of the letter: there are limited connections with the other uses of “flesh”, “eyes”, and “life” (bios) elsewhere in 1 John (4:2; 3:17)’.280 The question is therefore whether the content of these verses fits within the argument and scenario of the Letter without negating or conflicting the ethical views in the Letter.281 277

Tertullian, Apol. 39 (Ante-Nicene Christian Library 18, trans. S. Thelwall, 346–47). The text, highlighting the different key aspects, reads: 15a 15b Μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε τὸν κόσµον µηδὲ τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσµῳ Do not love the world nor the things in the world 15c ἐάν τις ἀγαπᾷ τὸν κόσµον, 15d οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν αὐτῷ· if anyone loves the world the love of the Father is not in him; 16a ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἐν τῷ κόσµῳ, for all that is in the world 16b ἡ ἐπιθυµία τῆς σαρκὸς 16c καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυµία τῶν ὀφθαλµῶν 16d καὶ ἡ ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life 16e 16f οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀλλʼ ἐκ τοῦ κόσµου ἐστίν. is not of the Father but is of the world. 17a 17b καὶ ὁ κόσµος παράγεται καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυµία αὐτοῦ, And the world is passing away, and the lust of it 17c ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὸ θέληµα τοῦ θεοῦ µένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. but he who does the will of God abides forever. 279 Lieu (2008:94). 280 Lieu (ibid. 94) argues that the negative evaluation of desire was common in the philosophy of Thucydides or Epictetus. On the basis of this communality she argues that the author of the Letter ‘has brought together the Johannine cosmological dualism and mythologization of “the world,” with this separate ethical tradition that also works with a form of dualism, but with one that is more moral and anthropological’. 281 Cf. Loader (2014:223–35) for a good survey of the discussion. I hereby acknowledge his contribution to the content of this section. 278

148

Section 1: The First Letter of John

Introducing this short section is an imperative not to love the world nor the things of the world (kosmos). Klauck282 again reminds us that in 1 John the term kosmos, when used in a negative context,283 refers to the sinful reality where evil is dominant and the devil opposes God (‘eine gottfeindliche Größe’284). Three reasons are given for this imperative: a) loving the world excludes the love of God (v. 15c–d); b) the things of the world are not of (ἐκ)285 God, but of (ἐκ) the world (v. 16e–f); and c) the world with its lust is not permanent but will pass away (v. 17a–c). The context focuses on what is evil (v. 16a–f) and not on what is expected within the sphere of the love and will of God (vv. 15d, 17c), which means that the examples are not neutral, but that they describe what is evil. This typifies the world ‘without God’. The word group ‘love’ (ἀγαπάω/ἀγάπη) as concept here refers to both the kosmos (vv. 15a, 15c) and to God (v. 15d). Some interpreters argue that the word ‘love’ therefore has different meanings.286 Semantically the word should not in itself be identified as good or bad, but it is ‘what is loved’ that makes it ethically good or bad.287 As was indicated earlier,288 the potential of the word ‘love’ covers concepts like affection, holding something in high regard, being fond of, to cherish, to like. Whether love is good or bad depends on what is held in high regard – God or the kosmos.289 It is therefore important to determine clearly what is not to be loved, described as the ‘world’ (κόσµος) and the things in the world (2:15a–b), that stand in contrast to the love of God. The things that are in the world (2:16a) and should not be loved are specifically described in 2:16b–d. The brevity of 282

Klauck (1991:137–38). Cf. for the use of kosmos in 1 John, subsection 1.1.5 above. 284 Klauck (1991:138). 285 Schnackenburg (1984:131) interprets the ‘of’ (ἐκ) phrases as ‘Wesenscharakterisierung’ rather than referring to origin. 286 Smalley (2002:82) indicates that ‘Some commentators (e.g. Bultmann, 33 n. 19; also Marshall 143) argue that the verb ἀγαπᾶν, “to love,” as used in this context, means not love in the Christian sense of ἀγάπη (“love”), but rather (and in line with common Gr. usage) appetitus, meaning “to take a fancy to,” or “to place a higher value on” (they compare John 3:19, 12:43; also 2 Tim 4:10)’. Haas et al. (1972:54) suggest the following, ‘The verb is used here with a non-personal goal in the sense of “to strive after,” “to try to get” (as in, “love the reserved seats in the synagogues,” Luke 11.43, TEV); then, “to prefer,” in the sense of, “to like better than the things of God” (as in, “men love the darkness rather than the light,” John 3.19, TEV)’. Cf. also Painter (2002:190). 287 It is a semantic fallacy to read the concepts of evil or good into the term ‘love’ as such. 288 Cf. subsection 3.3.1 above. 289 Kosmos in the Letter refers to different realities (cf. subsection on kosmos, above 1.1.5), but in this case it refers to the sphere in the power of the devil. Cf. Schnackenburg (1984:127), Klauck (1991:138) and Wheeler (1995:113). 283

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

149

the descriptions and the lack of clear indications of their social contexts make it difficult to determine the exact meaning and reference of these terms, as the following alternative translations from a few Bible translations illustrate. v. 16b v. 16c v. 16d

ἡ ἐπιθυµία The desire290/lust291/sensual lust292 καὶ ἡ ἐπιθυµία and the desire294/lust295/enticement296 καὶ ἡ ἀλαζονεία and the pride298/pride in possessions299 boastful pride302/pretentious303

τῆς σαρκός of the flesh293 τῶν ὀφθαλµῶν of the eyes297 τοῦ βίου, of life300/in riches301 vainglory304

In light of these uncertainties the lexicographical possibilities of these words need be considered first. i) According to Arndt et al.305 the lexicographical potential of the word ἐπιθυµία306 (v. 16b, c) is ‘a great desire for something, desire, longing, craving’. Louw and Nida acknowledge Arndt’s view, but add: ‘to strongly desire to have what belongs to someone else and/or to engage in an activity which is morally wrong – to covet, to lust, evil desires, lust, desire’.307 ii) The word ἀλαζονεία in v. 16d may lexicographically be used to refer to ‘pretension, arrogance, boast in arrogance’ according to Arndt et al.,308 or as Liddell and Scott309 put it, ‘false pretention, boastfulness’. Louw and 290

ESV, NRSV. NASB, NIV, ASV, AV. 292 NAB. 293 NIV, ESV, NRSV, ASV, AV. 294 ESV, NRSV. 295 NASB, NIV, ASV, AV. 296 NAB. 297 NRSV, ESV, NIV, NAB, ASV, AV. 298 NIV, NRSV, AV. 299 ESV. 300 ESV, NIV, NAB, AV. 301 NRSV. 302 NASB. 303 NAB. 304 ASV. 305 Arndt et al. (2000:372). 306 This is also the word used in the Septuagint in the Tenth Commandment (Ex 20:27; Dt 5:21). 307 Louw and Nida (1996:290). Liddell and Scott (1996:634) note passion and lust as potential uses for this word. 308 Arndt et al. (2000:40). Loader (2014:226–28) also gives an insightful overview of the use of desire in Hellenistic philosophy and Judaism, indicating that excessive or misdirected desire was mostly rejected by philosophers. 309 Liddell and Scott (1996:59). 291

150

Section 1: The First Letter of John

Nida310 give a broader description, ‘a state of pride or arrogance, but with the implication of complete lack of basis for such an attitude – false arrogance, pretentious pride, boastful haughtiness’. Haas et al. add the following to the semantic potential: ‘The term used here for pride refers primarily to the behavior of a conceited and pretentious hypocrite who glorifies himself; thence renderings such as “bragging,” “boasting”’.311 These actions of course take place in front of others, which is aimed at increasing one’s honour.312 iii) The word σάρξ (v. 16b) may, according to Arndt et al., be used to refer to ‘flesh, a physical body, sinful flesh,313 person or human being,314 human/ mortal nature, earthly descent, the outward side of life’.315 Liddell and Scott regard as important the use of the word to refer to ‘the flesh, as the seat of the affections and lusts, fleshly nature’.316 iv) The word ὀφθαλµός may simply mean the ‘eye as organ of sense perception’ or ‘mental and spiritual understanding, eye, understanding’.317 v) According to Arndt et al. the word βίος may simply be used to refer to ‘life’,318 but according to Liddell and Scott also to ‘resources needed to maintain life, means of subsistence’. They add the possibilities of ‘the world we live in, settled life’.319 3.3.5.1 Desire of the flesh (ἡ ἐπιθυµία τῆς σαρκός – v. 16b) The term ‘desire’ (ἐπιθυµία) is used in the first and second examples (v. 16c). The concept of desire lacks the concreteness of commandments,320 since desire refers to an inner attitude that leads to actions, but is not in itself a concrete or external action. Desire is rather the point of origin for deeds, controlling the person’s thoughts and emotions. The second step in following the desire is to respond to the desire in corresponding concrete actions. Semantically, desire itself is not evil per se: one can positively desire to do 310

Louw and Nida (1996:764). Cf. also Smalley (2002:85). Haas et al. (1972:57). Klauck (1991:140–41) reminds us that ἀλαζών was a boastful, pretentious character in ancient comedy. 312 Klauck (1991:141). 313 Arndt et al. (2000:915) note, ‘The OT lays no stress on a necessary relationship between flesh as a substance, and sin. But for Greeks, like Epicurus, the σάρξ is the bearer of sinful feelings and desires as well as the means of sensual enjoyment’. This might suggest Hellenistic influence in using this word. 314 In the First Testament the word refers to a human being, in his ‘irdischen Vorfindlichkeit, seiner Hinfälligkeit und Sterblichkeit’ (Klauck 1991:139). Klauck (ibid. 140) mentions further examples from Qumran (1QS 11:9, 11; 1QM 4:3). 315 Arndt et al. (2000:915). 316 Liddell and Scott (1996:1585). 317 Arndt et al. (2000:744). Cf. also Louw and Nida (1996:382). 318 Arndt et al. (2000:177). 319 Liddell and Scott (1996:361). 320 Cf. the discussion in Vol. 1, 396–97. 311

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

151

good or to worship God,321 but if the desire is aimed at evil, it leads to evil.322 ‘What matters is how one responds to them’.323 However, Klauck324 notes that the term desire (ἐπιθυµία) is mainly used in contexts of evil and sin in the New Testament, as is the case here. Desires come from the inside of a person, and can either focus on what is good or bad.325 To a certain extent, it is a two way street. Desire refers to what a person actively prefers, strives or craves for and wants,326 that is, the desire lies within him or her. This attitude then focuses on the outside, the worldly things that are then pursued because of the desire for them.327 Desires are set to be expressed in corresponding actions.328 In 2:16 the focus and preference is on what the world and not what God has to offer. There are numerous opinions about what exactly is being referred to by the phrase ‘desire of the flesh’. A few examples329 are: – Some330 interpret the phrase in a general way, including different human desires. This is less specific, and allows some to regard the phrase as overarching, inclusive of the following two phrases. – Others331 want to be more specific and to interpret the phrase as referring to sexual lust per se. 321 Graham (2004:ad loc.) points out that desire was not regarded as evil by everybody. Both Callicles (in Plato, Gorgias) and Thrasymachus (in Plato, Republic) argue ‘that it is our desiring things which makes those things valuable to us, and that the good life, consequently consists in being successful at getting what you want.’ Graham (2004:ad loc.) notes that Callicles argues that we ‘ought to consider the fulfilling of personal desires as the centrepiece of a good life, because the only really good reason for doing something is that you want to’. This view is known as rational egoism. 322 Schnelle (2010:96) mentions that in both Jewish and Hellenistic traditions, ‘desire’ is seen as a ‘Grundübel’. It is indeed the source of all evil, as Philo (Spec. leg. 4.85–86) also remarks. Cf. ‘Excursus: Philo, as Hellenistic Jew, on desire’ in Vol. 1, 397–98, as well as Schnackenburg (1984:128–29). So also Brown (1986:308). 323 Loader (2014:226). 324 In the Gospel this term is only found in J 8:44, where the reference is to the desire to do the will of the devil. Cf. Klauck (1991:138). 325 Cf. Heb 6:11; Mk 4:19. The word can just mean to strive or crave for something (desire), but can be negative in the sense of lust, i.e. ‘to strongly desire to have what belongs to someone else and/or to engage in an activity which is morally wrong – “to covet, to lust, evil desires, lust, desire”’. 326 Cf. Arndt et al. (2000:ad loc.). 327 Cf. Mk 4:19; Phil 1:23; 2 Pet 1:4; Rev 18:14. 328 Louw and Nida (1996:ad loc.) describe the essence of the term ‘to greatly desire to do or have something’. 329 Cf. Brown (1986:307) for a discussion of the options. 330 Cf. Marshall (1978:146), Smalley (1984:83), Brown (1986:310) and Loader (2014:225, 228). 331 As is evident from the lexicographical potential above, the term might be for desire in general, but has possible undertones of lust (sexual desire). Cf., for further discussion,

152

Section 1: The First Letter of John

– The interpretation may also be more context-orientated, that is, keeping the scenario in mind. Things that are not desirable for the one who loves the kosmos include self-sacrifice, helping others, creating and supporting life and love, especially in relation to the family of God. The desires of the flesh may refer to hate, murder, lies, confessional errors and so on, of which the author and addressees are victims. The anthropological point of departure should first be noted,332 namely, that humans (without Jesus) are seen as being spiritually dead, in darkness and in need of the eternal life Jesus gives (1:1–3; 5:11–12).333 Humans who do not believe in Jesus are in darkness, having an evil life in sin, lies and death, not the least because they do not know God. Therefore, their desires and consequent deeds are sinful.334 The desire in v. 16a is determined by the flesh. In the first phrase (v. 16b), ‘desire/lust of the flesh’, the genitive should most probably be read as a subjective genitive,335 meaning that the desire comes from or belongs to the flesh (the flesh desires), although the objective genitive, meaning the desire for the flesh, remains a possibility but the weaker option.336 It may also be a qualitative genitive, indicating that the desire reflects the quality typified by the flesh. Strecker337 speaks in this regard of sinful people being ruled by lust or pride, although, alternatively, it rather seems to refer to the sinful humanity of people that rule their desires. An emphasis seems to fall on the desires being determined by the sinful flesh, that is, originating and coming from within the sinful flesh. In 2:16b, the desire of the ‘flesh’ (σάρξ) is described as being in the kosmos. The word σάρξ is used only twice elsewhere in the Letters.338 In both cases there is a positive reference to the (obviously not sinful) humanness of Schnackenburg (1984:129–30), Balz (1985:180), Vogler (1993:88–89), Edwards (1996:84), Painter (2002:191) and Schnelle (2010:96). Lieu (1991:54) has a strong opinion: ‘It would then be wrong to try to identify the “vices” more specifically – such as whether “the desire of the eyes” is sexual lust or covetousness or (against a more Greek background) being captivated by the material world – or to suggest that 1 John is advocating an ascetic lifestyle rejecting every type of sensuality’. 332 Cf. Vol. 1, 53–54. 333 Brown (1986:326) further links ‘flesh’ to ‘human nature incapable of attaining to God unless re-created by His Spirit’. 334 Klauck (1991:141) supports the idea that the word desire describes ‘in umfassender Weise die Situation des Menschen in seiner ganzen Verlorenheit’. 335 Haas et al. (1972:58), Painter (2002:194), Lieu (2008:94) and Loader (2014:224). Brown (1986:308) also mentions the option of a qualitative genitive, i.e. ‘the kind of love associated with the flesh’, but this is a weaker and less accepted option. 336 This option is problematic in light of the following phrase where the word ‘eyes’ is used. 337 Strecker (1989:119). 338 In 1J 4:2 and 2J 7.

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

153

Jesus (i.e. he was a human being or person). In this light, σάρξ in 2:16b might simply be understood as being human, a person, but in this context in contrast to the divine.339 Along these lines, Brown translates the phrase as ‘human nature full of desire’.340 The desires typical of humans (flesh – in contrast to the divine) are qualified in 2:16a as being part of the things in the kosmos, in contrast to the desires of those who live their eternal life in the space of God’s will and love.341 It must first be noted that is it neither wrong nor evil to have flesh or eyes, or even riches,342 although these will pass away; they are not evil per se.343 However, describing these in the context of being in and of the kosmos,344 standing in contrast with what is of God, flesh here refers to humanness ‘without God’, outside the sphere of God’s love and will (vv. 15d, 17c), that is, being part of the evil world.

339

Cf. Schnackenburg (1984:129–30) and Brown (1986:308–309) for overviews of the use of flesh (σάρξ) in different contexts. Louw and Nida’s (1996:321) description of flesh should be noted: it is ‘the psychological aspect of human nature which contrasts with the spiritual nature; in other words, that aspect of human nature which is characterized by or reflects typical human reasoning and desires in contrast with those aspects of human thought and behavior which relate to God and the spiritual life – human nature, human aspects, natural, human … There are, of course, contexts in which σάρξ does refer to that psychological factor in man which serves as a willing instrument of sin and is subject to sin’. 340 Brown (1986:310). 341 Brown (ibid. 310) and Loader (2014:225) mention the view of some that at least the first two phrases simply refer to ‘an aspect of creation’, which might be seen as either good or bad. ‘The three are neutral as part of human nature, part of biological life (Brown 1982, 326)’ (Loader 2014:225). On p. 226 Loader argues against this possibility on the grounds that the third and last phrase is clearly negative according to him. This ‘neutral’ approach also loses sight of the broader negative context – these things are categorized as being in the kosmos, that is, in this context, contrasted with God. 342 Loader (2014:226). 343 Brown (1986:326) rejects the idea that the triad should be seen ‘as a catalogue of sexual attraction, of sensory pleasure, and of vanity based on material possessions’. He argues that not the sinful but ‘the absence of the otherworldly is what characterizes the three factors’. The remark of Lieu (2014:226; cf. also 1991:57) is worth noting, ‘When the author forbids any love of the world, this is not in itself rejection of the accoutrements of a comfortable life, or of social success and its benefits; neither is it a repudiation of anything associated with human bodily existence as if this was by definition something to be escaped from – although conceivably these might follow’. Smalley (2002:83) also warns against an anti-materialistic view, making all finite objects idols: he remarks, ‘In themselves all finite objects in any case derive “from the Father” (v 16b); it is a false view of them which “makes them idols” (Westcott 1902:64; cf. 5:21)’. Cf. also Marshall (1978:144), Strecker (1989:119) and Loader (2014:226). 344 Kosmos here refers to creation (people) without, and in contrast to, God’s love and will. Cf. Culpepper (2017:67–90) for a thorough discussion of the important relation between John’s creation theology and ethics.

154

Section 1: The First Letter of John

In sum, the most plausible way to understand the phrase is that it refers to general earthly human desires of people in spiritual darkness who live without God, that is, not loving, not being true, taking lives instead of creating life, etc. They therefore love and desire what they know, the things of the world, because they are who they are, humans with earthly desires and lust. 3.3.5.2 Desire of the eyes (ἡ ἐπιθυµία τῶν ὀφθαλµῶν – v. 16c) The second phrase (v. 16c) refers to the ‘desire/lust of the eyes’. What was said about desire in the case of the previous phrase, also applies here. However, the genitive expression ‘desire of the eyes’ (τῶν ὀφθαλµῶν) is challenging, not the least because of the semantic possibilities of the term ‘eyes’. It may be used in a variety of contexts, both as body part or figuratively, in a variety of idioms, or combined expressions.345 Maximus Tyrius346 long ago remarked that desires go through the eyes, but in ancient thought this could happen in at least three important ways, that is, from the inside out or from the outside in. In some cases it was thought that the light originates inside the person, moves to the outside and then mixes with the light on the outside just to move to the inside again.347 One way of thinking about it was that attitudes and emotions like jealousy could be projected from inside to outside through the eyes,348 a view found even in Jewish or New Testament texts.349 On the other hand, the view that what is outside can be perceived with the eyes was very common.350 345

The versatility may be observed in lexicons or theological dictionaries. Arndt et al. (2000:744) mention Maximus Tyrius, Dial. 19:21. 347 This is the opinion of Nolland (2005:300–301) who states, ‘Sight was understood to function by means of a flow of light from the eyes out to the object in view; the light from the eyes was thought to merge with the light coming from the object (with illumination by, e.g., the sun) and then to flow or bounce back to the eye and to penetrate through the eye into the person, where sight was registered’. 348 In commenting on Mt 6:22–23, Hagner (1993:158) refers to the eye that can be evil: ‘The πονηρός eye is the “evil eye” of Near Eastern cultures – an eye that enviously covets what belongs to another, a greedy or avaricious eye’. 349 Cf. Mt 6:22–23; Lk 11:34–36. In Lk 11:34 it is stated that if the eye, as lamp of the body, is bad, the body will be in darkness. The idea is that of a space that turns dark when the lamp (eye) on the inside is extinguished. Luz (2007:334) describes it differently, however, by referring to ‘the widely held ancient conviction that the human eye has its own light that shines on the dark surroundings and thus makes it possible for the person to see. The ancient idea of the evil eye is also part of this way of understanding the function of the eye. Cf. Sir 14:10. ‘For the Jewish use of the expression in this sense, see m. ʾAbot 2:12, 15; 5:16, 22 (= Danby, 2:9, 11; 5:13, 19). Other references to an evil eye in this sense are found in Matt 20:15 and Mark 7:22 (cf. Sir 14:8–10; Tob 4:7)’ (Hagner 1993:158). 350 Cf. Arndt et al. (2000:ad loc.) and Louw and Nida (1996:ad loc.). Examples abound in ancient texts, where it is said that something on the outside is seen, e.g., something happened before your eyes – Gal 3:1. 346

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

155

The question is, how should ‘lust of the eyes’ in 2:16 be understood? Smalley notes that ‘the eyes alone, among the organs of sense, are (interestingly enough) mentioned as agents of perverted instinct’ and continues by saying that eyes ‘become the means whereby wrong desires are allowed to take root and grow in the human will’,351 that is, the wrong desires come from outside. What the eyes see can easily grow in the mind into something evil by exciting evil ideas.352 What a person ‘sees and looks’ at creates desires353 which then obviously lead to evil actions,354 implying that this genitive is most probably a subjective genitive,355 that is, the desire enters through the eyes. This, according to Brown,356 means that the reference to eyes focuses on physical sight in contrast to spiritual sight, therefore missing the spiritual side of life by being restricted to valuing only what is earthly and visible.357 The translation should then be ‘lust’, since the subjects of the lust ‘strongly desire … to engage in an activity which is morally wrong’.358 On the other hand, desire could be seen as something inside a person, as was argued in the previous section about the ‘lust of the flesh’. The term ἐπιθυµία refers to an attitude inside a person in a negative sense (as in 2:16) of striving or craving for something, to engage in what is morally wrong.359 This means that the eyes are focused by desires, that is, what is inside the person orientates the eyes to look at what corresponds to the desire (lust) and then to pursue that.360 For instance, Vogler361 and others362 relate this phrase 351

Smalley (2002:84). He further notes that ‘In the OT there is a connection between the eyes and the sins of pride (e.g. Isa 5:15), desire (e.g. Josh 7:21), and unchastely [unchastely behaviour? or unchasteness?] (e.g. Gen 39:7; cf. Eccles 9:8)’. 352 Schnackenburg (1984:130). 353 Dodd (1946:41) is of the opinion that the desire of the eyes means ‘to be captivated by the outward show of things without enquiring into their real values’. 354 Luz (2007:333) remarks that ‘in Judaism “eye” had always been given a metaphorical connotation. A person’s character and moral quality are reflected in the eyes. A hearer of that day would not have understood an “evil” eye to mean a “sick” eye, since the contrast between “evil” and “good” eye in the metaphorical sense is firmly anchored in Jewish tradition … Instead, when the “evil” eye and the “good” eye are contrasted the issue in most texts is malice, greed, envy, and calculating behavior vs. kindness, generosity, and uprightness’. 355 Cf. Painter (2002:194), Lieu (2008:94) and Loader (2014:224). 356 Brown (1986:326). 357 Akin (2001:110) notes the way ancients regarded the function of eyes, ‘Eyes are windows into the soul … It is the eyes that lead most directly and quickly from the external observation to evil thoughts latent in the human heart (cf. Mark 7:21–23)’. 358 Louw and Nida (1996:ad loc.). 359 Ibid. 360 Betz (1995:453), in his comment on Mt 6:22–23 remarks, ‘The eye itself is thus not the cause of evil and sin, but the inner light is, if it has been turned into darkness’, emphasizing the influence from the inside on what the eye looks at. 361 Vogler (1993:89). 362 Edwards (1996:84), for instance, uses the phrase ‘ruthless greed’.

156

Section 1: The First Letter of John

to greed,363 implying a person greedily strives for what he or she wants and let the eyes seek that out. Some364 see a sexual reference in this phrase, that is, a person strives for sex and then the eyes identify what is available. Smalley, quoting Law, accepts a more general interpretation, namely, that it refers to ‘“every variety of gratification of which sight is the instrument” (Law, Tests, 150), both physical and intellectual’.365 In this sense the eye forms part of the ethical process that involves the whole person366 – it may be said that it gives moral desires a concrete content. A possibility for interpreting the phrase in 2:16c is that the one possibility need not exclude the other. It might refer to the desires in a person for something, that focus on the things on the outside, that again stimulate the desires on the inside, causing a circular movement (i.e. the third option above).367 However, if the context of 2:16 is taken into account the focus seems to be on the inside attitude of a person. The remark in 2:15 contrasts the love for God with the love for the world. It focuses on what is cherished, held in high regard by someone, that is an attitude of a person. This would direct his or her loyalty towards God or the kosmos. People’s inside attitude will determine the focus of what they want, meaning that their eyes will focus on what they prefer or cherish. This would favour an interpretation of 2:16c where the desire comes from inside, focusing the eyes on what is cherished on the outside. This is also the case in the first phrase (v. 16b), namely, the ‘desire of the flesh’, where the focus is also on the desire that comes from within. 3.3.5.3 Pride of life (ἡ ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου – v. 16d) The third phrase mentions ‘pride of life’ (ἡ ἀλαζονεία τοῦ βίου).368 According to the lexicographical potential of ἀλαζονεία, this word may be used to refer to false, pretentious arrogance or pride that has no real grounds. This suggests self-centredness and excessive focus on oneself and what one has. For 363 Klauck (1991:140) speaks of ‘Habsucht, Geiz und Gier nach immer mehr Besitz’, while Balz (1985:180) thinks it is greed for power. 364 Schnackenburg (1984:129–30), Klauck (1991:140) and Yarborough (2008:132–33). Cf. Loader (2014:225) for extensive parallels to support this view. Cf., e.g., 1QS 1:6; CD 2:16; 1QpHab 5:7. 365 Smalley (2002:84). 366 Although commenting on Mt 6:22–23, the remark of Luz (2007:334) should be noted here too: ‘The quality of the “eye” is decisive for the “entire body.” In plain words, the integrity and straightforwardness of human action, especially in dealing with possessions, determines what the person is as a whole. Here one cannot say that one’s person is more important than one’s actions, as if people were something different from what they do’. 367 The stimulation and growth of desires are also is suggested in Jas 1:14–15. 368 Brown (1986:311–12) provides a good overview of this phrase. According to him it may be translated as ‘material life that inflates self-assurance’ (ibid. 311).

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

157

Schnackenburg, this equals forgetting one’s dependence on God and leads to ‘einem solchen hochmütigen Blick auf den Menschenbruder’.369 The concept of such undeserved pride and boasting is linked to the concept of ‘physical life/things needed for physical life’ (τοῦ βίου). The term ὁ βίος370 may refer to the biological side of life (in contrast to ζωή that refers to eternal life in John), earthly goods or ‘livelihood including possessions’,371 or even to more concrete, material possessions, that is wealth,372 in the sense of things that one possesses or might possess. The terms ‘pride’ and ‘life’ are syntactically connected via a genitive (of life). It could be a subjective genitive in which case the phrase would mean the false pride derived from external material things that form part of life, that is false pride in one’s possessions.373 Worldly possessions then form the basis of the boasting. On the other hand, interpreted as an objective genitive, which is the less likely option, it will imply that a person is boasting about worldly things.374 In essence these two genitives communicate very much the same idea375 and need not be sharply distinguished. A nuance might be that in the one case there is false boasting based on earthly possessions or success, while in the other case there is pride in such riches, which might motivate the person to strive for further success on this level, involving a pursuit of further riches.376 Whatever the case, it has to do with an excessive and false focus on life’s possessions.377 False arrogance and pride based on possessions characterize such a person’s lifestyle.378 It is a matter of ‘Mehr-sein-Wollen und 369

Schnackenburg (1984:130). In giving translation equivalents, Haas et al. (1972:55) suggest the following, ‘The things in the world, or “whatever is in the world”, “whatever the world offers,” “things of men” (a common expression in the language concerned for “pagan way of life”); or, making explicit the negative connotation, “doing like bad people do”’. They (1972:57) similarly remark, ‘The Greek preposition rendered “(out) of” indicates origin, here probably quality as it is determined by origin. For other occurrences of “to be of” in John’s letters see 2.16b; 3.8, 12, 19; 4.1f, 4, 6a, 7; 5.19; 3 John 1.11. Its negative counterpart is found in 2.16a, 19, 21; 3.10; 4.3, 6b’. 371 Brown (1986:312), as well as Klauck (1991:141) and Loader (2014:224). 372 Cf. Balz (1985:180). It might even refer to pride in riches aimed at impressing others, as Marshall (1978:145) sees it. 373 Also Arndt et al. (2000:40). 374 Cf. Brown (1986:312) and Painter (2002:194). 375 Smalley (2002:85) remarks, ‘pride resulting from worldly things, and pride in those things, are scarcely separable from each other’. Cf. also Marshall (1978:145); Law (1909:152). 376 Yarborough (2008:132–34) is thinking here of the vain pursuit of earthly goods. 377 Painter (2002:194) considers the possibility that the ‘pride of life’ might emphasize the honour culture of ancient times and point to a ‘Greco-Roman cultural challenge to Johannine Christianity’. 378 Cf. Smalley (2002:85) and Akin (2001:110). 370

158

Section 1: The First Letter of John

Mehr-haben-Wollen’.379 Schlier380 likens it to self-love. It should be mentioned that apart from the New Testament, such promotion of self-interest was also regarded with scepticism by some philosophers in ancient times. In sum, typical of Johannine ethics, we do not have detailed morals spelled out here, but broader, more general descriptions are given. These three phrases basically refer to what is valued and desired on the earthly human level, both from ‘inside’ and ‘outside’, that is originating in the flesh or being observed with the eyes. These earthly things, that will in any case perish, lead to pride and boasting, losing sight of God and his will. In 3:17 those who know authentic, divine love, will not focus on acquiring or even lust for earthly things, but will give their ‘earthly goods’ (τὸν βίον τοῦ κόσµου) away. Note that exactly the same term (βίος) is used in 3:17 as in 2:16d to refer to earthly possessions.381 In 3:17 the relationship between those who have earthly possessions and those who are in need is addressed. The rhetorical question in 3:17 about the love of God, which aims at convincing the addressees to help others if they love God, suggests that those who have earthly possessions might have ignored the need of the poor, preferring not to share what they have. Loader382 suggests that this might link the two passages (i.e. 2:15–17 and 3:16–17). They ought not to cherish self-pride and boastfulness, but should lay down their lives for others. This defines the ethical contrast – it is indeed a matter of where the focus of the ethical agent lies. 3.3.5.4 Individual phrases or one combined statement? An evergreen question is how these three phrases in v. 16b–d relate to one another. Different possibilities are suggested: – These phrases may be interpreted individually, referring to different unrelated vices that serve as examples383 of what love for the kosmos involves.384

379

Klauck (1991:141). Schlier (1970:243). 381 Cf. Loader (2014:231–34). This adds to the argument that the content of 2:15–17 is not foreign to the material in the rest of the Letter. 382 Loader (2014:231–34). 383 Brown (1986:306) notes that three factors are mentioned, but these are not all that is in the world: ‘they are examples of what is in the world’. Akin (2001:109) is also of the opinion that ‘the three things listed in this verse – “the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does” – should not be seen as a comprehensive list of vices. These are avenues by which sinful humanity is especially prone to pervert the goodness of God’s creation’. This remark fits with the idea that these phrases are more general in nature. Cf. also Klauck (1991:137–45) and Lieu (2008:95). 384 Cf. Brown (1986:307), Klauck (1991:141) and Schnelle (2010:97). 380

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

159

– One phrase might overarch the other two. Marshall385 and Witherington,386 for instance, support this view with structural arguments, arguing for the unity of these three phrases. They regard the first phrase as overarching, with the other two explaining what ‘lust of the flesh’ implies. It may obviously also be the other way round, namely, that the third phrase explains the first two. This implies that the two phrases that are overarched are explanations of the phrase overarching them. – The phrases may be interpreted together as part of one ‘statement’ reflecting a particular social lifestyle.387 – A middle position is also taken, namely, that the phrases may be interpreted as separate vices, but are bound together in their reference to a single attitude, like self-interest. A widely accepted view is that the three phrases should not be understood as separate, unrelated descriptions, but should be interpreted as a unit and in relation to one another, that is, as a mini catalogue or association of vices,388 with the implication that they are all related to the same situation.389 For instance, Klauck is of the opinion that the triad belongs to the ‘Gattung des Lasterkatalogs’, but then in a shortened and more focused form, implying that ‘Der Sündenbegriff wird durch Reduktion generalisiert und radikalisiert’.390 Together these phrases therefore give a general idea of evil associated with the kosmos,391 in opposition to God. Even more precisely, these three vices might refer to different features mentioned concurrently of a particular ancient situation, typical of the kosmos, which might be part of the problem that the author of the Letter wants to address, as Loader392 suggests. He argues that ‘the culture of depravity present in the banquets of the rich’393 might be ‘a very plausible possibility’394 describing the situation referred to in 2:16. Loader argues that Philo ‘cites gluttony/drunkenness, linked with sexual excess and aberration, and the pretentious greed of the wealthy as the three major elements 385

Marshall (1978:146). Witherington (2009:509). 387 Loader (2014:229–31). 388 Vouga (1990:40) and Loader (2014:225), as opposed to Schnackenburg (1984:128), who does not think these phrases represent a ‘Lasterkatalog’. 389 So also, e.g., Wengst (1978:95–97) who links all three phrases to the desire for wealth. Cf. Marshall (1978:146) and Witherington (2009:509). 390 Klauck (1991:137). He also refers to Gal 5:19–21. 391 So, e.g., Dodd (1946:41–42, 46), Brown (1986:306), Klauck (1991:138) and Loader (2014:225). 392 Loader (2014:229–31). Within Loader’s argument, these three factors are not just chosen without any reason, but because they are common to meals and banquets. 393 Ibid. 229. 394 Ibid. 231. 386

160

Section 1: The First Letter of John

characterizing the depraved lifestyle’.395 Similar evidence is found in Sirach and Petronius.396 Since these vices correspond with what is mentioned in 2:16,397 Loader finds it plausible that people might have associated such banquet events or the ‘drunken parties of the profligate’398 with what is being said in 2:16. Instead of just listing three separate unrelated vices in 2:16, the author might have depicted and critiqued three aspects which are associated with the pretentious banquets of the rich. This suggestion of Loader, namely, that these vices are associated with events at (some) ancient banquets, is indeed plausible. Banquets (meals) in antiquity had acknowledged social significance399 and defined social boundaries within societies.400 A meal normally carried with it a social message of communality.401 Partaking indicated communality in social conviction and lifestyle. The convention was to dine with family, friends or like-minded people, since it was a time for ‘being together and for eating and drinking together’.402 This togetherness signalled ‘different degrees of hierarchy, inclusion and exclusion, boundaries and transactions across the boundaries’.403 This corresponds with the fact that meals and even banquets played an important role in the Gospel narrative404 and it is logical that as part of the Johannine ethos, it was part of the ongoing Johannine tradition. The Johannine ethos of communal meals celebrated the reality of love among Jesus’ disciples, according to the example of Jesus, washing the feet of his disciples (J 13).405 395

Ibid. 229. Cf. ibid. 230. 397 Klauck (1991:139) mentions that interpreters describe the reference of 2:16b as ‘reflexhaft sinnliche Lust, vor allem Neigung zur Unzucht, unter Einschluß von Unmaäßigkeit im Essen und Trinken’. This description is in tandem with what happened at (some?) banquets. He mentions several parallels from Plutarch or the Epicurians. Brown (1986:325) also mentions that ‘pagan authors like Tacitus, Suetonius, Juvenal, and Seneca portrayed the licentiousness and extravagance of the Greco-Roman world’. This lifestyle of free men was expressed at banquets. Pious Judaism warned against the seductions of sex and money (Test. Jud. 17:1). 398 Loader (2014:230). 399 Cf. Mack (1988:82–83) and DE Smith (2002:11–12). Vol. 1, 439–43. 400 Cf. Klosinski (1988:55–56). 401 A similar scenario is suggested for interpreting 1 Pet 4:1–5 and perhaps 1 Cor 6:12– 20, implying that this was a shared problem for early Christians. 402 Fitzgerald (2003:649–50). 403 Douglas (1972:61). 404 Vol. 1, 438–46. 405 Cf. J 13:1–35. It should be noted that the argument rests on the assumption that the meal tradition described in the Gospel is de facto continued in the later Johannine groups as part of their ethos. This suggestion seems very probable. However, meals are not specifically mentioned in the Letters. 396

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

161

It seems plausible that the lifestyle of desiring the things of the kosmos (1J 2:15–17) might be contrasted with the lifestyle of a child of God as it is expressed in their traditional meals of love, especially since in 2:15b the love for God is contrasted with the love for the world: whoever loves the kosmos, ‘the love of the Father is not in him’. This meal of love (agapē) would then serve as contrast to the type of banquet suggested here, illustrating why a person should not love the kosmos, since then the person does not share in the love of God (2:15). The use of the term ‘Father’ activates a family context where ‘love for the Father is only a reflection of the love which comes from the Father’.406 It is therefore plausible that the lifestyle of love that forms the ethos of the Johannine group is intended here407 and that what is said in 2:15– 17 indicates a contrasting lifestyle of self-interest and boastfulness. An ethical question that is often linked to 2:15–17 is whether the dualistic language used here implies ‘eine grundsätzliche Absage an die Welt? Fordert sie die Christen zum Rückzug in ein selbstgewähltes Ghetto auf?’.408 One should not lose sight of the intention of this passage. These examples of the vices do not suggest a rejection of everything material or of all riches, since exactly those material goods are needed in expressing love to those in need (3:17) – it cannot be simply branded as evil or against the love of God. It is rather the evil attitude towards and use of these goods that are rejected. In this light, Dodd claims that what is rejected here is only the ‘pagan society with its sensuality, superficiality and pretentiousness, its materialism and its egoism’,409 and not ordinary participation in this world.410 The focus is rather on a rejection of a contrasting lifestyle, as was practised in ancient gatherings like banquets. This trilogy411 is referred to as ‘the desire (singular) of the kosmos’ (v. 17b – see also πᾶν τό in v. 16a), which suggests a particular ‘lifestyle’ or ethos, just as the love of God suggests a lifestyle true to the family of God. Loving one another is the ethos of God’s family, caring for the Johannine group, not harming it.412 The contrasting lifestyle 406

Brown (1986:306) quoting Balz. Klauck (1991:138) restricts it to the love of God for believers but in the discussion about love in 4:7–5:4 (cf. subsections 3.3.2 and 3.3.4) it is shown that the love of God for believers is evident in the mutual love among believers. Whatever option one chooses, the essential meaning remains the same. 408 Klauck (1991:137). 409 Dodd (1946:42). 410 Loader (2014:231–35) similarly argues that ‘with regard to ethics, 2:15–17 certainly enables us to say that the author espoused moderate and controlled consumption of food and drink and response to sexual desire and clearly a rejection of boastful pride about possessions, rather than asceticism, including about sex’ (ibid. 237). 411 Jones (2009:85) suggests that the trilogy ‘may well be pre-formulated homiletical fragments or even a précis’. This remains just an opinion. 412 Loader (2014:237) argues that ‘the author deploys 2:15–17, however, not primarily to address social evils, but to serve a more fundamental concern: to challenge the neglect 407

162

Section 1: The First Letter of John

and ethos of the kosmos shifts the focus away from the ‘other’, focusing on desires, evidently satisfying the one who desires or boasts. ‘Was in der Welt ist, ist aus der Welt’.413 The exhortation not to love the kosmos, because then one cannot love God (2:15), might therefore also be formulated as ‘do not follow the lifestyle of the kosmos’ with adoration because then one cannot follow the lifestyle of the family of God. It is either the one or the other, as is typical of Johannine dualism.414 This position also supports the suggested scenario as plausible social context – the ‘us’ want to convince the ‘you’ not to join the ‘them’,415 who are of the kosmos, because that excludes them from loving koinōnia with God and his family.416 These negative actions, or this lifestyle, should be avoided, since these do not display the love of God:417 obviously, a strong argument for the ‘you’ to rather seek fellowship with ‘us’.418 Following this warning is the reference to the antichrists (2:18ff.), those who have chosen to leave the circle of love of God in favour of a lifestyle of antichrists. As Culpepper remarks, ‘Resisting the corrupting influence of the world (vv. 15–17) meant specifically resisting the group that had left the community’.419 In sum, 2:15 contrasts the love for God with the love for the kosmos. In 2:16 the love for the kosmos is described in terms of three related vices. These vices cover three areas in general with self-interest, expressed in terms of lust and boasting, binding them together. This might even refer to a single event, like a banquet where licentiousness was out of bounds. Evidently, serving as examples, these vices do not cover the totality of what may be of the ethical obligation of support for the poor, which appears to underlie the repeated statements about loving the brothers’. 413 Klauck (1991:137). 414 Cf. Klauck (ibid. 142) who underlines that this way of thinking does not fit into the Gnostic mould. So also Schnackenburg (1984:128, 132). Frey (2008:127–57) provides a good overview of dualism in the Gospel, that might also apply to the Letters, with its possible background. 415 Brown (1986:323–24) argues that the schismatics shared this worldly lifestyle (cf. 2J 7; 1J 4:5). 416 Chester (2013:136) points to the danger of merging or opening up towards opposing groups that might have a negative influence, because of ‘the consequences and compromises it could find itself caught up in’ (cf. 2J 10). It seems that what John is referring to here is a lifestyle where self-interest dominated and that could easily threaten the love for God and the Johannine group, as was evident in the actions of the antichrists. 417 Brown (1986:324) argues that the secession terminated the love of the schismatics for God and his family. The important criterion lies in the loving relationship one has with the orthodox Johannine group, the ones who believe in Jesus as Messiah who became flesh; as Brown (1986:325) states, ‘love for the world is a corollary of the basic secessionist Christological error’. 418 Cf. Klauck (1991:141). 419 Culpepper (1985:ad loc.; 1998:262).

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

163

loved in the kosmos, but clearly give an indication of what love for the world involves. The remarks in 2:15–17 do not suggest an attitude of general rejection of material goods, sex or riches, but rather a lifestyle in which these earthly things dominate due to self-interest that excludes the love of God. 3.3.6 Brotherly love and love for outsiders Love in 1 John, as in 2 John, on the surface level, is restricted to the brothers or members of the Johannine group420 who are expected to love one another. This might create the idea of exclusiveness or even sectarianism.421 This raises the question of love for outsiders422 or ‘universal love’423 as Kysar calls it. For many,424 the internal focus with its exclusion of outsiders points to the ‘particularist, conventicle ethic’425 of the group, even branding them as a sect.426 For example, Rese states, ‘Unter dem Markenzeichen der Bruderliebe sah man nur noch auf die eigene, konventikelhafte Gemeinschaft […]. Die Welt wurde zur teuflischen Gegenmacht, christliches Handeln auf den Binnenraum der Gemeinden der gleichgesinnten Brüder begrenzt und christliche Theologie zur Esoterik des eingeweihten Zirkels’.427 It is then argued that this conventicle-like exclusiveness disqualifies the ethics of 1 John as ‘sufficient Christian practice’.428 In dealing with this issue, Lieu acknowledges that ‘the Johannine preoccupation with mutual love has rightly been seen as reflecting a particularly strong sense of internal cohesion’,429 implying a negative and exclusive attitude towards the world in contrast to the more open attitude of the 420

1J 2:10; 3:10, 11, etc. Thatcher (2012:350), for instance, opines that the author’s ‘new commandment’ is ‘notoriously narrower than the synoptics’ “Golden rule”’, since it is focused on the brothers of the Johannine group alone ‘and warns readers not to “love the world”’. 422 Klauck (1989:151) also asks questions like, ‘… ob 1 Joh nicht einer verengten Konventikelethik das Wort rede, die nur für den engen Raum einer marginalisierten und gettoisierten Gemeinde konzipiert sei’, and further, ‘Hat die joh. Gemeinde eine Mentalität entwickelt, die man nur noch als sektiererisch einstufen kann: Die Grenzen der Liebe decken sich mit den Grenzen der Gemeinde?’ (ibid. 166). He then argues strongly against such a position (ibid. 166–68). 423 Cf. Kysar (1992:911). Klauck (1989:167) who warns against associating John’s love with general unconditioned love. 424 Cf., e.g., Rese (1985:57), Lieu (1986:180–90; 1991:69–70) and Thatcher (2012:350). 425 Perkins (1992:290). 426 Klauck (1991:281–82) gives a detailed description of (Johnson’s) characteristics of what a sect is, but is not convinced of the validity of such arguments, not the least because it is based on more recent perspectives on the concept of sectarianism. 427 Rese (1985:57). 428 Perkins (1992:290). 429 Lieu (1991:69–70) sees the reasons for this in the hostile situation, the dualistic theological structure or even a reaction against Gnostic claims. 421

164

Section 1: The First Letter of John

Gospel.430 Although Lieu notes that God ‘loves the world’,431 she nevertheless thinks that these are statements ‘which have survived in tradition and they have no effect on the theology of the immediate context of the Epistle as a whole’.432 Neither does the remark in 4:9 that the loving God sent his Son to the world, have any impact on the exclusiveness of love in the Letter. On the other hand, Klauck, for instance, rejects the opinion that the Letter supports a sectarian approach, as if the community existed ‘outside’ the ‘real’ world. Texts like J 3:16 and 1J 2:2 do not support this exclusive view: ‘Der Kosmosbegriff bleibt bei aller dualistischen Einfärbung dialektisch angelegt. Die positiven Aspekte sind zahlreicher, als manche landläufigen Darstellungen vermuten lassen’.433 Within such a context Klauck is not convinced that the love within the group would not have influenced the people of the wider society, ‘Von der Gemeinde kann sie und muß sie in die Welt hinaus ausstrahlen’.434 Kysar435 approaches the problem from another angle. He also acknowledges the restrictive remarks about love, but emphasizes that God serves as the source and example of authentic love which must be imitated and reciprocated by his children. God loves the world,436 which implies that his children should do the same. According to ancient family conventions children should do what their fathers do, implying that as the Father loved the world and wanted to give them life, his children should oblige and do the same. However, Cain (3:12) showed that one can break these conventions, but such behaviour is then characterized as evil, illustrating that he does not really belong to the family of God. The convention of children of God behaving like their Father is regarded as the ethically correct behaviour. Other ways of understanding ‘brotherly love’ were also suggested, such as the proposal of Bultmann, who suggested a semantic solution to the problem by claiming that the word brother refers to the ‘fellow man’, that is the neighbour, corresponding with synoptic ideas. Sanders correctly rejects Bultmann’s position by commenting that ‘certainly the love of one’s enemies, known from Matt. 5:44, does not appear in the Johannine literature’.437

Another angle to this problem is the social(-religious) aspect related to ancient groups in general, that is, how the social identity of groups was expressed and protected in ancient times.438 Relationships as well as cohesion within groups 430

Lieu (1986:180–90). 1J 2:2 and 4:14. 432 Lieu (1986:183). 433 Klauck (1989:167). Cf. also Wengst (1976:68). 434 Klauck (1991:280). Cf. also Smalley (1984:60) and Armitage (2021:177). 435 Kysar (1992:911). 436 1J 4:9; 2:2; 4:14. Cf. also J 3:16. 437 Sanders (1986:93). 438 Klauck (1991:279), in this regard, uses the phrase ‘ein Stück soziologischer Gesetzmäßigkeit’. 431

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

165

were always regarded as normative for determining social identity and responsibility within such groups.439 Stauffer considers this point in detail, noting that, for instance, in Jewish literature a similar exclusiveness was common: ‘It is a love which makes distinctions, which chooses, which prefers and which overlooks. It is not a cosmopolitan love embracing millions’.440 In ancient Israel social responsibility started at home. The Israelite ‘loves his people with the same preferential love as is shown it by God. He extends his love to foreigners only in so far as they are incorporated into his house or nation (Ex. 20:10; 22:20 etc.) … Neighbourly love for the native Israelite is concentric’.441 The Qumran community serves as another example, according to Perkins.442 The community tried to separate themselves from other groups and outsiders on socio-religious grounds, especially since there is a distinction between children of light and children of darkness. Solidarity and love had served to keep the group together within established boundaries. With the introduction into the community, wholehearted devotion to the group was required. 1QS 1:3–9, for instance, reads, ‘seek God with a whole heart and soul … that they may love all the sons of light, each according to his lot in God’s design, and hate all the sons of darkness’. In this way identity was established that helped group members to understand and make sense of life as well as their position within their surroundings. This common practice underlines that such exclusiveness should not immediately be equated with ‘sectarianism’ as we understand it today. Neither was it a disqualification: on the contrary, it was indeed an inherent quality of Jewish love as was also common among other groups in ancient times. As Philo argued, it all starts in the centre, with one’s own people, or ‘brothers’, as members of the Johannine group are called in the Letter. It is 439 Klauck (ibid. 280) asks a logical question, ‘Wo soll man damit beginnen, wenn nicht zu Hause?’. Love for brothers was indeed not something strange or unique in ancient families. Plutarch (Frat. amor. 4 [Mor. 480A]) makes love for brothers a central theme in his discussion. He asks, for instance, ‘what behaviour, gratitude or dispositions of children to their parents can be more delightful and rejoicing to the parents, than constant love [‘Zuneigung’ – Klauck 1997a:93] and amity [‘Freundlichkeit’ – Klauck 1997a:93] amongst the brothers’. 440 Stauffer (1964:38) and Quell (1964:27). Cf. Stauffer (1964:40) for the First Testament view. 441 Stauffer (1964:40) describes the social structure (based on Philo, Virt. 51ff.) as follows, ‘In the centre stand compatriots, including proselytes, and fellow residents, then in widening circles, enemies, slaves, animals and plants, until love embraces all creation. This must have been impressive even to the Greeks. Yet consciously or unconsciously there still emerges in this structure the singularity of Jewish neighbourly love, its fundamentally concentric character. For all the desire for adaptation in externals, even Hellenistic Judaism remains on the soil of the older Jewish understanding of love’. 442 Perkins (1992:288).

166

Section 1: The First Letter of John

therefore not a unique quality of the Johannine group but reflects inter alia the Jewish ethos from which they derive.443 Morgan444 also points out that this attitude was equally part of Graeco-Roman cultural conventions. Olsson445 reminds us that rhetorically the Letter has a very specific focus and aim. He questions the conclusion that love is not meant for outsiders (other fellow creatures) based on the Letter’s silence about this matter. He emphasizes that the remarks about love in 1 John should not be generalized, but the specific focus of the argument should be taken seriously, as he notes, ‘the focus on “the brothers” in 1 John 4 is clearly motivated by the letter’s situation’.446 Particular terms like koinōnia or love are simply used to convince the addressees to remain loyal to ‘us’ and as such the semantic value of love lies in, and is aimed at, its uniting character for a particular group. This means that conclusions about love in general should not be based on these remarks only, as Stauffer also argued. Not love in general, but a particular aspect of love is intended here, which is determined by the particular situation.447 This does not mean that brotherly love describes the complete attitude of the Johannine believers, as Stauffer pointed out. The worldview, including the attitude towards people, was conceptualized in terms of concentric circles, that included more and more of the reality as the circles move to the outside.448 As Klauck states it, ‘Das Weltverhältnis der 443 Horrell (2005:195) remarks that ‘Paul’s tolerance operates only within the framework of an intolerance that insists on Christ alone as the basis for community solidarity, a basis which also implies the proscription of actions deemed to threaten this union’. John also has tolerance bordered by its Christology. 444 Morgan (2007:1688). 445 Olsson (1999:164). Klauck (1989:167) warned against a tendency to interpret love in John against the perspective of abstract universal love, since what we have in the Letter is a strict focus on people in the addressees’ environment. He (1989:167 and 1991:280) also mentions that their situation with the outside world, not the least with their opponents, encouraged them to lovingly stick together as group. Sanders (1986:93) quotes Haenchen (1960:37) who also opines that the conflict situation in its variety caused believers to focus only on their own situation. 446 Olsson (1999:164). 447 Cf. Stauffer (1964:40). Klauck (1991:277–80) describes the forming of the Johannine group and then remarks: ‘Dazu würde es passen, wenn die mehr unreflektierte, aus sozialen Zwängen erwachsende Einschränkung des Liebesgebotes auf die Gemeinde zu einem förmlichen Programm erhoben würde’ (ibid. 280). In essence, he concludes, the attitude of John does not differ from the synoptic attitude regarding love for one’s neighbour. John’s restrictive love should be seen within the context of the Johannine community and should not be interpreted as absolute command excluding others. 448 Stauffer (1964:38). Stauffer also points out that in Jewish thought ‘even the enemy (‫ )שׂנא‬is to have my assistance when in difficulty, and is expressly referred to my help (cf. Ex. 23:4f.)’. This also applies to Jesus’ teachings according to Matthew (5:43–48) and Luke (6:27–36). The focus on the inside does not disqualify all outside involvement, but does qualify it. See also the discussion of love for outsiders in the Gospel (cf. Vol. 1, 319–25).

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

167

johanneischen Christen ist nicht so völlig gebrochen, ihr Exklusivitätsbewußtsein und ihre Abschottung nach außen nicht so total, wie es die Sektenthese voraussetzt’.449 In sum, arguing from the absence of references to love for outsiders, thus concluding that love for outsiders is not supported, is rhetorically problematic, since the argument is made from silence, especially since the author is addressing a particular conflict situation. His remarks are not general but focused. This does not by default typify brotherly love as sectarian or exclusive of others. If Olsson’s observation is correct, and I believe it is, it implies that the remarks about brotherly love in 1 John should not be judged too harshly. It is a matter of rhetorical focus, aiming at protecting the identity of the group as first priority within a situation of conflict, keeping a threatened group together. There were tendencies to distance themselves from their surroundings, that is the earthly desires as well as their opponents, but as Olsson argues, it should not be concluded from silence about love for the people in the kosmos that this approach by default excluded constructive relationships with the ‘outside’. It seems more acceptable to acknowledge that as the Johannine believers were threatened by their opponents, they aimed at protecting the family of God and therefore constantly reminded themselves of their identity in Christ and their mutual love. Strengthening this specific rhetorical explanation, the more general argument (also stressed in J 3:16) should not be overlooked, namely, that God loves the people in this world (providing the propitiation for the sin of the ‘us’ and that of the kosmos … [2:2]) and so should his children do. Their love ought to correspond to the love of the source of all love, their Father’s love. 3.3.7 Hate in contrast to love The term µισέω (usually translated as ‘to hate’) is used five times in three different contexts in 1 John,450 all in contrast to the concept of ‘love’.451 The lexicographical potential of the term includes ‘a strong aversion to’ or ‘to be disinclined to’452 according to Arndt et al., while Louw and Nida mention ‘to dislike strongly, with the implication of aversion and hostility’.453 449

Klauck (1991:282). 1J 2:9, 11; 3:13, 15; 4:20. These statements are similar to what is found in John’s Gospel: the kosmos hates believers. People in the kosmos are liars and murderers; they are in darkness; they do not have eternal life and their deeds show that they are not children of God. 451 Cf. Klauck (1991:125, 210) and Edwards (1996:12). In 1 John the contrasting word pair to love and to hate (ἀγαπάω/µισέω) is frequently used (love – 1J 2:10; 3:10, 11, 14, 16, 18; 4:7ff., 19–21, etc.; hate – 1J 2:9, 11; 3:13; 4:20, etc.). 452 Arndt et al. (2000:652). 453 Louw and Nida (1996:762–63). 450

168

Section 1: The First Letter of John

3.3.7.1 Hate is characterized by a life in darkness The first reference to hatred is in 2:9, where the concept of hatred is explained in terms of the imagery of someone who walks in the dark, does not know where he or she is going and stumbles (2:9–11). The metaphorical argument in 2:9 states that the person who claims to be in the light (2:9a) but hates his ‘brother’454 is like a person who is in darkness and walks in the dark,455 that is, hatred is metaphorically expressed as walking in darkness. Such a person does not know where he is going (is without moral purpose or direction), because he cannot see in the dark (he does not have the necessary knowledge).456 This expresses metaphorically that person’s inability to live according to God’s will. In short: in relational presence of God there is mutual love; in the absence of God there is hatred of your brother. 3.3.7.2 Cain as stereotype of evil: he hated his brother and murdered him (1J 3:12–13) In 1J 3:(10)11–18, the contrast between hate and love is graphically described, based on the contrast between Cain457 (and the kosmos – 3:11) and Jesus (and the believers – 3:16). Continuing the idea mentioned in 3:9–10 of two different contrasting families (that of God and of the devil), a concrete and well known imagery458 is used to illustrate the difference between these two families, namely, the stereotyped narrative of Cain murdering his brother (Abel459), because he hated him (3:14–15). 454

Brown (1986:271) emphasizes that the term ‘brother’ in the wider context of the Letter refers to ‘fellow Johannine Christians’. For him this implies that love in 1 John is ‘narrower than the extent of Christianity, for it is primarily within the Johannine fellowship’. 455 Cf. also 1J 4:20. 456 Brown (1986:273) points out that lack of the light which the family of God shares, leads to ‘hatred of one’s brothers, for it destroyed fraternal relations’. Cf. also Smalley (1984:60). 457 The Cain episode (Gen 4:1–16) is the only direct reference to the First Testament in 1 John (cf. also Smalley 2002:183–84), which might seem strange in a document that finds its roots in the Jewish and Christian environments. According to Smalley (ibid.), First Testament references were inappropriate since the heresy was pagan rather than Jewish. This is, of course, debatable. 458 For detailed discussions on the interpretation of this imagery, cf. Brown (1986:441– 43), Lieu (1993:467–72) and Smalley (2002:183–84). 459 Klauck (1989:157) also acknowledges the development of stereotypes when he says, ‘Der gerechte Abel, als solcher lebt er in der jüdischen Frömmigkeit weiter, und als solcher hat er auch Eingang gefunden ins Neue Testament’. Abel is not directly mentioned by name in the narrative, however, since the focus in the Cain narrative falls on Cain and his evil deeds and not on the reaction of his brother (who was murdered and could not play any further role). Cf. also Van der Watt (2018a:300–18).

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

169

The setting of the image in 3:12460 is a family – there were two brothers. The one was evil as was evident from his deeds – he murdered his brother, whose deeds were righteous, thus defying the interests of the family. By analogy Cain and his brother represent two spiritual families, thus interpreting the situation in light of ‘spiritual ancestry’.461 Cain, who was supposed to act according to the conventions of the family of his brother and himself, showed that he belonged to a different family, namely, that of the devil, since he did not love his brother and did not do what was right (3:10).462 Indeed, ‘Anyone who hates463 his brother is a murderer … and no murderer has eternal life abiding in him’ (3:15), that is, cannot be a child in the family of God, because his deeds are not righteous. In his provocative article, Thatcher analyses the Cain imagery in detail by applying social memory theory.464 Social memory theory suggests that stereotypes are formed that isolate certain qualities of a person or event which are then not only remembered by a community, but are also applied to present-day situations to explain and understand them and aim at influencing people to follow the ‘models’ suggested by the imagery remembered.465 The values Cain and his brother display in these memorized events reflect values

460 A chiasm in 3:12 centres on the murder of his brother (B/B1), an act that reflects Cain’s evilness through his evil deeds (A/A1). A 12a οὐ καθὼς Κάϊν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν not like Cain who was of the evil (one) B 12b καὶ ἔσφαξεν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ· and murdered his brother B1 12c καὶ χάριν τίνος ἔσφαξεν αὐτόν; and for what reason did he murder him? A1 12d ὅτι τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πονηρὰ ἦν τὰ δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ δίκαια. because his works were evil and those of his brother righteous. 461 Thatcher (2012:352). He (2012:353–54) refers to 1 En. 22:5–7 and Test. Benj. 7:3–5 in this regard. 462 As Thatcher (ibid. 353) remarks, ‘the Elder characterizes failure to love as a satanic sin with mortal consequences’. 463 Stauffer (1964:40) remarks that in Hellenistic Judaism, ‘Hatred derives from the devil, love from God. Only the man who loves God is secure against the assaults of Beliar (Test. G. 5:2; B. 3:4; cf. 8:2). Hatred leads to death, love by forbearance to deliverance (Test. G. 4:7)’. This illustrates that John’s position is not unique. 464 Thatcher (2012:350–73). What follows on social memory theory is based on Thatcher’s article and references are therefore not constantly made to Thatcher, except where specific points need to be highlighted. On p. 364, Thatcher gives an apt summary of what social memory theory involves. 465 In the words of Thatcher (2012:360), ‘well-known characters such as Cain and Abel can function as symbolic figures, evoking complexes of values that both rationalize present experience and prescribe ethical responses to current situations’.

170

Section 1: The First Letter of John

that are ‘prescriptive for the maintenance of these beliefs’,466 indeed ‘a guidepost for future action’.467 Thatcher illustrates that the stereotyped account of Cain killing his brother (Abel)468 becomes the way in which the author interprets his relationship with his opponents,469 especially through a complex of values drawn from Gen 4 (LXX470).471 According to the social memory of Cain (Gen 4 – LXX),472 he was stereotyped as evil,473 as were his deeds, and was also regarded as murderous towards his own family; he actively illustrated that by murdering his brother, something that is not expected or even associated with being part of a family.474 This serves as positive proof that he actually belonged to the family of the devil (1J 2:18 and 3:10) and no longer to the family he and his brother shared. This ‘model’ imprinted in the social memory of the Johannine group, then serves as a negative example, illustrating what evil deeds are like. This social memory of Cain is then applied by the author to the present-day situation of

466

Ibid. 363. Ibid. 362. 468 This was the ethical reason for Cain to murder his brother. Klauck (1989:156), referring to Westermann, remarks that conflict between brothers was indeed a reality since the earliest times of Israel: ‘im Brudersein wurzelt Rivalität, Konkurrenz, Streit, Feindschaft’. ‘Es tritt Ungleichheit ein, wo Gleichheit sein sollte’. He (1989:167) points out that conflict in ancient families was indeed common. 469 Thatcher (2012:354) even adds the idea of envy. This narrative has the schismatics as second reference (but see Klauck 1991:209). 470 Thatcher (2012:365–68) shows how the reading of the Masoretic Text was changed by the Septuagint translators. The Septuagint version corresponds more to the views in 1 John than that of the Masoretic Text. 471 Painter (2002:233) is of the opinion that this section does not depend on scriptural quotation, but rather develops John 8:39–44. However, Thatcher (2012:350ff., 365) showed that there is a direct reference. 472 Lieu (1993:467) points out that in Gen 4 no final answer is given as to why Cain murders his brother. The reason is nevertheless supplied in Targums: ‘Abel’s offering was accepted because his deeds were good and not out of divine favouritism’, a sentiment echoed in 1J 3:12–13. McNamara (1983:224) mentions that according to a midrash preserved in the Palestinian Targum’s renderings of Gen 4:8, Abel dies a martyr’s death. 473 Cf. Strecker (1989:108–11) and Painter (2002:233, 237–38). Lieu (1993:467, also 468–72) refers to Philo (Quaest. in Gen. 1.59) and Josephus (Ant. 1.2.1 § 53) who label Cain as evil and Abel as righteous. 474 Thatcher (2012:358) calls this ‘framing’, which schematizes the complexities of the past into manageable and meaningful, but definitely reduced and selected, images. These simplified images are then conventionalized. These perceived images then form the ‘reality’ about that reality, in our case Cain. Not his full history is applied, but he is ‘framed’ on the basis of his hateful and murderous character. This of course comes close to stereotyping, which plays a role in John in general (cf. Vol. 1, 267–73). 467

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

171

the Johannine group in their relation to their ‘Cain-like’ opponents,475 branding the opponents as evil and the Johannine group as righteous. Some of the opponents who were initially with ‘us’ (i.e. part of the family of God) have turned away from ‘us’. By analogy, this is compared to Cain who turned against his family by murdering his brother:476 the opponents are like Cain who stereotypically represents evil, hatred and murder, with his spiritual ancestry lying with the devil (3:10). By using authoritative Jewish Scriptures, the author may ‘vilify and demonize his opponents while essentially absolving himself of ethical responsibility for the conflict, historical realities notwithstanding’,477 suggesting that ‘Johannine ethics are grounded primarily in commemorative, rather than propositional, approaches to normative behavior’.478 In this way the Cain narrative forms the anti-narrative to what love and righteousness mean, highlighting the real evil, and the hateful nature of the opponents who left the Johannine group. They acted in an evil way and by turning their backs on the family of God, they indeed stopped loving them (cf. 3:17), which is the same as murdering them.479 The ideology behind the description of hate should be noted. It is not hate in general that is addressed here, but a particular, well-defined hate, aimed at a particular group. Love is characterized as love towards God and his family. That is what authentic love is all about. Within the dualistic framework of 1 John, those with God are contrasted with those against God – no other options should be considered. Nowhere in the Letters are believers said to hate or are encouraged to hate the opponents. Their behaviour should be characterized by love. It would be natural to accept that the schismatics most probably loved one another as ‘brothers’ too,480 but that their love is directed somewhere else, that is to those who belong to the kosmos and the family of the devil. Conse475

Thatcher (ibid. 364) quotes Schwartz in this regard: ‘social memories, as aspects of culture, do more than “express” social reality; they shape reality by articulating ideals and generating the motivation to realize them’. 476 Thatcher (ibid. 370) also calls this analogy: ‘the Septuagint story of Cain and Abel was readily analogous to John’s situation as he perceived it’. 477 Ibid. 351. 478 Ibid. It will be argued that this is one of the ways the author motivates his ethics, but not the only one. Thatcher tends to over-emphasize this particular part of the argument. 479 Thatcher (ibid. 356) explains that social memory theory works according to the assumption that ‘remembering is an inherently collective, rather than a purely personal, phenomenon’, which validates the expectation that the qualities of a stereotyped individual like Cain might be applied to a group like the opponents. For Segovia (1981:259–72), this way of defining hatred suggests that the Johannine group was a sectarian group that was under pressure. That the group was under pressure is undoubtedly so, but that this means they were a sect is doubtful – see subsection 3.3.6 above. 480 Cf. Brown (1986:273) for a discussion about love among the schismatics themselves.

172

Section 1: The First Letter of John

quently, it is branded as hatred towards God. Perkins notes that the ‘rhetoric of apocalyptic condemnation’481 is used against those who are identified as false prophets and as hating the ‘us’ group. By implication this is also true of persons who somehow actively disassociate themselves from the ‘us’ group by not showing love to these ‘brothers’ or do not co-operate in fellowship. Within the proposed scenario of the Letter, this of course implies that if one does not live in unity with the ‘us’ group or one acts against them as family of God, one’s actions are regarded as hateful and murderous. Hate has to do ‘with not caring for the brothers, which is tantamount to murder, not just in the sense of the original illustration of rage leading to murder, but neglect leading to death’.482 The ‘you’ group should therefore rather side in love with the ‘us’ group and actively co-operate in promoting the family of God. Thatcher concludes that ‘John’s peculiar love ethic should be viewed as the product of memorial processes that merged recent experiences … with the biblical story of Cain and Abel in support of a sustainable and programmatic Christian identity’.483 This Cain narrative thus gives the author the authoritative Scriptural sanction to demonize his opponents by branding them as evil murderers like Cain, who represents the presence of the devil484 in this world. This also empowers him not only to paint a contrasting positive picture of what is to be desired, namely, authentic life and love, not death and hatred (3:13–16),485 but also to be able to ground it in the traditional history of God with his people. An ethical question is whether the reference to hatred means that the Johannine group was under consistent harassment. Hatred in biblical language often simply implies being uninterested in somebody, regarding that person as irrelevant, not bothering about that person. No specific action apart from ‘ignoring’ that person is needed to qualify as hatred.486 Not doing one’s duty 481

Perkins (1992:289–90). Loader (2014:234). Haas et al. (1972:47) put it this way, ‘It [hate] does not focus on feelings of aversion, but on deeds neglecting love, helpfulness, and self-sacrifice’, although it might refer to aversion in 3:13. 483 Thatcher (2012:357). His statement that John’s love ethics is the product of memorial processes is too restrictive. This is not the only description of love in the Letter (cf. 4:11–5:3). The Cain episode indeed assists in enlightening the situation between the Johannine group and the opponents, but did not produce the way that ethics is understood – other motives, like that of God as love or light, the death of Jesus, or the concept of the antichrist are examples of the multiple concepts the author uses in developing his ethics. 484 By contextually identifying Cain as a child of the devil (3:10) the narrative includes a larger symbolic network, including a cosmic spiritual conflict in which God and the devil are participants, and even forms the fixed points of the narrative (Thatcher 2012:371). 485 Lieu (1993:470) correctly sees the influence of this imagery as extending over the whole of Gen 3, influencing both language and thought. 486 Klauck (1991:125) mentions ‘Gleichgültigkeit … Geringschätzung’ as sufficient to be regarded as hate. 482

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

173

within the context of the expectations of fellowship, might therefore be regarded as hate. This must have served as a paraenetic warning for the ‘you’ group to keep up their active fellowship with ‘us’. Brown,487 with others,488 does not favour this suggestion, however. Based on passages like 1J 2:11, 3:15 and 4:20, Brown argues that it was not just a matter of indifference, but that it implied a more active hostile stance. There is of course something to be said for this view, but it need not exclude the possibility that the schismatics simply turned their backs on the remaining Johannine group by, for instance, not actively helping them in their need. The reference in 2:19 to those who were not of ‘us’ because they went out from ‘us’ might conceptually be linked to the description of the two groups in 3:12–15. In 3:12, Cain is said to have murdered his brother, which implies an evil act of hatred. The antichrists again ‘went out’ (2:19), implying that they broke their co-operative relations (koinōnia) with the ‘us’ group, that is, they stopped loving and caring for them, which translates into hatred. These two parallel remarks indicate that both the antichrists and Cain showed themselves as not being part of the authentic family of God through visible and active behaviour (3:10), indicating a conscious separation. Their actions might therefore be described in terms of hatred towards the orthodox Johannine group, hate as opposition to love, death in opposition to life. They show love for the world and worldly things, focusing on their own desires and interests, in contrast to loving God (2:15–17).

In sum, by making use of stereotyping the author clearly categorizes the opponents. A presumably complex situation is presented in a simple clear stereotyped way according to which the Johannine group could understand and cope with the situation: their opponents were children of the devil, being evil, hateful and murderous. This is who they are and what they do, while the ‘us’ are the living, loving children of God. Thatcher489 also points out that by using this imagery of opponents, no grey areas are possible – it is a case of ‘either-or’, which should be a stern warning to the ‘you’ group – they are encouraged to stay on the side of love and koinōnia with the family of God. 3.3.7.3 The contrast to hatred: the example of the love of Jesus (1J 3:14–16) Cain is remembered as stereotypical of evil attitudes and deeds while his brother’s deeds were righteous. It is rhetorically significant, however, that the name of Cain’s brother (Abel) is not mentioned, and neither does he play any role in the subsequent development of the argument. His reference is restricted to the example of a righteous family member who is murdered by his brother. The focus falls rather on the hate and murder that Cain represents 487

Brown (1986:269, 289). Smalley (1984:110) also opines, ‘The verb µισεῖν is here to be understood not merely as “not to love,” but is identical with a hatred that can lead even to murder and deadly violence (cf. v. 15)’. 489 Thatcher (2012:372–73). 488

174

Section 1: The First Letter of John

than on the reaction of his brother (who is in any case dead, as Thatcher490 points out). The contrast between the two families in 3:11–18 is not between Cain and his brother Abel, but between the stereotyped Cain and Jesus, between an example of hate and an example of love. A broader ironical contrast is therefore prevalent in this context. In the family, Cain behaved in an evil and murderous way, harming the family through hate. On the other hand Jesus, whose deeds are righteous, behaved in a loving way, not murdering others, but giving his own life for others. In this sense he is the positive stereotype of love and doing what is right. In the conflict in the Letter, the opponents behave like Cain, because they are evil and bad, while the ‘us’ group acts in love by giving their lives for the family, by helping and caring for fellow Christians in need. Two totally contrasting lifestyles are envisaged here. This highlights the unbreakable link between identity and behaviour.491 Firstly, the identity claim should be confirmed through positive actions of love (towards the family of God and thus towards God) and secondly, you cannot claim the one without the other. 3.3.8 Rhetoric of love that emphasizes love ironically indicates a lack of love In such a ‘letter of love’ it might have been expected that the addressees, as members of the Johannine group, be recommended or even praised for their love for one another, since this is one of the essential characteristics of their Father, whom they must obey as his children. Surprisingly, this is not the case, as is evident from the above analysis of love in 1 John. This points to where the problem lies, namely, with the lack of love of the addressees (the ‘you’) for their fellow Christians (the ‘us’). The rhetoric of the Letter is in line with the proposed scenario492 for 1 John: the ‘you’ group found themselves in flux between the ‘us’ and the ‘they’, which meant that their co-operation and fellowship (koinōnia) with the ‘us’ group seemingly dwindled. Apparently, they did not show the love expected within the family of God, which translated into a passive attitude towards their fellow Christians, not ‘promoting life’ through assistance within their group. Indeed, this dwindling koinōnia became apparent in their lack of active love for, and co-operation with, one another. This seems to be confirmed by the absence of any reference to love in 2:12–14, where the positive characteristics of the addressees are praised. If the ‘you’ group succumbed to the deception and joined the opponents, that would have ethical implications. The main problem of the opponents was with the confession and that separated them from the orthodox group, 490

Ibid. 373. Klauck (1989:159) confirms, ‘Sein und Tun greifen ineinander’. 492 Cf. subsection 1.1.6 above. 491

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

175

especially in their behaviour towards them. Their interaction with the ‘you’ group logically implies that they are trying to convince the ‘you’ group of a similar view, causing them to also deny the confession of Jesus as human and Messiah. This would cause the ‘you’ group to totally break away from the orthodox group, join the opponents and therefore choose darkness. They would then no longer care for the orthodox group, which has direct ethical implications, namely, to join those who act like Cain. In this sense ethics and confession are indirectly linked when it comes to the dangers facing the ‘you’ group. It has been suggested that the process envisaged in 1 John has two levels of conflict.493 The first phase is the ‘conflict’ with the ‘us’ group, since they do not co-operate or properly love them as they should as members of this group. This is an ethical problem, relating to the behaviour of the ‘you’ group and the main situational-ethical focus of 1 John. However, due to their deteriorating relationship with ‘us’ the deceiving influence of the schismatics would have encouraged them to move into the schismatics’ sphere of influence. There they would have been directly confronted with the erroneous confession of the opponents. This does not seem to be the main problem yet, but the author appropriately warns the addressees against this possibility. If they succumb to this deception, it would obviously also influence their behaviour. The polemical view, that is that the Letter was written as an attack on the views of the opponents and that the contrasting parts reflect the views of the opponents, implies a direct link between confession and ethics. Jesus’ humanity and messiahship are denied, a view that impacts directly on behaviour. If flesh is not relevant, then sins of the flesh are not accountable. However, if a pastoral view is preferred, confession and ethics are not as directly linked as is the case with the polemical view. The author is more concerned with ‘bringing the “you” group back into the fold’. There is no evidence that they had a problem at that stage with the confession, but rather with their attitude towards the orthodox group. They were no longer committed to love and co-operation with ‘us’. This made them susceptible to the deception by the opponents. The author warns against this influence and deception of the opponents.

3.3.9 Some summarizing and concluding remarks A brief summary follows with some concluding remarks about the most important aspects related to love, forming part of the grammar of the ethics of the Letter. The term ‘love’ indicates affection for something and is ethically neutral, since the ‘thing’ that is loved (i.e. God or the kosmos or the self) determines the ethical quality of that love: the ethical quality is determined by what is loved not that a person loves. The same applies to the contrasting term ‘hate’. 493

Cf. subsection 1.1.2.4 above.

176

Section 1: The First Letter of John

A core focus in the Letter is that God is love (4:8, 16), that is all authentic love is described in terms of the character and essence of God, thus forming the point of orientation for what authentic love is.494 Authentic love is related and is determined by God (4:10), while other forms of love might be determined by the kosmos or by the self with its human desires (4:7). All positive ethics are consequently ‘Theo-logical’ and should be measured against God as its source. Interestingly, the love for Jesus and of Jesus as well as the Spirit are not really thematized in the Letter, except in 3:16, most probably because of the nature of the conflict behind the Letter. God, as the source of love, is not visible, however – nobody has seen God (4:12). For his love to be visibly associated with him as invisible God, related mediation or concrete action of some sort is needed. How does this happen according to the Letter? Firstly, his love is expressed and inter alia became visible through the mission of his Son to the (salvific) advantage of others. Secondly, God’s love is made visible through the concrete, mutual love of believers, helping one another. In this way his love reaches its goal, that is, is perfected. The existence of the Johannine group of believers is a visible sign of God’s active love in this world, by which believers received the gift of spiritual birth and life, making them children of God. His love is the cause of, and reason for, the change in their identity from people who were spiritually dead to people who now live in the world as children of God. Their status as children of God is also expressed in terms of their Immanenz or unity with God and one another. Love is an important way in which this relational and functional unity is expressed in concrete terms. This unity (Immanenz) confirms that love of God and love of the brother cannot be separated – the one implies the other (4:19–21), implying that believers should co-operate with and within the family of God, to the benefit of the family. This Immanenz forms part of the particular ethos of 1 John, which is expressed in terms of traditional convictions and confessions.495 Love is directly related to the traditional confession about Jesus – abiding in the true confession and tradition of Jesus equals abiding in love. Love thus serves as identity marker, identifying the family of God.496 A fundamental image, accommodating and expressing this relational unity, is the family. Through the love of God the Father, believers are begotten of God and whoever loves the Father, ought to love his children and whoever 494

Cf. Beutler (1986:235). Cf. Schnackenburg (1984:242). Cf. below Ch. 5 for a more detailed discussion on tradition in the Johannine group. 496 Stuhlmacher (1999:258) links expressions from the Gospel and Letters remarking, ‘Nach Joh 13,34f. und 1 Joh 2,5–6; 3,11; 4,11; 2 Joh 4–6 ist die Bruderliebe das Erkennungsmerkmal der (johanneischen) Christen. 3 Joh 5–8 zeigt, daß und wie sie praktiziert worden ist. Nach 1 Joh 3,16 geht sie bis zur Lebenshingabe für die Glaubensbrüder’. 495

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

177

loves the children also ought to love the Father (5:1–3). This (familial) Immanenz is inter alia expressed on a functional level. It does not suggest a (mystic?) physical unity, that, is God or Jesus is not physically in the believer. The unity is instead expressed functionally when believers act like God the Father or his Son. In the Letter, active ‘love returned’ by believers to the Father equals active reciprocal responses, obediently imitating the divine ‘models’ or primary ethical Agents, that is the Father and Son. It is not a stagnant but a continuing process. As an active, relational497 process, the group is united by continual ethical obligations, as the social expectations created by reciprocity and mimesis prescribe. If the examples of authentic love by both the Father and Son, who give to the advantage of others, are not imitated or reciprocated, it communicates by default that such a person does not belong to the family of God, but is part of the (evil) kosmos. On the other hand, by living according to and in the love of God, that is showing fellow Christians the authentic love of God through loving actions, God’s love is perfected in the sense that God’s love reaches its goal. Although love is relational, it is characterized by action aimed at others rather than by emotion. Believers should imitate the character of Jesus’ love and help and assist brothers in their need (3:16). The focus is not on the self (2:15–17) but on the others, especially those belonging to the family of God. They should be cared for with what the believer has (3:17) up to the point of total self-sacrifice, which implies one’s life and everything less, like humbling service, care, protection, etc. Such an attitude confirms that love is aimed at the well-being of the family, in this case the orthodox Johannine group. No hierarchical distinction is made within the family of God between believers – love is porous and egalitarian among believers. However, it is balanced by familial imagery, where the Father has the key authoritative and highest position of authority. In 1 John, the Father’s unique Son is also hierarchically closer to the Father than to the brothers. Love is not an option for believers, but an imperative. God commands believers to love one another, thus strengthening the reciprocal obligation of believers. Where reciprocal relations are not normally forced onto persons, commandments ought to be obeyed. Commandments in the Letter, given by the Father to his children, require believing in Jesus and loving one another (3:23). However, these commandments should not be confused with a set of fixed moral rules but are rather expressed in relational terms based on love. 497

The term love expresses an attitude of affection for something, being fond of and well pleased or cherishing that object, which leads to positive actions towards the thing that is loved. Love per se is therefore not a concrete action, but is rather an overarching attitude (principle) that becomes visible through concrete actions that reveal the presence of love. The focus (object) of this affection makes love good or bad (i.e. hatred).

178

Section 1: The First Letter of John

Deciding how to express love in different situations requires discernment, since such love is not ‘rule-based’ but relational within different situations – and in each situation it must be determined what would be the correct action to imitate the character of Jesus’ self-sacrificing action on the cross. Love for outsiders is also not excluded, although not emphasized in the Letter. The mutual love of believers should attract people of the world to the family of God, however. Considering the rhetoric, the author calls for authentic love with multiple exhortations, paraenetic remarks and even imperatives, warning against the dire effects of the lack of brotherly love. Love among the ‘you’ and consequently their co-operation (koinōnia) with ‘us’ and God seemed to have been a problem, namely, that the ‘you’ did not love their fellow Christians (‘us’) as they should. They are warned not to be deceived by the opponents who hate the family of God (3:11–14). They should rather increase their fellowship and co-operation with (koinōnia) and love for the family of God (‘us’). Mutual love is prescribed as the basic solution for the tension between ‘us’ and the addressees (the ‘you’); as Klauck remarks, ‘Die Umsetzung christlicher Heilsgewißheit in ein adäquates ethisches Verhalten der Glaubenden darf als ein Leitmotiv des 1 Joh gelten’.498 Then there is the contrast: love of kosmos and children of the devil militates against the love of God. Coveting and desiring (i.e. loving) human and earthly things are related to self-interest and misplaced honour that are negatively evaluated in light of the true honour and love of God. Cain serves as prime stereotypical example of hate that leads to the destruction following murder and death. Love is motivated in different ways in the Letter, showing the range of rhetorical effort by the author to convince the ‘you’ to change their ways, for instance: i) reciprocally and mimetically, responding to God the Father’s love through Jesus who reciprocally invited the love of believers for one another and thus for God. Thus God’s love ‘sachlich’499 precedes the love of believers; ii) ethically (ethical-dualism500), calling people liars who say they love God the Father but do not love their brothers; iii) logically and practically, arguing that if you do not love what you see, how can you love what you do not see; iv) legally, since the commandment of God asks for such love; v) communally, focusing on the care for and protection of the members of the family of God and thus for the family as such. 498

Klauck (1989:151). Strecker (1989:257). 500 Schnackenburg (1984:250). Cf. Brown (1986:564). 499

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2)

179

Therefore, the author encourages and convinces the addressees in different ways of the necessity and importance of love, that exists in deeds and not only in words or thought (2:18). i) They are socially encouraged (mimesis, reciprocity, the negative impact of the lack of love). ii) They are theologically motivated (theological clustering). iii) They are motivated by their traditional convictions and ethos (an old and not new tradition). iv) They are rhetorically encouraged (via antitheses or hortatory subjunctives). v) They are approached with authority (imperatives, commandments). In sum, the author of the Letter made certain choices that determine the nature of his grammar of ethics.501 Some of the key aspects may be highlighted: Some relevant areas Source

Function

John’s choices * God is love. * God is the source of authentic love, which implies hierarchical flow of love. * Jesus’ self-sacrifice serves as the example (and thus the source) of what love is. * God’s love reaches its goal (is perfected) where mutual love among believers is present. In this sense believers are the source of love among one another and even to the kosmos. * The focus and source of love may also be the world and worldly things, or on those who do not belong to God but to the kosmos. Love coming from this source is not authentic love. * God’s love gives life, forgiveness and new identity through the mission of Jesus. Through the love of God believers are begotten by him. This new and loving life serves as identity marker for this new identity within the family of God. * Love enables unity (Immanenz) between Father, Son and believers, which is expressed in relational co-operation (koinōnia). It is focused on and formed by this unity. This unity is hierarchical between God and believers, but egalitarian among believers. * Mutual love among believers makes the God of love visible, since it is the perfection of his love. The love at the source is the same love expressed at the ‘goal’, that is among one another. * Love creates life through care and protection of brothers and the family of God. * Love drives out fear and gives confidence on the Day of Judgment.

501 In light of the above, the ethical material in this Letter should hermeneutically not be interpreted in a too general way. It is very specifically tuned to the crisis situation evident in the Letter that threatens the unity of the Johannine group. This forms both the basis for and the motivation behind these ethical remarks.

180

Section 1: The First Letter of John

Context

Conveyance of ethical knowledge

Human nature

Cognitive awareness

* The context of authentic love is God who is love and is the source of love. The functional space of love is divinely characterized by the Father and by Jesus and should be reflected in the behaviour of believers. * Love is relational within the unity of the family of God (Immanenz). * Love is a continuing process of mutual and reciprocal care. * Love is mimetically determined by the example of the Father and Son who gave on behalf of others. * God reveals love through the mission of his Son. * Jesus reveals what love is by giving his life for others. * Believers reciprocate God’s love by loving one another, thus making God’s love visible. Their mutual love reflects the love of God and shows what authentic love is. * Presumed to be in spiritual darkness and death, in need of salvation (life). * Live eternally after receiving forgiveness and life through the Son. This life has total priority over human nature that focuses on own desires and self-interest. * Faith involves the acceptance of divine reality as it is revealed through the mission of Jesus and the presence of love within the Johannine group. * Discernment is necessary to apply the character of Jesus’ example of self-sacrifice in everyday practice. This implies free will within the unity of the family of God. * Knowledge of God is networked with the unity (Immanenz) in the family of God that is expressed and confirmed in mutual love.

The above overarching concepts in the Letter especially confirm the comprehensive nature of love in the grammar of ethics of John. Within the process of action formation (i.e. from worldview to actions) the following may serve as example.502

502

This table just serves as an example and is not the full picture.

Chapter 3: Relationships as part of the grammar of ethics (2) Worldview

Identity leads to

Organizing and relating the totality of objects in a person’s personal universe God is love and is the source of love. The mission of Jesus makes His love visible and Jesus’ selfsacrifice serves as example for love. Brothers are God’s children who must be loved like the Father …

Values expressed in

181

Norms/principles concretized in

Prescription: action prescribed in

Conscious and accepted relative position in worldview

Expressing what is valuable based on identity

Expressing how values can be concretely realized

Prescribing actions based on norms or principles

Believers have eternal life and as children of God who are forgiven, they know God. They have God’s love in them. They exist in unity (Immanenz) with the Father and His children …

Reciprocally loving and obeying God; they value the well-being for brothers and the family of God through relational cooperation (koinōnia). Devalue the world and worldly things …

Love God and obey his commandments, inter alia to love one another to the point of death. Care and preserve the family of God by helping the needy. Do not love the world and worldly things …

Giving own life or anything less required to the benefit and assistance of fellow believers; approach nonbelievers in God’s love by benefitting them through life-giving actions …

The structure of action formation illustrates the logical flow of love from the change in worldview and identity to actual actions required (morals), characterizing the grammar of Johannine ethics as an integrated and structured process.

Chapter 4

Commandments, paraenesis and free will 4.1 Introduction The word law (νόµος) refers to a central ethical concept in the Gospel,1 but it is not used in the Letters at all, except perhaps for the derivative in 1J 3:4 (ἀνοµία – lawlessness).2 Instead, the word ἐντολή (commandment) is used consistently as a key ethical term in the Letter when it comes to contexts where things are ordered by an authoritative figure. Louw and Nida3 do not classify these two Greek words (i.e. νόµος and ἐντολή) in the same semantic domain: νόµος (law) is listed under ‘Law, Regulation, Ordinance’ and ἐντολή (commandment) under ‘Command, Order’,4 which implies a difference in emphasis. However, Arndt et al.5 point out that the word ἐντολή has a wide semantic application, which includes the commandments of the First Testament Law. Semantically these two Greek terms might overlap in reference if the context allows for it. The lexicographical potential of the Greek word ἐντολή is rather restricted – it is basically used to refer to an order (verbal, written or otherwise) authorizing or requiring a specific action.6 The word is normally translated as commandment, but might also be translated as mandate, order, ordinance, injunction, instruction, and the like, depending on the context, covering a semantic area from very authoritative commands equal to the Law or laws,7 legal ordinances or instructions,8 to ordinary requests. Technically, anybody can give a commandment, but the force of the commandment will differ as the status of the persons who command differs. 1 Cf. J 1:17, 45; 7:19, 23, 49, 51; 8:5, 17; 10:34; 12:34; 15:25; 18:31; 19:7. Vol. 1, Ch. 9, 363–436. 2 See the discussion later – cf. subsection 4.5 below. 3 Louw and Nida (1996:425). Arndt et al. (2000:340) point out that the term ‘ordinance’ may also serve as translation for ἐντολή. Liddell and Scott (1996:576). 4 Cf. Louw and Nida (1996:425): ‘that which is authoritatively commanded – commandment, order’. 5 Arndt et al. (2000:340). 6 Ibid. So also Louw and Nida (1996:425) and Liddell and Scott (1996:576). 7 Liddell and Scott (1996:1789) note that the word is often used for royal commandments, which carry much weight, while Arndt et al. (2000:340) note that in biblical contexts the word might even refer to First Testament laws. Cf., e.g., Lk 23:56 and Heb 7:18 for reference to the Old Testament Law. 8 Mt 5:19; 19:17; Mk 10:19; Lk 1:6.

184

Section 1: The First Letter of John

4.2 The use of ἐντολή (commandment) in 1 John 4.2.1 Overview of the use of the term commandment References to commandment(s)9 are concentrated in four areas in the Letters (2 John included), as the following table shows: 1J 2:3–11 3 ἐντολὰς … τηρῶµεν 4 ἐντολὰς … µὴ τηρῶν 7

ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ παλαιά 8 ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω

1J 3:19–24 ἐντολὰς … τηροῦµεν 23 αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐντολὴ … ἔδωκεν ἐντολὴν ἡµῖν 24 ὁ τηρῶν τὰς ἐντολάς 22

1J 4:20–5:5 τὴν ἐντολὴν ἔχοµεν 5:2 ἐντολὰς … ποιῶµεν 4:21

5:3

ἐντολὰς … τηρῶµεν ἐντολαὶ … βαρεῖαι

2J 4–6 ἐντολὴν ἐλάβοµεν

4

5

ἐντολὴν γράφων … καινὴν

6

περιπατῶµεν κατὰ τὰς ἐντολὰς … αὕτη ἡ ἐντολή ἐστιν

The word ‘commandment’ (ἐντολή) in the Letters is most often used in conjunction with the term ‘to keep’ (τηρέω), resulting in the common expression that commandments must be kept. This use is so common that Brown10 regards it as in idiom. In addition, some parallel expressions are also used like to ‘do’ (1J 5:2) or to ‘live/walk according to’ the commandments (2J 6), expressing obedience to them. Other references to the commandments include having the commandments,11 or mention the old and new commandment.12 In treating the lexicographical potential of the word τηρέω, Liddell and Scott13 underline the close attention somebody gives to something, translated as watching narrowly over, guarding,14 observing.15 Arndt et al. equally refer to ‘paying close attention to’, but add the possibility of ‘to persist in obedience, keep, observe, fulfil’.16 This implies that one is not only paying close attention to something but also obediently responding to what is asked. Another potential use focuses on the continuation of the state or process. ‘Keeping’ implies that observing (commandments) is not a once-off process, but is repetitive.17 9

The word ἐντολή is used in both the singular and the plural in the Letter. Brown (1986:251) opines that this variation ‘is not of clear theological significance’. 10 Brown (1986:251–52). 11 1J 3:23; 4:21; 2J 4. 12 1J 2:7, 8; 2J 5. 13 Liddell and Scott (1996:1789). 14 Louw and Nida (1996:467) group τηρέω with φυλάσσω to be used as synonyms in some cases. 15 The lexicographical potential will be narrowed down to what seems relevant to our contexts. 16 Arndt et al. (2000:1002). 17 Louw and Nida (1996:152, 467) concur with both suggestions of Arndt et al. (2000:1002).

Chapter 4: Commandments, paraenesis and free will

185

The use of the term ‘to keep’ (τηρέω) with the word ‘commandment’ highlights two aspects: (i) that which is ordered (commanded) should be paid close attention to, and (ii) that which is ordered ought to be followed and indeed done precisely, obediently and consistently. These two aspects are echoed in references to ‘doing’ as well as ‘walking/living’ according to the commandments. 4.2.2 The source of the commandments All the commandments in the Letter have a divine source,18 that is mostly the Father, possibly the Son or in some cases perhaps both. Excursus: Who gives commandments, the Father or the Son? As has already been noted,19 it is not always clear whether the Father or the Son is intended when pronouns are used. Opinions vary on this matter. Brown20 makes a strong case that it is God the Father who gives commandments in the Letter. Olsson21 agrees, but with some nuance. He points out that in many contexts a choice between the Father and the Son remains difficult. For instance, in 2:5–8 it is uncertain whose commandments are meant, although the reference seems to be to God (the Father) who gives the commandment, as is probably also the case in 5:3 and 3:23–24 (cf. also 2J 4). After a thorough investigation, Olsson concludes, ‘It appears that the Johannine letters point consistently to “God’s commandment” when the word is singular, but that the shape of this expression originated with Jesus (cf. “the will of God” in 2.17 with “the testimony of God” in 5.9–11). The author apparently makes a natural identification of God and Jesus as one’.22 Olsson then continues, ‘the author can hardly be thinking of God in relation to human persons without at the same time thinking of Jesus Christ, as can be observed in 2.28–3.3 … we must note that fellowship in 1 John is always a fellowship with both the Father and the Son (1.3). One must have both the Father and the Son (2.22–23)’.23 At this point it should be noted that in the Gospel God gives commandments solely to Jesus (mainly connected to the mission of Jesus), while Jesus gives commandments solely to the disciples. The picture changes in the Letters. Here God is the one who gives the commandment(s) (to love and believe) to believers and not Jesus.24 The contents of Jesus’ commandment in the Gospel and God’s commandment in the Letters nevertheless overlap, namely, to love one another.25 In other words, in the Gospel only Jesus gives command18

God is indeed the source of light, life and in this case of commandments. Cf. subsection 3.3.3 above. 20 Brown (1986:249, 251). 21 Olsson (1999:150–151). 22 Ibid. 150. Cf. also Von Wahlde (1990:ad loc.). 23 Olsson (1999:151). 24 Some contexts seem ambiguous (only referring to ‘him’ or ‘his’) when referring to the commandments, but the contexts suggest that all the references support God as giver of the commandments. 25 For instance, Jesus gives the following commandments in the Gospel: 13:34 – ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωµι ὑµῖν, ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους, καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑµᾶς ἵνα καὶ ὑµεῖς 19

186

Section 1: The First Letter of John

ments to believers to love while only God gives commandments to believers to love in the Letters.26 This follows the tendency of a shift in thought in the Letter from Christology to Theo-logy.27

Clear distinctions between the Father and the Son in every case are not crucial, since the ‘borders’ between God and Jesus are fluid; to quote Olsson, in their relationship to people the Father and the Son ‘are an indissoluble unity’.28 The commandments should therefore be regarded as essentially given by the Father, but may also include the Son. 4.2.3 Commandment(s) networked with key concepts in the Letter The concept of commandment is extensively networked with major theological concepts in 1 John. This implies a measure of repetition, since commandments are also mentioned where other concepts are discussed. For the sake of a more comprehensive description of what commandments involve in 1 John, these other concepts need to be mentioned here too. 4.2.3.1 Faith and love as basic commandments29 Johnson asks an important question: ‘What commands does the author have in mind?’ and then answers, ‘in the context of 1 John it can only be faith in Jesus and love for other Christians (1 John 3:23)’.30 Apart from believing in the Son and loving your fellow Christians, there is no convincing evidence in the Letters that any command addresses anything else. Moral issues like truth and lies and murder are mentioned,31 but they are addressed in contexts where love and the relationship with the Father and Son are discussed. The error of the opponents who disobey God’s commandments is formulated by Johnson in these terms: ‘They have violated the most fundamental standards of all, even if their lives appear morally upright: they deny that the human Jesus is

ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους, and 15:12 – αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ ἐµή, ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑµᾶς. In the Letters we have the following commandments from God: 1J 3:23 – καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐντολὴ αὐτοῦ, ἵνα πιστεύσωµεν τῷ ὀνόµατι τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἀγαπῶµεν ἀλλήλους, καθὼς ἔδωκεν ἐντολὴν ἡµῖν, and 1J 4:21 – καὶ ταύτην τὴν ἐντολὴν ἔχοµεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ἵνα ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν θεὸν ἀγαπᾷ καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ. 26 This distinction should not be over-emphasized, since in the Gospel Jesus does give commandments, but often underlines that he is only saying what the Father told him to say. This links the commandments of Jesus back to God the Father. However, on the surface level of the language there is a distinction which should not be ignored. 27 The same is true of concepts like love or light. 28 Olsson (1999:165). 29 The themes of love and faith are discussed elsewhere and there might be some overlaps with what is discussed here from the perspective of God’s commandments. 30 Johnson (1993:40). 31 Cf. subsection 4.4 below on the Decalogue.

Chapter 4: Commandments, paraenesis and free will

187

the divine Christ, and they do not love their (sic) Christian brothers and sisters in the community’.32 In 3:23 it is stated, ‘And this is his commandment, that (ἵνα33) we should believe34 in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us’.35 This verse is even regarded by Brown ‘as the NT sentence that best expresses the essence of Christianity’,36 who further argues, ‘One cannot understand how a fellow Christian is a “brother” to be loved without understanding Jesus as God’s Son, for his sonship makes those who believe in him brothers and sisters’.37 God’s commandment to believe in Jesus and love fellow believers links the vertical and horizontal axes of a changed identity through faith in Jesus that is expressed in loving behaviour towards fellow believers.38 The concept of God’s commandment overlaps with other parallel concepts, for instance, keeping God’s word39 (2:5), doing what pleases God (3:22), abiding in the light (2:7–11) or walking as Jesus walked (2:6). Although each one has its own semantic nuance, they all refer to doing what believers ought to do according to God’s will as expressed in his commandments. For instance, the word ‘commandment’ (ἐντολή) in 2:4 is substituted in 2:5 with the term ‘word’ (λόγος), which functions as a parallel, thus making the term word ‘virtually interchangeable’ with the word commandment.40 It is more a 32

Johnson (1993:40). This should be read as an epexegetical ἵνα, interpreting the commands in terms of faith and love (Brown 1986:462). 34 The aorist subjunctive is used with believing, while the present subjunctive is used in the case of loving. Obviously, there is some discussion about the significance of this distinction. There are views that the aorist might refer to the initial action of faith. Brown (1986:462) refers to Brooke who reads it as a complexive aorist ‘that covers the whole process of faith as a unity’. Even if one interprets the aorist as the initial act of faith, the consequences of faith in Jesus continue. 35 According to Brown (1986:464), the καθὼς ἔδωκεν should be read in a causal tone, namely, ‘inasmuch as he gave’ and not as ‘just as’. 36 Brown (1986:482). 37 Ibid. 480. 38 The link between love and commandments is discussed in detail elsewhere – cf. subsection 3.3.4.3. Cf. also 1J 2:5; 3:17; 4:9; 5:1–3 for the concept of the love of God. 39 The term ‘word’ (λόγος) is used in six verses in 1 John (1:1, 10; 2:5, 10, 14; 3:18). Reference to the word of God/Jesus is only found in the first two chapters. In 1:1 there is a metaphorical use referring to Jesus as the ‘Word of life’. In 1:10 and 2:14 the reference is to the word that is or remains in a person, implying that the person is totally influenced and determined by the word. While the word remains in you, you should keep the word, that is act accordingly. The word is therefore a way of indicating the revelation of God that influences a person and according to which a person should act. In 3:18, the reference is in general to words one speaks and in 2:10 to the message concerning the gospel. 40 Brown (1986:252). Schnelle (2010:86) opines that keeping the commandments and the words is ‘sachlich identisch’ and is used ‘abwechselnd’, while Augenstein (1993:54) 33

188

Section 1: The First Letter of John

case of stylistic variation than difference in content. Another overlapping expression is doing what pleases God, which in 3:22 is contextually linked to keeping the commandments and might even be understood as explanatory, that is, the one concept explaining the other, namely, obeying the commandments implies doing what pleases God,41 a view supported by Brown.42 Also linked to the commandments, though indirectly, is to walk like Jesus (2:6) walked, since such a person abides in God. Similar expressions like abiding or walking in the light (God is light – 1:5) are connected to the (new) commandment in 2:7–11, where it refers to living in God’s light, that is, according to his will and under his guidance, by not hating but loving one another. 4.2.3.2 Commandments as a key ethical term, networked throughout the Letter References to commandments are closely networked with other central concepts in the Letter,43 ranging from identity (Immanenz) through relations (faith, Holy Spirit) to obedient behaviour, suggesting mutual dependence and influence of these different concepts.44 This ensures theological cohesion where the concepts should be understood in terms of one another.45 Keeping the commandments is determined by and indeed expresses knowing46 God the Father, as it is stated in 2:3–4: ‘And by this we know that we know (ἐγνώκαµεν) Him, if we keep His commandments (ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶµεν). He who says, “I know Him” (ἔγνωκα) and does not keep His commandments (τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ µὴ τηρῶν), is a liar, and the truth is not in him’. also links these two categories, namely keeping of Jesus’ words and his ἐντολή in John. It gives authority to Jesus’ words. 41 Because ‘we’ keep his commandments (τὰς ἐντολάς) and do what pleases him (τὰ ἀρεστὰ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ ποιοῦµεν). Cf. Eph 5:3–10; Sir 48:22. 42 Brown (1986:462, 479). 43 Such networking is, for instance, evident in 3:22–24: ‘and whatever we ask (prayer) we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do what pleases Him (obedience). And this is His commandment, that we believe (faith) in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love (behaviour) one another, just as He has given His commandment to us. He who keeps His commandments abides (Immanenz) in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit (Holy Spirit) whom He has given us’. 44 Although there is the typical Johannine combination of themes (theological clustering) in each case, there is also a particular focus in each context. Ch. 2 focuses on the knowledge of God; ch. 3 on what the commandment is and the consequences for obeying it; chs. 4–5 focus on the interaction between love and commandment, which is also the case in 2J 4–6. 45 This underlines the fact that Johannine theology is based on a cohesive structure where concepts influence and enrich each other. This is also true of the grammar of ethics, suggesting cohesion between different ethical concepts. 46 Knowledge, also discussed elsewhere, is here treated in relation to commandments.

Chapter 4: Commandments, paraenesis and free will

189

‘We/I have come to know him, and that means to keep his commandment’,47 as Olsson formulates it. How should we conceptualize this relation between knowledge and keeping his commandments? The lexicographical potential of γινώσκω is wide.48 Louw and Nida describe it as, ‘to learn to know a person through direct personal experience, implying a continuity of relationship – to know, to become acquainted with, to be familiar with’.49 Arndt et al.50 also mention that the focus falls on different actions related to knowledge, that is to arrive at (possess51) knowledge or come to the knowledge of something or someone (get to know, know, make acquaintance), to acquire knowledge (‘often with the implication of personal involvement or experience’,52 learn, find out), grasp the significance of something (understand), to indicate that you know (acknowledge, recognize, or to perceive, discern53).

Knowledge as a concept in the Letter54 consistently functions within a relational framework. Since the numerous possible social relations all function according to their own conventions (i.e. the relations between slave and master, husband and wife, trading partners, etc. differ and all have their own social conventions), it is important to identify the social framework used to develop the concepts of commandments and knowledge. In the case of the knowledge of God the Father, the context is familial, in line with the rest of the family imagery of 1 John.55 In 4:7 (and implicitly in 3:1) it is stated, ‘Beloved … everyone who loves is born of God and knows God’. Being begotten by God the Father (i.e. being part of the family of God) results in knowing and loving him. This contextual link underlines the fact that the author understands the expression ‘knowing God’ in terms of an ancient family context, that is in terms of the knowledge of children of their fathers and families. This illustrates the type of knowledge suggested as well as the context within which it should be understood. 47

Olsson (1999:150–151). Not all possibilities are reflected in this brief discussion, but only those that are relevant to the interests here. 49 Louw and Nida (1996:327). They (ibid. 381) also offer this possibility: ‘to come to an understanding as the result of ability to experience and learn – to come to understand, to perceive, to comprehend’. 50 Arndt et al. (2000:199–200). Liddell and Scott (1996:350) cover usages like ‘come to know, perceive, know’, ‘discern, distinguish, recognize’ and also ‘form a judgement, think’, while Louw and Nida (1996:325, 327, 333, 368, 381) largely follow Arndt et al. 51 Louw and Nida (1996:333). 52 Ibid. 325. 53 Liddell and Scott (1996:350). Louw and Nida (1996:381) formulate this as follows, ‘to come to an understanding as the result of ability to experience and learn – to come to understand, to perceive, to comprehend’. Also cf. Schnelle (2010:85). 54 The word ‘to know’ (γινώσκω) is used 25 times in 1 John and is regarded as a key term in John’s theology. 55 As was described in more detail elsewhere (Vol. 1, 151–63; cf. also subsection 2.2.2 above), familial references form a major imagery in the Letter. 48

190

Section 1: The First Letter of John

In ancient times, fathers were essentially responsible for the education (i.e. conveying knowledge) of their children (sons),56 especially when it came to teaching their children the ‘character’ or ethos of the family, that is, what a child should do, what the family expects, the role of the father and why obedience is necessary, etc. By observing what the father does, children learned what was expected from them. Furthermore, commandments played a central role in assisting children in the process of establishing what was acceptable within the family and what was not. This resulted in a closer knowledge of the father’s will as well as of his character, for instance, his justice or faithfulness, as the processes of mimesis and reciprocity within families suggest.57 Such knowledge integrated the child into the family ethos.

Positioning knowledge of God the Father within the ancient familial situation and consequently obeying his commandments, indicates how believers understood their knowledge of God, their Father and the obligation of obeying his commandments. Within the familial context, the knowledge of God includes not only intellectual but also existential knowledge.58 They observed the love of the Father through his gift of his Son, and are consequently commanded to do likewise. This rather comprehensive knowledge suggested by the familial imagery will lead to correct conduct, that is conduct according to God's will and commandments, that is loving one another. That is why it can be said that if one claims to know the Father, but does not behave accordingly, the truth is not in that person. As extension of this, the family imagery is widened by references to the Immanenz (i.e. unity) between God and believers. Abiding in God (and vice versa – Immanenz) is closely related to keeping his commandments, as 3:24 states: ‘he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him’.59 Commandments indeed function within this close relational framework where the Father is known and the kin loved, reminding the reader of the conventions that determine children within a family.60 This basically points to a qualitative and functional union on the basis of shared status, conviction, custom and behaviour as is applicable to members of the same family. These references to remaining in God (or knowing him) should therefore not be interpreted ontologically or mystically. Neither are they legalistic. Brown rightly remarks that the close union between God and believers ‘shows how far the author is from a legalistic understanding of

56

Cf. Plato, Prot. 325C–326D. Cf. subsection 2.4.1 above. 58 Schnelle (2010:86) also thinks that the semantic reference of knowledge includes both the intellectual and the emotional aspects. 59 The imagery in 3:11–24 is familial. 60 Schnelle (2010:132) uses the word ‘Inexistenz’ that does not only focus on the intimate relationship between the Father and the believer, but also on the protection of this relationship. It also has ethical dimensions insofar as remaining in God corresponds with remaining in love. 57

Chapter 4: Commandments, paraenesis and free will

191

keeping the twofold commandment’.61 Obeying commandments is based on the knowledge of their Father, that is, not only knowing who he is, but also what he taught them. Communication between father and son in ancient Mediterranean societies was part of their social interaction.62 An older boy could normally approach his father rather freely.63 Similarly, in 1 John the relationship between God and believer is described as an open one. Even if there is evidence of communities in the ancient Mediterranean milieu where contact within families was more restricted, the ‘family situation’ which the author has in mind is one of open social contact. The obligation to act according to the family commandments and to please the Father goes hand in hand with the confidence the believer may have in approaching God for help, also regarding his conduct. The believer may ask (pray) according to God’s will, and will receive (3:21–22; 5:13–15). The requirement is a union of wills (Immanenz), that is, that the supplicant’s will is in line with God’s will. That is why prayers will be answered, namely, because believers keep His commandments and do what pleases Him.64 4.2.3.3 The old and the new commandments In 2:7–8 the nature of the commandment(s)65 is addressed by introducing the issue of the old and the new commandments.66 It is done in 2:7b and 8a through a chiastic structure with an antithetical undertone: 61

Brown (1986:482). For example, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 7.66.5 remarks, ‘… conferring together about what was just and fair like brothers with brothers or children with their parents in a well-governed family, they settled their arguments by persuasion and reason’. 63 Josephus (Ant. 1.13.1 § 222) describes the tender and loving relationship which existed between Isaac and his father. Elliott (1991:231) calls the household the ‘sphere of acceptance’. Cf. also some examples from the New Testament itself: Mt 7:9–11; Lk 15:11– 12. Dixon (1991:131) concludes that strong emotional bonds between parents and children existed and that the relations were usually affectionate. 64 1J 3:22; cf. J 8:29. Josephus makes an interesting remark related to prayer in C. Ap. 2.196 that might enlighten what John says: ‘And for our duty at the sacrifices, firstly, we ought to pray for the common welfare of all (ὑπὲρ τῆς κοινῆς εὔχεσθαι σωτηρίας), and after that for our own; for we are made for fellowship (ἐπὶ γὰρ κοινωνίᾳ γεγόναµεν) one with another, and he who prefers the common good before what is peculiar to himself is above all acceptable to God’. 65 Smalley (2002:55) remarks the following about the use of the singular, ‘as Bultmann (27) points out, the difference between the singular and the plural should not be exaggerated, as the one is included in the other. In any case, John uses these interchangeably (cf. 3:22–24; 2 John 4–6); and in the Gospel the singular, “commandment,” at John 13:34 is replaced by the plural (“commands”) at 14:15, 21 and 15:10’. Schnelle (2010:89) also sees no difference in the meaning of the singular and the plural. 66 The issue of old versus new law is also found already in the Gospel. Smalley (2002:54) comments, ‘The background to the discussion, here and in v 8, about the “new” 62

192

Section 1: The First Letter of John

7a Ἀγαπητοί, Beloved A 7b οὐκ ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑµῖν I am not writing a new commandment to you B 7c ἀλλʼ ἐντολὴν παλαιὰν but an old commandment 7d ἣν εἴχετε ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς· which you had from the beginning. B1 7e ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ παλαιά ἐστιν ὁ λόγος The old commandment is the word 7f ὃν ἠκούσατε. that you have heard. A1 8a πάλιν ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφω ὑµῖν, Again, a new commandment I write to you 8b ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἐν αὐτῷ which is true in him 8c καὶ ἐν ὑµῖν, and in you 8d ὅτι ἡ σκοτία παράγεται because/since the darkness is passing away 8e καὶ τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἤδη φαίνει. and the true light is already shining.

An interesting feature of this chiasm is the seemingly contradictory phrases in vv. 7b and 8a that are word for word the same, except for the introductory words that cause the contradiction – in v. 7b ‘not’ (οὐκ) is used and in v. 8a ‘again’ (πάλιν), that is ‘I am writing no new commandment (ἐντολὴν καινήν) to you’ (v. 7b) and ‘Again, I am writing you a new commandment’ (v. 8a). How is this to be explained? The commandment has something that is called ‘old’67 and something that is called ‘new’, suggesting the fixed nature of the material (the old) but also pointing out the significance and new application of that material in new situations (the new). Contentwise, love remains the core of both the old and the new, but 2:8b–e explains why one should understand it as something ‘new’. The presence of the true light (cf. 1:5) that now already shines introduced a new framework for the commandments. God showed what authentic love is all about by sending his Son to be the expiation for our sins (4:10). The Son destroyed the works of the devil (3:8) and gave believers eternal life as children of God. God’s love is perfected in his children through their mutual love. Indeed, God as light inaugurated the new era of light that is driving darkness away.68 The concept (i.e. love) might be the same (be old), but the motivation and circumstances (‘in the light’) place it within a new relational dynamic, determined by the love shown by the Father and Son.69 The shift and “old” law is clearly to be found in John 13:34 …’. The members of the Johannine church would have been familiar with this remark of Jesus. 67 Schnelle (2010:89) actually notes that this discussion indicates that the love commandment belongs to the ‘grundlegenden und unaufhebbaren Tradition’ of the Johannine group. 68 Nissen (1999:202–203) emphasizes the new reality of love as new indicative that leads to a new imperative. Cf. also Lincoln (2005:77) and Loader (2009:9). 69 Schnelle (2010:89–90) offers another explanation. He argues that the commandment is ‘old’ since it represents the tradition of the Johannine group as it was taught from the beginning. The ‘newness’ lies in the fact that this commandment is in its nature always relevant and must be protected, especially in light of the schism. This explanation does not convince, since it is not reflected in this way in the context. It also seems to exclude the Christological dynamics related to the commandment in the context.

Chapter 4: Commandments, paraenesis and free will

193

between old and new implies a ‘bestimmtes Geschichtsverständnis … Die Neuheit des Gebotes zeigt sich demnach in seiner Verwirklichung durch Jesus und die Christen, weil in seiner Verwirklichung schon ein Stück der neuen Welt da ist’.70 Verhey’s description is worth noting: John calls this [i.e. love] a ‘new’ commandment … The commandment … is hardly novel, but it is ‘new’ precisely because of the new situation Jesus had inaugurated. The new and true life Jesus gives is constituted by obedience to this commandment. The basis is not Scripture but Christ’s own love … Christ, who makes the Father’s love known, serves the disciples in love, and they are therefore obliged by what they have been given. … The new commandment rests on a new reality; the new imperative is based on a new indicative, the love of God in Christ and the love of Christ in his own 71

4.3 What happened to the word νόµος (law)? The Greek word νόµος is the preferred term for law in the Gospel,72 but is not used in 1 John at all, except for the use of the derivative term ἀνοµία in 3:4. It is a question why this key word is not used in the Letters. 4.3.1 The νόµος (law) as identity marker In the Gospel of John, the Law (mainly referred to by the word νόµος) functions as a basic identity marker for the Jews.73 Tomson74 points out that the Law did not only serve as guide for behaviour and morals, but it also defined the identity of the Jews, both to the inside and to the outside. Keeping the Law, with its distinctive practices and observances, distinguishes the Jews from polytheism, as Cohen75 has shown. Practices according to the Law drew the boundaries according to which the Jews lived – these practices included their daily worship (prayer, study and sacrifice), rituals, ethics and legalism, as well as keeping the Sabbath. In the Gospel the frequent references to ‘their/our’ Law (referring to the Jewish opponents) guided their behaviour and confirmed their identity.76 They saw themselves as the custodians and true interpreters of the Law upon which their identity was based. Identity maintenance and formation for the Jews are directly linked to keeping the Law as they interpreted it. 70

Wengst (1976:76). Verhey (1984:143). Cf. Lincoln (2005:77). 72 Cf. Vol. 1, 365–73. 73 Cf. Vol. 1, 411–13. 74 Tomson (1997:70). 75 Cohen (2006:52–53). 76 Cf. Vol. 1, 401–15. 71

194

Section 1: The First Letter of John

The disciples of Jesus also developed their own identity, but did not do that based on the Law in a way similar to the Jews, although the Law was an important part of their religious heritage and could not just be ignored. In 1J 5:39–40, 45–46 the authority of the Law is maintained, but its functionality is described in new terms: the Law and Moses now witness to Jesus, with the implication that Jesus now becomes the primary reference and interpreter of the Law.77 Both the content and authority of the Law now shifted to Jesus and his commandment to love. In the Gospel, the Jews want Jesus to be crucified on the basis of their interpretation of the Law (J 19:7), that served as a focal point of Jewish identity. In 1 John the focus of the conflict shifts to Christology, that is to whether Jesus was the human messiah, focusing on an inner-Johannine conflict (the antichrists left the Johannine group – 2:18–19). It is not far-fetched that within a basic inner-Christian conflict in the Letter, where the Jewish identity is not at the forefront, this word and the associations it carries with it, would not be appropriate. The Law (νόµος) as identity marker for the Jews ‘outside’ is not in focus and it might therefore not be a surprise that it is not used in 1 John. In sum, in 1 John there are numerous references to God’s will and his commandments. Nevertheless, the typical word νόµος is not used and preference is given to the word ἐντολή (commandment) to express the will of God. A plausible reason for not using this word might be that the word is so closely linked to and fixated on the identity of the Jewish opponents that the Johannine group could but would not use the word in order to prevent identity confusion. The consistent use of ἐντολή serves as opposing expression to the ‘law-language’ of the Gospel and differentiates the identity of the Johannine group from that of its Jewish opponents. The Johannine Christians already formed a separate group (having been thrown out of the synagogues) with their own identity, where the relationship to the Father and Son and not the Law gives believers their identity and determines their behaviour.78 4.3.2 Not law, but relations guide the family of God In addition there might be a theological reason for not using typical law (νόµος) language. In the Letter, believers are said to obey the commandments of God, since this is an expression of their relationship and love for God (5:1–3), placing the commandments on a higher moral level. Moses was the lawgiver (as mediator) for the Jewish opponents, but he is inferior, since God 77

This becomes evident in the discussion about the Sabbath in J 7:19ff. where Jesus challenges the interpretation and actions of the opponents on the basis of their interpretation of the law. Vol. 1, 401–15. 78 Dunn (2003:125) mentions that Jesus in general is usually seen as having ‘set his face against the law, or at least against a law-regulated life’.

Chapter 4: Commandments, paraenesis and free will

195

only talked to him (J 9:29). In contrast, in 1 John, God the Father is the direct source of commandments to his children. In a familial context, no lawlanguage is needed, but on the basis of the intimate relationship between God and his people (the Johannine group), God’s commandments to his children are direct, and are expressed through the examples the Son sets and are based on the guidance of the Spirit. This relational emphasis is also the reason why commandments and the unity (Immanenz) between God the Father and his children are so often mentioned in the same context.79 This makes any formal law redundant since it is replaced by relational influence. The law-language is replaced by God-language. What is the semantic intensity of ἐντολή compared to νόµος? If the explanations described above are accepted, it implies that semantically the two words display overlaps when it comes to content. If God or Jesus gives a commandment, it carries the same authority as the ‘Law’.80 Both articulate God’s will, one within a covenantal, legalistic and the other within a familial framework.

4.4 Is there any evidence of influence of the Decalogue in the ethics of 1 John? In the case of the Gospel, it was argued that the Decalogue functions as a form of ethical sub-text for the ethical values portrayed in the Gospel.81 It was argued that this is most probably because the Johannine group did not just completely sever their ties with their Jewish roots, they also regarded themselves as the followers of the Messiah-King who fulfilled the First Testament prophecies. Since Jesus is the way to the God of Abraham and Moses, believers in Jesus are the true people of God who really know Him. It is to be expected that they would not bluntly reject the ethical values of a theological tradition they claim to represent. If the physical actions referred to in the Letter are taken into account, what is the evidence, directly or indirectly, that this might be the case in the Letter too?82 What interests us here are the possible echoes of the values expressed in the Decalogue.

79

Cf., e.g., 1J 2:3, 8; 3:23–24. I do not imply that the use of these two words is identical, but functionally the use of ἐντολή in the context of the Johannine group overlaps to some extent with the functional use of νόµος in the context of the opponents. 81 Cf. Vol. 1, 385–97. 82 More abstract expressions like walking like Jesus, walking in the light, doing what is right, acting in the truth, or loving one another are not taken into account here. 80

196

Section 1: The First Letter of John

God’s Pride honour: CommandCommandment 1– ments 1–2 2 (?) 5:21

2:16

Obedience to Father: Commandment 5 (?) 4:6

Murder: Commandment 6

Lies and Desire: deception: CommmandCommandment 10 ment 9

3:11–13, 15 2:4, 22, 26, 27; 5:10

2:15–18

Help the needy 3:16–17

There are some clear echoes of the values expressed in the Decalogue, although there is no claim that the Decalogue is in mind.83 The first table of the law is represented by stressing only one God who must be worshipped (commandments 1 and 2), and that self-pride is not acceptable. That God, as Father, must be obeyed, resembles commandment 5, while murder and lies echo commandments 6 and 9.84 Commandment 10 is recognized in the references to desire. There are a few notable exceptions from this list, namely, the misuse of God’s name (3), the Sabbath law (4),85 and the law about adultery (7). References to desire are also more prominent in the Letter than in the Gospel. In 2:15–17, a negative judgment is made about the desires of the flesh and eyes, since such desires do not reflect the love of God. As is the case with the Gospel, it does not seem to be too far-fetched to maintain that the Johannine group did associate with the values and norms reflected in the Decalogue, although without any claim that it comes from the Decalogue or that it was a legal obligation. Neither is it presented in the framework of the covenant. It is simply assumed to be part of the ethos of the group. It is therefore very plausible that if they were confronted with an everyday issue that could be related to the commandments of the Decalogue they would most probably follow the values and norms suggested there.

4.5 The use of ἀνοµία in 1 John The term νόµος (usually translated as ‘law’) is not used in the Letters, except for the use of the derived term ἀνοµία in 3:4, where we read, ‘Everyone who commits sin (τὴν ἁµαρτίαν) also practices lawlessness (τὴν ἀνοµίαν); sin is lawlessness (ἀνοµία)’. 83 Although several of these ethical references may also be applicable to other value systems, like murder, lies and perhaps pride, the context of the Jewish God and the Jewish messiah as well as the Jewish roots of the Johannine group give these remarks a Jewish flavour. Cf. also Vol. 1, 385–97. 84 It is a question whether refusal to help a needy member of the group in a ‘limited goods society’ might not be regarded as stealing from the poor (cf. Malina and Neyrey 1991a), echoing Commandment 8. 85 This is most probably so because the Letter reflects an inner-Johannine debate where the Sabbath is no longer an issue.

Chapter 4: Commandments, paraenesis and free will

197

Lexicographically, Arndt et al. distinguish between two possible usages of the word ἀνοµία, namely, a ‘state or condition of being disposed to what is lawless’ or ‘the product of a lawless disposition, a lawless deed’,86 while Louw and Nida describe the use as follows, ‘to behave with complete disregard for the laws or regulations of a society’,87 noting an attitude that leads to particular behaviour. Gutbrod88 opines that the word ἀνοµία may also be used in the meaning of ‘without a law/there is or was no law’ or in the meaning of ‘against the[a] law’,89 and in some contexts these two meanings are both intended. He thus links the word specifically to a law (ἀνοµία echoing νόµος), claiming that the word does carry the connotation of law. Although frequent in the Septuagint, there is no single Hebrew equivalent – ἀνοµία serves as translation for several Hebrew words.

Opinions vary as to how ἀνοµία in 3:4 should be understood,90 especially since the word νόµος (law) from which ἀνοµία is derived, is absent from the Letter.91 Several suggestions were made for understanding the meaning of ἀνοµία in this particular context, as the following examples illustrate. i) Sin as lawlessness refers to the rejection of Jesus as Christ. Brown opines that the concept of lawlessness (ἀνοµία) in the Letter refers to the rejection of Jesus as Christ and his earthly life as messiah, as is described in the Gospel. According to the Gospel, the Law and Moses witnessed to Jesus, and by rejecting Jesus the witness of the Law is also rejected. With this rejection people oppose God and show themselves to belong to the family of the devil, who sinned from the beginning. In the Gospel of John ‘the singular noun referred to the basic sin of refusing to believe in the light, but the plural noun of I John 3:5 (…) directs the opposition to all types of evil that turn people away from the light’.92 The direct statement in 3:5, namely, Jesus ‘appeared to take away sins’ states that his appearance was the reason why sins were taken away. If he is rejected, a person remains in sin. ii) Law and commandments are synonyms. Painter does not see a noteworthy semantic difference between the words νόµος (law) and ἐντολή (commandment) and therefore understands lawlessness ‘as disregard for the

86

Arndt et al. (2000:85). Louw and Nida (1996:757). 88 Gutbrod (1964:1085) refers to the following as proof: P.Oxy. 1121.20; Philo, Leg. all. 3.79; Conf. ling. 108; Ebr. 143; Demosthenes, Or. 24:152. 89 Gutbrod (ibid.) refers to the following as proof: Philo, Spec. leg. 1.188; Pss. Sol. 15:10. 90 The use of the articles with both nouns in 3:4 might imply that the first phrase might be translated both as ‘sin is lawlessness’ as well as ‘lawlessness is sin’. However, the second phrase seems to explain what is meant in the context where sin is discussed: sin is lawlessness. 91 Gutbrod (1964:1085) remarks that this verse ‘is not wholly clear’. Cf. Menken (2010:61). 92 Brown (1986:427). So also Griffith (2002:138–41). 87

198

Section 1: The First Letter of John

commandments as set out in 1 John’.93 Sin is disregarding God and his commandments and thus equals lawlessness. iii) Sin and lawlessness are substitutes.94 Sin in the Jewish context95 is identified on the basis of the prescriptions of the Law. Not obeying the law translates into being of the devil, since sin is of the devil (3:6–8). In 3:7 sin is contextually contrasted with righteousness. Jesus had no sin in him (3:5), but is righteous. Sin as well as lawlessness is not doing God’s will but implies obedience to the will of the devil. A child of God who abides in Jesus will not act in that way (3:4–10). iv) The word ἀνοµία refers to a lack of love. The option that ἀνοµία specifically refers to the lack of love, is raised by some. It is claimed that the use of the article with ἁµαρτία (ἡ ἁµαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνοµία) possibly indicates that something specific is in mind, that is a specific action or sin. Klauck calls it ‘eine bekannte Größe’.96 This might refer to not doing what is right and not loving one’s fellow Christians as mentioned later in the context (3:7, 10). Klauck97 questions this view, since ἐντολή (commandment) and not νόµος (law) is used consistently in the Letter to refer to the commandment of love. Love is a commandment and not a law. v) Lawlessness refers generically to all sin. Smalley mentions the option that ἀνοµία may be interpreted in terms of the breaking of the Lsaw as such, implying sin in its completeness: ‘it [sin] suggests a deliberate act of lawbreaking on the part of any sinner’.98 On the basis of lack of evidence in the rest of the Letter for this position, Klauck99 regards this as a weak option, since there is no definite connection between ἀνοµία and the Law as is assumed in this position, while Smalley100 also takes a critical position by speculating whether this is the best option. It remains a question why the author should introduce a legal reference so suddenly without mentioning it again elsewhere in the Letters.101 93

Painter (2002:222). Akin (2001:140) and Menken (2010:61). Painter (2002:222) also mentions this possibility. 95 The two terms ἁµαρτία and ἀνοµία are used in parallel, some even say synonymously, in Ps 50:5LXX, Rom 4:7 (Ps 32:1) or Heb 10:17 (Jer 31:34). Menken (2010:61) further mentions several joint occurrences of these two words in the Septuagint, namely, Ex 34:9; Ps 50[51]:4, 7, 11; Isa 44:22. For further discussion, see Gutbrod (1964:1085), Haas et al. (1972:86), Smalley (1984:154), Brown (1986:399), Klauck (1991:186), Painter (2002:222), Menken (2010:61) and Schnelle (2010:118–19). 96 Klauck (1991:186). This is also the view of Haas et al. (1972:86–87) and Smalley (1984:155) who see a climactic expression about sin in this phrase. 97 Klauck (1991:186). 98 Smalley (1984:154). 99 Klauck (1991:186). 100 Smalley (1984:154). 101 Brown (1986:399) and Akin (2001:140). 94

Chapter 4: Commandments, paraenesis and free will

199

vi) The author, as Jewish-Christian, is to an extent confirming nomism, that is affirming the significance of the Law and rejecting an attitude of antinomism, namely, people thinking that the Law has no significance.102 This is also not a strong option, since the use of the word νόµος seems to be avoided in the Letter. It remains difficult to explain why the author would ‘defend’ the νόµος only here without mentioning it anywhere else in his Letters. vii) Several scholars support the solution that the reference to ἀνοµία should be interpreted within an apocalyptic framework,103 where the time of eschatological unrest that precedes the Parousia is characterized by satanic rebellion against God.104 Klauck105 points out that in 2 Thes 2:8 the antichrist is called ἀνοµία and in 2 Thes 2:3 ‘man of ἀνοµία’. Griffith also notes that in the Testament of Dan, Israel’s period of sin is mentioned in ‘the context of a final struggle against Satan (6.1–2)’.106 It would therefore make more sense to translate ἀνοµία as ‘utmost evil’ or ‘apocalyptic rebellion’. Gutbrod thinks that it might be translated something like: ‘he who commits sin is thereby in revolt against God’,107 and in apocalyptic contexts this equals lawlessness. The term ἀνοµία then expresses the absolute rebellion against God that is expected from a person who is the child of the devil. The use of the article (ἡ ἀνοµία), making the lawlessness something specific, supports this interpretation.108 The evidence in the context (3:4–10) supports several of the above options and even a combination of them. Jesus came to take away sins which might suggest accepting him (3:5), while sin is contrasted with being righteous and doing what is righteous (3:7). The reference in 3:8 to the behaviour of the devil seems to be general in reference. Through his blood and being the expiation 102 Cf. Brown (1986:399) for a discussion and names of supporters of this position. Cf. also Windisch (1951:121). 103 See Brown (1986:399) for detailed discussion; also Haas et al. (1972:87), Schnackenburg (1984:186), Smalley (1984:154), Klauck (1991:186–87), Lieu (1991:52), Johnson (1993:69–70), Griffith (2002:136–40), Painter (2002:222) and Menken (2010:61). 104 Schnackenburg (1984:186) and Griffith (2002:136–38). Cf. also 1QS 3:18–21; 4:17– 21. 105 Klauck (1991:186). Cf. also Mt 7:23; 13:41; 24:12; 2 Cor 6:14; Smalley (1984:154) and Menken (2010:61). 106 Griffith (2002:137). 107 Gutbrod (1964:1086). Further evidence is the reference to the lawless people in Pss. Sol. 17:11–32, most probably including Pompey. He tried to convince the Jews to join him and he is described as ἀνούµων (17:18). The whole section is full of eschatological motifs and culminates in the victory of the Messiah (17:32). In Sib. Or. 2.252–262, the lawless people are linked to idols, which suggests the apex of enmity against God during the end times. In Did. 16:4, the one who will mislead the world will act in a time of increasing lawlessness (see also Barn. 18:2). 108 Menken (2010:61). Painter (2002:222), using the idea and words of Brown (1986:399), finds this solution inadequate, asking how ‘sin in general is the eschatological iniquity’. Cf. Lieu (1991:52–53) for further discussion.

200

Section 1: The First Letter of John

of ‘our’ sins (1:8–2:2), Jesus destroyed the effects of the devil in the lives of believers (3:8). In 3:9 believers, who are born of God and abide in Jesus (3:9 and 6) are described as people who do exactly the opposite of lawlessness (sin), namely, they love their brothers and do what is right (3:9–10). In this sense lawlessness might be anything that does not reflect what is expected of a believer, like rejecting Jesus, not being righteous and not doing what is right, not loving their fellow believers. It seems as if a more general Johannine view of sin is suggested in 3:4–10. This obviously includes an apocalyptic framework, since the works of the devil are described in apocalyptic language, for instance, with references to the last hour or the antichrist.109

4.6 Paraenesis as moral category in 1 John Closely related to commandments is the stylistic feature of paraenesis.110 ‘Paraenesis makes clear how to behave and why to behave that way, and it makes possible the actual practice of that behaviour’.111 The suggestion that 1 John contains paraenetic material is not new. Scholars like Schnackenburg112 and Strecker113 accept the presence of paraenetic material in 1 John,114 while Holmstrand 115 and Parsenios116 confirm their opinion by claiming ‘a part of the letter actually has most of the characteristics of paraenesis’,117 and the Letter’s ‘basic concerns are to urge people to follow the true teaching enshrined within the community and to avoid the false teaching associated with those who have left the community’.118 Schmid likewise opines that ‘1 John consists mainly of ethical paraenesis’,119 while Griffith remarks, 109

1J 2:18; 4:3. Cf. Addendum 6 on paraenesis for more detailed information. Wolter (2011:311) notes that the word paraenesis is not a term that is used in the New Testament (with one exception), but it nevertheless provides a handy heuristic category. 111 Popkes (2004:20). Cf. also Beutler (2000:28). 112 Schnackenburg (1984:2–3). He mentions 1J 2:15–17; 3:11–21; 4:7–12; 4:19–5:3 as examples. Cf. also Stowers (1986:96–97). 113 Strecker (1989:xliv) mentions 1J 1:5–2:17; 2:28–3:24; 4:7–5:4a, with 5:13–21 as ‘final paraenetic remarks’. Popkes (1996:120) criticizes Strecker for the fact that the distinctions are not sharp enough to warrant his results. 114 The term consistently returns in their commentaries. 115 Holmstrand (2004:405–32). 116 Parsenios (2014:24–25). 117 Holmstrand (2004:406). Cf. also Aasgaard (2004:254). 118 Parsenios (2014:24–25). 119 Schmid (2004:37). K Berger (1984:133–34) points to ethical material like the command to love, opposition to love for this world, the examples, purification when he calls 1 John a ‘postkonversionale Mahnrede’. This does not make 1 John a paraenetical document as such, however. 110

Chapter 4: Commandments, paraenesis and free will

201

‘Examples of … basic elements in paraenesis abound in 1 John’.120 Popkes,121 however, points out that it is a matter of definition. If Dibelius’ definition of paraenesis is applied, John’s literature would not qualify as paraenesis. However, based on more recent research and definitions, certain paraenetical characteristics may be identified in 1 John.122 Preventing the danger of ex cathedra or overly authoritative proclamations, which could easily antagonize addressees, paraenesis offers an approach that not only associates author and addressees, drawing on common knowledge, but also creates a ‘psychological atmosphere’ that is amicable.123 This served the author’s aim to pastorally encourage the addressees. He tries to convince the ‘you-group’ to move closer and to confirm their koinōnia with the ‘wegroup’ by means of friendly, concise arguments based on shared knowledge and ethos. He employs pastoral guidance in several cases in his Letters, for instance, in 1 John, praising the addressees for their knowledge, or in 2 John, approaching the lady with care, pleading with her. He also praises Gaius in 3 John, although this might be more ‘strategic’ praise than pastoral care. Paraenesis as a rhetorical feature is discussed in detail in Addendum 6. However, here it is necessary to point out more specifically the paraenetic features found in the Letter. First, two influential descriptions must be mentioned, that determine the analysis of 1 John. The description of Malherbe124 focuses on the characteristics of paraenesis: paraenesis represents conventional rather than new teaching, with a general application, aiming at moving people to a particular way of behaviour.125 In other words, paraenesis is the use of what is known or generally accepted,126 with the aim of encouraging 127 120

Griffith (2002:7). Popkes (1996:118). 122 Cf. Van der Watt (2018:165–80). 123 That ancient authors were very well aware of this, is illustrated by Isocrates (Bus. 1– 3), writing to Polycrates, arguing that instinctively most people who are admonished would react negatively and not look at the benefits they could receive but rather respond with displeasure and resentment. The one who addresses such people is challenged to change their disposition in a positive way. 124 Malherbe (1986; 1992; cf. also 2004). 125 Malherbe (2004:297). Cf. also Fiore (1986:45–78) and Aasgaard (2004:238–39) for a discussion on this matter. Parsenios (2014:24) offers a basic definition of paraenesis based on Ps.-Libanius (Char. ep. 5): ‘Essentially, paraenetic discourse has two functions: to encourage people to follow one course of action, and to dissuade them from following another’. 126 Stowers (1986:95), for instance, emphasizes that paraenesis is not supposed to introduce new knowledge. It focuses on what is known. 127 Thurén (2004) discusses motivation as essential component of paraenesis in the New Testament. Stowers (1986:96) mentions that paraenesis is ‘generally dominated by encouraging types of exhortation, although words of admonition or mild rebuke here and there could be appropriate’. 121

202

Section 1: The First Letter of John

or convincing the addressees to use this knowledge in determining their lines of behaviour.128 This approach of Malherbe influenced subsequent debates on paraenesis. At a 2001 Oslo conference a modified and shorter working definition was accepted:129 Paraenesis is 1. (a) concise, benevolent injunction130 2. that reminds131 of moral practices to be pursued or avoided132 3. (that) expresses or implies a shared world view133 (slightly modified: ‘expresses a shared, articulated world view’). 4. Consequently paraenesis does not anticipate disagreement.134

Based on the characteristics of paraenesis mentioned in the above two descriptions, the (possibility of) paraenetic material or aspects of such material in 1 John will be considered according to the following summarized list. a) Shared knowledge: Paraenesis makes use of conventional (traditional), well-known and accepted rather than new material, that is, it reflects a shared worldview. b) Ethical guidance: Paraenesis aims at guiding the ethical actions of the addressees and promotes moral virtue, based on shared knowledge. c) Benevolent approach as part of a shared identity: Part of the normal characteristics of paraenesis is benevolence and amicability and it is aimed at strengthening mutual identity and commitment. d) Exempla: Paraenesis makes use of, for instance, rhetorical features like examples or lists in the process of morally guiding the addressees.

128

Stowers (1986:103) puts it this way: it is presupposed that ‘the addressee is, in the writer’s view, already substantially living and acting in the right way. Furthermore, the addressee already knows what is right and merely needs help in putting that knowledge into practice’. 129 Cf. Popkes (2004:34) and Aasgaard (2004:239). 130 In his redefinition, Popkes (2004:42) formulates this point as ‘clear, concrete, benevolent guidance’, thus moving away from the idea of brevity, as well as injunction. Guidance allows for a much wider application. Cf. also Stowers (1986:103). 131 This is another way of saying thats paraenesis is based on previously acquired and shared knowledge. 132 Popkes (2004:43) redefines this phrase in the following way: it ‘reminds of practices to be pursued or avoided in the Christian way of life’. Again he broadens the definition, moving further than simply ethical aspects by including doctrines or convictions (cf. also Starr 2004:79). 133 Amicability and shared convictions more often than not are mutually supportive (Starr 2004:80). 134 Ps.-Libanius, Char. ep. 5 remarked, ‘Paraenesis is hortatory speech that does not admit of a counter-statement’.

Chapter 4: Commandments, paraenesis and free will

203

a) Shared knowledge: Paraenesis makes use of conventional (traditional), well-known and accepted rather than new material, that is, it reflects a shared worldview.135 The author of 1 John makes extensive rhetorical use of shared, accepted knowledge136 and tradition, trying to influence the ethical attitudes and actions of the addressees, in an effort to convince them to follow his (and their own) ethical convictions.137 A good example is the reliance on shared knowledge in warning the addressees against the antichrists, where it is stated that the group knows everything, especially the truth (2:21) and need not be taught (2:20–25). For instance, they know the antichrist is coming (2:18), they know the truth (2:21), and with a rhetorical question the author suggests that they know Jesus is the Christ (2:22) – nobody needs to teach them this truth (2:24–27), it is shared knowledge. This ‘amicable reminder’ of what they have heard from the beginning and therefore share with their fellow Christians, is typical of paraenesis. Nothing new or unknown is added, but based on the current shared knowledge, the advice given will be followed. No disagreement is anticipated (2:21), which is also typical of paraenesis.138 b) Ethical guidance: Paraenesis aims at guiding the moral actions of the addressees and promoting moral virtue, based on their shared knowledge. Paraenesis aims at amicably reminding the people addressed of moral practices to be pursued or avoided, based on their ethos. This was not restricted to certain people or stages of ethical development. Starr notes that ‘paraenesis was addressed to adherents of a given group at all stages of moral or spiritual development’,139 implying that ‘reminding and guiding’ them also included confirmation and encouragement.140 135

Starr (2004:111) notes that ‘paraenesis assumed its greatest role in social groups that had already adopted the new worldview and become established in the new social group’. 136 Malherbe (1986:125) refers to the phrase ‘as you know’ as a key phrase in paraenesis. The reference to what is known suggests general applicability within the particular community ‘since what is advised is already known, the exhorter disavows the need for further instruction’. It is indeed part of their ethos. What they already know, serves as example for imitation and therefore the addressees are encouraged to continue their pattern of behaviour according to the knowledge they have. Cf. also Aasgaard (2004:248–51). 137 This rhetorical feature is prevalent especially in the latter part of the Letter (from 2:18 onwards) where the use of shared knowledge and tradition forms a major characteristic of the rhetoric. The author uses a variety of terms to refer to this shared knowledge, for instance, οἶδα, γινώσκω, φανερόω, ἀκούω, γράφω, µαρτυρέω, ἀγγέλλω and derivates. Cf. Aasgaard (2004:251). 138 Stowers (1986:96) notes that the focus on what is known does not imply that new or creative ways of communicating are forbidden; rather, the contrary is the case. 139 Starr (2004:111). Cf. Popkes (2004:33). 140 Popkes (1996). Gammie and Perdue (1990) argue that paraenesis is also used to guide and shape conversion. ‘The newcomer needs and receives guidance and advice to

204

Section 1: The First Letter of John

This fits well with the material of 1 John, since the author tries to convince the addressees who already share ethical knowledge with him (i.e. ‘paraenetic commonplaces’141). The author also freely uses moral topoi like love, truth, light/darkness, purity, etc. to motivate and remind them of what is expected from them. The author does not only use paraenesis rhetorically to confirm what they should do, but also in some cases how they should do it. A few examples should suffice. In 3:11–18, the author amicably encourages the addressees as ‘brothers’ (3:13) and ‘little children’ (3:18) to actively love one another by using the contrasting symbolic figure of Cain who murders and hates (3:11–14). This example is closely networked with what the addressees know (3:14–16) – they know that they have eternal life, that a person who has eternal life does not murder and they know what authentic love is. The author can therefore paraenetically remind and encourage them to love and not hate. In 2:7, the author confirms that the addressees know the old commandment (that focuses on love – 4:20–21), which they had from the beginning. Any reference to loving one another will just be a reminder and confirmation of what the addressees already know. In 3:11, the addressees are again reminded of the message that they (and the author – 1:1–2) have heard from the beginning, namely, to love one another.142 This knowledge and call to love one another gives the discussion about love in 3:7–5:3 a paraenetic flavour.143 Since the addressees steered away from their love of their fellow Christians, reminding them of their ethical obligations paraenetically aims at changing their behaviour according to the knowledge they have, because of what they heard before.144 This paraenetic appeal is sustained. For instance, at the end of the Letter (5:18) the author remarks that ‘we know that any one born of God does not sin’, reminding the addressees of their knowledge that a child of God does not sin (3:5, 9–10). By reminding the addressees of these well-known ethical obligations, the author guides his addressees in correct and preferable moral behaviour.

walk in the Christian way of life, to find his or her place within the new community, to internalize the new values, to act according to the new rules, to cope with aspects of status and responsibility’ (Starr 2004:18). This view that paraenesis is aimed at newcomers came under serious criticism (cf. Starr 2004:111, Popkes 2004:33 and Aasgaard 2004:264) and does not seem to be in focus in 1 John. 141 Griffith (2002:7). 142 Cf. 1J 1:1; 2:7, 24; 3:11. 143 Holmstrand (2004:428) remarks, ‘we must naturally pay special attention to the section 2:28–5:12 when asking about paraenesis in 1 John’. 144 Cf. 1J 2:7, 18, 24; 3:11; 4:3.

Chapter 4: Commandments, paraenesis and free will

205

c) Benevolent approach as part of a shared identity: Part of the normal characteristics of paraenesis is benevolence and amicability and is aimed at strengthening mutual identity and commitment. There are several indicators in the Letter for an amicable relationship between the author and the addressees, for instance, the author calls his addressees ‘my little children’,145 or just ‘children’ (2:18), ‘brothers’ (i.e. part of the children of God – 3:13) and ‘beloved’ (i.e. people included in his circle of love).146 These terms vouch for a benevolent relationship and are networked throughout the Letter. This relationship is further confirmed by the way the author includes the ‘you’ group in the ‘we’ group,147 where love for one another is the basic ethical norm. There are several good reasons for the paraenetic requirement of an amicable relationship. The fostering of identity by binding like-minded people to their shared traditions was central to paraenesis.148 Quinn remarks, ‘The social functions of paraenesis included socialization, legitimation of a new world, and the reinforcement of identity’.149 This indeed seems to be the aim of the author of 1 John too, creating as well as fostering cohesion and co-operation (koinōnia) through shared knowledge and commitment, thus amicably aiming at confirming and strengthening the ethical identity of the addressees. d) Exempla: Paraenesis makes use of, for instance, rhetorical features like examples or lists in the process of ethically guiding the addressees. The author makes use of examples in motivating ethical behaviour, adhering to the requirements of brevity and clarity.150 These examples and lists network and interrelate the ethical remarks in the Letter. Some examples include: i) The example of Jesus laying down his life (3:16) illustrates what love is and determines the way believers should behave (3:16–17). This is the basic ethical requirement in the Letter and explains what is meant by love in 3:10– 5:3. ii) Another key example is that of Cain whose deeds were evil because he murdered his brother (3:11–12). This image of Cain as an evil person was a stereotyped (i.e. known) perspective on the hateful and murderous Cain that 145

1J 2:1, 28; 3:18; 5:21. 1J 2:7; 3:21; 4:1, 7, 11. Perdue (1990:23–26) and Popkes (2004:263) regard the focus on identity as an important aspect of paraenesis, whichever way paraenesis is defined. Obviously, these references to amicable relations should be in contexts where there are references to well-known material used to encourage moral behaviour to qualify as paraenesis, as is the case in 1 John, where these ‘names’ are spread throughout the Letter when ethical issues are discussed. 147 Cf. subsection 1.1.2.1 above. 148 Cf. Aasgaard (2004:264–65). 149 Quinn (1990:189). 150 Cf. Malherbe (1986:125) and Popkes (2004:42). 146

206

Section 1: The First Letter of John

is used to convince the addressees to choose for a moral life of love (3:11– 16). It clearly separates believers from their opponents based on their behaviour. iii) Shorter maxim-like exempla are found, for instance, in 5:1–2, where the example of how the person who loves the father should also love his child, and in 2:9–11 where the person trying to walk in darkness will not know where he or she is going and will stumble, while a person who walks in light will experience the opposite by living a purposeful life. iv) The author’s consistent use of mimesis also intends to influence the moral behaviour of the addressees. The mimetic references are mostly brief, for example, living like Jesus lived (2:6) and not like Cain (3:12). It intensifies in chapters 3 to 5 where the emphasis is placed on the love of God that must be reciprocated in the love for the brother. The predominantly ethical remarks in 2:12–14 have list-like characteristics, referring to little children (τεκνία), fathers (πατέρες), young people (νεανίσκοι) and children (παιδία).151 The statements made in each case are repetitions of what is known and are confirmed throughout the Letter.152 This prompts Schnelle to speak here of a ‘Gemeindetafel’.153 This frames the addressees within a certain known and acknowledged identity, which, it is presumed, will be honoured. In sum, typical characteristics of paraenesis are indeed present throughout the Letter,154 creating a paraenesis-like ‘atmosphere’. However, the density and spread of the characteristics are of such a nature that the document as a whole cannot be regarded as a paraenetical document. The trend in the Letter reflects paraenetical awareness, however, and in some contexts would qualify as paraenetical. Holmstrand also notes that ‘the letter as a whole can be said to serve an exhortative purpose, but it is only in the section 2:28–5:12 that the text is based on express exhortations, which should be a mark of paraenesis’.155 The use of paraenetical material confirms the ethical emphasis in the Letter in another way, that is, reminding the ‘you’ of their common ethical responsibilities and encouraging them to align their identity in terms of koinōnia and unity (Immanenz) with God and the ‘us’ group by co-operating with and loving them. 151 PL Berger and Luckmann (1966:120) also point out that paraenetic utterances strengthened social formation and assisted in inducing individuals into a society, reminding the persons of their shared values. This included the whole society, from children to elders. 152 Cf., e.g., 1:1–5; 2:13–14, 24; 3:5; 4:7; 5:3–4, 18, 20. 153 Schnelle (2010:94). 154 Popkes (1996:120) feels that what 1 John offers in terms of paraenetic material is too general. It can nevertheless not be denied that 1 John has clear paraenetical features. 155 Holmstrand (2004:428).

Chapter 4: Commandments, paraenesis and free will

207

4.7 Commandments and conscience Although common terms for ‘conscience’ (e.g., συνείδησις156/σύνοιδα157) are not used in 1 John, Klauck158 observes that the phrase ‘our heart condemns’ in 3:20–21 probably expressed a similar idea, namely, referring to the inner reflection of a person in the light of ethical expectations. ‘Self-evaluation through introspection’159 was a known practice in ancient times. Morgan refers to Publilius and Quintilian on the importance of conscience ‘as an internal monitor, keeping us well behaved … When internal controls fail, war may break out between the emotions’.160 Bosman argues that this introspection involved ‘evaluation of own behaviour in light of ethical criteria’,161 involving the possibility of overstepping the limits of ethical behaviour, of course as set by the social expectations within a group and accepted by the individual as part of his or her ethos and that of the group. Malina and Neyrey162 are of similar opinion remarking that ‘conscience’ might be seen as the individual's sensitivity for the wishes of and personal bond to the traditions of the family, which were internalized by the individual, it must be added. It is therefore a measure of the loyalty of the individual towards the group. Sandwiched between references to central concepts in the Letter, namely, commandments, love, truth and Immanenz (3:16–18, 22–24), the author makes a short reference to reassurance and condemnation of ‘our’ hearts (3:19–21). He remarks that ‘“by this” (ἐν τούτῳ) we shall know that we are of the truth, and reassure our hearts before him’ (3:19), where ‘by this’ most probably refers back to the example of love in 3:16–17. Two statements are made about ‘our hearts’ (3:19–21) – they can condemn us (perhaps echoing ‘bad conscience’) or they could reassure us since God is greater than our hearts. He knows everything,163 inter alia referring to the salvific position of believers created by his love. Because of ‘our’ salvific relationship to God, ‘we’ need not be afraid of the condemnation by our hearts, since the love and forgiveness of God is greater than that. We need not 156 Louw and Nida (1996:967) describe the lexicographical potential of this word as ‘the inward faculty of distinguishing right and wrong’. 157 It is also described as being aware or conscious of information, also of information about oneself (Arndt et al. 2000:ad loc.; Louw and Nida 1996:ad loc.). Cf. Bosman (2003:49–75) for a good overview of research relating to the concept of conscience in ancient times. 158 Klauck (1991:218). 159 Bosman (2003:27) quoting Kähler. 160 Morgan (2007:205–206). 161 Bosman (2003:41). 162 Malina and Neyrey (1991a:76–77). 163 It includes the knowledge God has at Judgment Day.

208

Section 1: The First Letter of John

fear our ‘inner court’164 (hearts/conscience), but may have confidence before God, which is directly related to the relation between God and believers – they may ask him with expectance, because they keep his commandments and do what pleases him (3:22). Doing what God wants as it is expressed in his commandments, serves as measure for a person of his or her intimate relationship with God and gives a person confidence in this relationship.

4.8 The role of the (free) will of believers A question that is part of ethical considerations from ancient times deals with the relationship between free will and outside determination of the moral agent. Is a person acting a particular way because he or she freely chooses to do so or is there some ‘force’ (inside or out) that determines his or her behaviour, for instance, G(g)od, society or some other power?165 Malik offers an insightful discussion of the origins of this problem in the Greek world, analysing this issue in the Iliad that influenced later views. He points out that ‘Throughout the Iliad, divine and human causation are inextricably linked … Achilles and Agamemnon are responsible for their actions … And yet their actions are shaped by the gods, and their fates decided by Zeus’ scales’. He continues, ‘and this, for Homer, is the tragedy of being human: to desire freedom, and be tortured by a sense of autonomy, and yet be imprisoned by forces beyond our control’.166 There indeed exists a strong tension between free will on the one hand and fate on the other. It begs the question regarding what ethics means exactly, if actions are determined by fate.167 Of some importance is the fact that in a grouporientated society the concept of freedom is more complicated than in a secularized individualistic society as we know it today. In group societies free will is defined in terms of the restrictions of the group, while in individualistic societies individuals become the central authority of their own ethical decisions.168

In the Gospel,169 tension between free will and the influence of ‘outside S(s)ources’ is clearly present. People are responsible for what they do, while 164

This is a phrase Malina and Neyrey (1991a:76–77) use. Cf. the discussions in Vol. 1, 135–41. 166 Malik (2014:ad loc.). 167 Malik (ibid.), for instance, remarks that Homer’s warriors were not able to choose to be moral or not. How they performed their duties determined whether they were good or bad. ‘Human choice adds texture to the cloth already woven on the loom of fate, but cannot unpick the threads’. People are driven by fate. 168 Malik (ibid. 309–11) provides a present-day definition of free will: ‘Free will is the capacity of human beings to make choices from their own motivations, to decide about their own lives without manipulation or coercions from outside and to account for their own actions and attitudes, even if under pressure and hazard’. His definition of present-day determinism reads as follows, ‘determinism is the more or less strict limitation of personal or social freedom by external factors’. 169 Cf. Vol. 1, 262–64. Cf., e.g., J 12:2; 13:27; 18:2–3. 165

Chapter 4: Commandments, paraenesis and free will

209

from another perspective God or another power (like Satan) also influences the person. This is, for instance, the case with Judas who carries responsibility for his deeds, but is also described as being under the power of the devil.170 This view of the freedom of the will is continued in the Letters, where there are many instances that suggest free will and choice, stating that people also have to accept the consequences of their choices, that is, they carry moral responsibility.171 Imperatives or commandments172 such as to love one another (3:18; 4:7), to abide in Him (2:28), not to love evil (2:15) or to purify themselves (3:3) suggest that the believer has a choice173 to comply or not, pointing to bearing responsibility for one’s actions. There is another side to be considered, however. The focus on being free to act does not exclude God’s determining presence that is mainly expressed in references to unity (Immanenz) and especially (divine) family relations.174 Ancient families were hierarchically structured, that is, the father was the one who determines the character and behaviour of his family. This does not mean that the rest of the family are ‘not free’ to act within the family. However, their ‘freedom’ is limited by the confines applicable to their family. This is freedom within a group, where the group is the more important entity which defines the individual. Individuals in the group are therefore subjecting themselves to the confines of the group that determine the behaviour of the group members. Because of who you are (identity), you are free to act (behaviour), but only within the confines of the group. Not personal identity but group identity was crucial. If you did not want to live freely within the family, you could leave, as the antichrists did. The same applies to expressions of unity, namely, to abide in God the Father, sharing his thoughts, words and deeds (true koinōnia). Believers act in a particular way because they are expressing their unity with their Father God (3:9–10). Being begotten, loved and accepted by the Father, being befriended 170

Vol. 1, 264. Schnelle (2016:228) makes the following remark about the Gospel, which equally applies to the Letters, ‘Johannes bringt die Eigenverantwortung des Menschen dadurch zum Ausdruck, dass er die Ablehnung der Gottesoffenbarung als willentliche Verweigerung versteht’. 172 1J 2:5; 3:24; 4:20–21; 5:3. 173 Statements suggesting a choice are ample in the Letter, for instance, abiding in (2:28), believing (3:23; 4:1), hating your brother (3:15), committing sin (3:8), overcoming the evil one (2:13), exiting the Johannine group (2:19), doing what is right (2:7), obey or disobey (2:4), keep commandments (5:3). The contrast between saying and doing (1:6; 2:9–11; 3:18) as well as the warning of being deceived (2:7, 26) making a false confession (2:22–23; 4:15) also imply a choice by the ethical agent. Neither mimesis nor reciprocity are caused by a force from outside, although there are social obligations involved. 174 1J 2:28; 3:9, 24; 5:18. 171

210

Section 1: The First Letter of John

by his Son, and living in God’s family as child do not militate against the free will of a believer as a moral agent, but constitute such freedom within this unique relationship. This is not predetermining the ethical agent, but should rather be seen as restrictive, caused by the group identity of the person. This way of thinking is also part of the earliest ancient Greek views, although the ‘outside’ influences differed as different philosophers suggested different theories. For Aristotle,175 freedom is allowed in making a free choice, bearing in mind that the responsibility for the consequences is part of this freedom. 176 For the Stoics, freedom became the central issue. Even though they had a relatively liberal and open view of freedom, they also saw themselves as being determined by circumstances.177 Even Epicurus with his philosophy of ‘pleasure’ restricted behaviour according to acceptable ethical consequences. For them ethical freedom is conditional. That is also the case in biblical material. The people of Israel are free, but their behaviour within this freedom is determined by their relational and covenantal responsibility towards God, which is not only described in their laws, but is also evident in their wisdom literature.178

Within the family, guidance by the Spirit in knowledge and confession179 should be mentioned here. The Spirit, that the Father has given believers,180 175

Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 3.3.1111a21–1111b. Plato’s view differed due to his emphasis on the soul, distancing him from surrounding circumstances (Theaet. 175D–E). 177 Rese’s (2014) excellent description of the Stoic view on freedom is worthwhile quoting at length: ‘The most elaborated concept of freedom in ancient times is Stoicism. Epictetus notes in his Discourses: “He is free who lives as he wills who is subject neither to compulsion nor hindrance, nor force, whose choices are unhampered, whose desires attain their end, whose aversions do not fall in what they would avoid” (Diss. 4.1.1 [LCL 218]). For Epictetus a free man is courageous even when he is under pressure, mature even though he is a slave and wise even though he is a simple person. Epictetus is able to distinguish between fate and choice, obedience and insight, social status and personal virtue. A poor man can be rich if he has wisdom; a rich man can be poor if he is unmoral. A slave can be free if he is good; a free man can be alienated if he is in the net of evil. A prisoner can be free if he is independent in his consciousness; a judge can be determined if he is corrupt or unjust. The key to the stoic concept is the relation between freedom and necessity. Every person belongs to the cosmos which has its own system, the logos. To be free is to be in accordance to the logos. It is not fatalism which is the result of stoic anthropology and ethics; it is an acceptation of the rules of the world, serenity in certain situations and “stoic calm” which is expression of freedom. The will of a person is the instance to recognize the logos and to affirm its claim to human life. Determinism by the logos is not the occupation of a human being by a strange power but the guidance of reason in a human life. “Ask not that events should happen as you will, but let your will be that events should happen as they do and you shall have peace” (Epictetus, enchiridion II 8). The limits of freedom are defined only by the return of the same which is the rhythm of eternity. So, self-awareness is affirmation of the divine logic and free will is the acceptance of determinism while determinism is the frame of freedom.’ 178 Cf. ibid. 309–13. 179 1J 2:20–27; 4:1–4, 13–15. 180 1J 2:24; 4:13. 176

Chapter 4: Commandments, paraenesis and free will

211

confirms the Father’s ethical authority, since the Spirit makes the word of the Father known. Through the Spirit believers may know the truth and can act accordingly. In sum, personal choice and consequent responsibility are not excluded in Johannine thought in the Letter, to the contrary. Believers are encouraged to make the right choices and those who do not believe are held responsible. This is not unbound, individual freedom, but freedom within the social confines of the Johannine group in which believers find themselves. Believers are born of God and should therefore act as children of God. Their freedom exists within the confines of such relationship and identity. An essential part of free will is that decisions must be made and these decisions should reflect one’s identity. Discernment is therefore a key part of the grammar of ethics.

4.9 Discernment and the grammar of ethics of 1 John Discernment is a key element of the grammar of ethics of the Gospel, applying ethical guidelines to new situations.181 It should be understood as the process of reflection on an issue that requires action in light of certain ethical criteria and particular circumstances, leading to a motivated ethical decision.182 This inevitably implies that the will as well as cognition are involved. In the Letter the purpose of prescriptions like commandments, imperatives and the like, is to influence the will and actions of the individual. The influence of such prescriptions is determined by the ethical agent’s willingness to comply, highlighting the role of discernment for making choices. The question is, does the ethical agent accept the prescription and put it into action or not?183 The ethical requirements in the Letter are mostly formulated in terms of principles,184 rather than direct actions,185 that is, to love, to be righteous, to

181 Childress (1980:375), referring to John Dewey, notes, ‘deliberation is an imaginative rehearsal of various courses of action. It includes the prospective justification of those actions in the light of moral rules and principles’. 182 Elsewhere, reference was made to the link between discernment and love (cf. subsection 3.3.4.6 above). A little more needs to be said about discernment itself here. 183 Although behaviour is seen within the context of free will, it did not imply random actions but required the ethical agent to follow certain moral guidelines. One should distinguish between what ought to be done (what one ought to do = expectation), what one wants to do (wishes) and what one indeed does (real action). 184 Discernment is also part of the Jewish tradition in which the Johannine group stands. Barton (2003:8–9) shows that it is ‘part of the Old Testament’s assumption that human beings are responsible agents, not the playthings of God or the gods’. This excludes the

212

Section 1: The First Letter of John

be pure or to imitate Jesus.186 How these principles must be translated into actions in specific situations, needs consideration and discernment, something Morgan calls ‘executive ethics’.187 ‘Executive virtues’ emphasize qualities (how to behave) and not particular deeds (what exactly to do), leaving the choice for different forms of practical application open. For instance, love is a principle that should guide the concrete behaviour of believers, and needs to be consistently concretized in particular actions in different situations in order to express the ‘character’ of love as was illustrated by both the Father and the Son. To say ‘one should love’ does not suggest a concrete or visible action. The line of action in a particular situation should be discerned, determining what would express love in the most adequate and authentic way within the framework of God’s will, showing affection, care and loyalty to others, as well as seeking the well-being of the family of God. The process of decision making in the Letter is presented within a particular relational framework, suggesting certain confines and influences in the process of discernment. These include the following: i) The unity (Immanenz) between God and his children is frequently linked to God’s commandments or his word that should be obeyed,188 resulting in discernment mainly functioning within the confines and unity of the family of God (Immanenz) under the guidance of the Spirit.189 Obedience to the will of the Father forms a firm basis for Johannine discernment. Children of God are expected to obey and to do what their Father does. This underlines that making decisions flows from an intimate relationship between God and believers, echoing their koinōnia. notion that behaviour is mechanical and has no moral implications for that moral agent. Nevertheless, God remains involved. 185 Helping others with what they need (3:17) and committing murder (3:11–12) are the only really specific references. 186 Morgan (2007:256) indicates that in ancient moral philosophy, decision making is also a central concept – no specific actions are suggested, but the stories and sayings indicate principles or values that must be applied through discernment. She notes, ‘Sayings and stories assume that people are normally free to act and determine their own future, and characters’ adaptation to changing circumstances is a common theme … ethical material addresses the individual, and it nearly always presents individuals thinking, acting and using their experience’ (ibid. 240). 187 Morgan (ibid. 179–80) notes that in contrast to current-day tendencies to formulate absolute rules that should apply to everybody, ancients focused more on what may be called ‘executive virtues’, having a wider, more absolute application, like justice, trustworthiness and honesty. ‘Executive virtues tell people not what to do or not to do, but how to behave’. Not specific deeds but qualities apparent in these deeds are in focus. This leaves the possibilities of application open. For instance, ‘To tell everyone to be just, leaves what constitutes just behaviour to the individual and the social group to define in specific cases’. 188 Cf., e.g., 1J 1:5–7; 2:3–5, 24; 3:24; 5:2–3. 189 Cf. 1J 2:20–27; 4:1–4.

Chapter 4: Commandments, paraenesis and free will

213

ii) Discernment is reflection on a particular line of action based on certain expressed principles. Obviously, in the Letter believers have the commandments and words of God (2:3–5), as well as the examples of Jesus (2:6) to guide them in making decisions.190 These principles include love, truth, righteousness, being pure – ethical guidelines that are expressed by Jesus.191 There is an element of freedom and creativity in expressing these principles actively in new situations, but these choices should always be made within the confines of the Father’s will. The believers’ love should mirror God’s love (4:11) and their righteousness Jesus’ righteousness (3:7). iii) The Holy Spirit (including the anointment in 2:20) was given to ‘us’, ensuring the ‘us’ of their unity with God (3:24). The anointment also abides in believers (2:27). The Spirit guides them in their confession and teaches them the truth (2:27) so that they know all, as it is formulated in their tradition (2:20–27). Concrete interaction is suggested between the Spirit, the tradition and the believer. In making the correct decision, believers should allow themselves to be guided by the tradition through the Spirit. iv) On a practical level, discernment will be guided by loving actions that create life through care, protection, self-sacrifice and obedience. This does not only involve introducing people to eternal life through missionary efforts, but also caring for believers and protecting them, which is another way of saying that one protects and even creates life. Johannine ethics is group ethics: the well-being of the group, which is fostered by these positive actions, remains a key guideline for believers to follow in discerning what to do. v) Prayer is part of the active relational synergy between God and believers. Believers can express their will but that should not militate against what they know God wants (3:22; 5:14–15). Such wishes will be granted. The alignment of their will with the will of God in the process of discernment is therefore required.

190

This is emphatically stated in 2:6: ‘he who says he abides in him [Jesus] ought to walk in the same way in which he walked’. By constantly using Jesus and the way Jesus acted as example for the behaviour of the believers, he broadens the base of his ethical reflection dramatically. Not a set of rules, but the attitude and behaviour of Jesus, actualized in them through the Spirit (1J 2:20, 27; 3:24) serve as ethical guideline and should be mimed. Through the practical guidance of Jesus and the spiritual guidance of the Spirit, the believer finds his or her way as a child of God. 191 As Schnackenburg (1967:313; cf. also 324–25) says, ‘Christ who lives in complete unity with the Father, subject to him in love and obedience, seeking his honour only and fulfilling his command … requires of his disciples the counterpart of this …’.

214

Section 1: The First Letter of John

4.10 Is ethical growth part of the lives of believers? In ancient virtue ethics, it was expected that a person should grow in virtue, based on the consistent exercise of such virtues. It was not a matter of a person immediately having a virtue in its fullness, but rather a process of growing in that virtue. In the Letter, a different approach is found. When the author asks his addressees to love their fellow Christians, the intention is not that one should first love a little, next time a little more, and so on, thus ‘growing’ in their love. The reason is that the author departs from relational ethics, especially family ethics. The status and identity of a believer is that of a child of God, and the believer is obliged to obediently live accordingly. In 3:1–10 this is described in clear terms – children of God do not sin, they love their fellow Christians, and they ought to be pure and righteous like the Father and the Son. The focus is on a state of being that will lead to particular behaviour. Believers are not portrayed as people who try to behave properly in order to grow into some mature persons, but are seen as people who behave according to who they already are – they are God’s children. Their behaviour is defined in terms of being good children of God and this should be their constant aim. The argument moves from a position of ‘location’ (being a child) rather than one of ‘movement’ (growth). Although identity is stable, behaviour might differ and even fluctuate, a reality described by the term ‘sin’. Reality shows that mistakes are made, believers can deviate from the path and can be disobedient, but then this situation should be corrected by restoring the tarnished relationship. This is accomplished through confession of sin, implying a conversion-like procedure in the sense that the believer reconfirms his or her identity and relationship (koinōnia) with the Father and his family and thus expresses his or her willingness to behave according to the will of the Father. Within this context it does not seem to be a matter of growth (i.e. from a little, to a little more …) but of turning away from sin by choosing the path stipulated by one’s identity.192 Prescriptions and requests related to behaviour (i.e. paraenesis, imperatives, commandments, etc.) aim at refocussing ethical agents on how they ought to behave. These prescriptions do not suggest growth, but function as guidance for members of the family of God in their efforts to be obedient children of God. If family members do not comply, they harm their relation192

This is against von Wahlde (1990:168) who interprets forgiveness of sin (1:7–10) in terms of the concept of sanctification. Since a believer is a child of God, ‘the sinlessness of the believer is a continuing process: one becomes gradually less sinful’. This process, according to him, ‘requires effort and time … but the process remains something to be achieved in its fullness’. There is little evidence in the text to support this interpretation.

Chapter 4: Commandments, paraenesis and free will

215

ship with the Father and his family and that should be corrected through confession of the misstep. In this context the author encourages the ‘you’ group to recognize their identity and to express it in their behaviour, rediscovering their koinōnia with and love for their brothers. It is not a matter of growing, but of restoring their relationship and co-operation (koinōnia).

4.11 What is said about sin in 1 John? The First Letter of John is well-known for its different uses of the concept ‘sin’193 and presents a more complex view of sin compared to the Gospel, where the emphasis predominantly falls on sin as unbelief, although particular sinful deeds are not absent.194 There are three major contexts in the Letter that deal with sin. a) In 1:8–10, the reality of sin is confirmed and the confession of such sins is encouraged. b) In 3:4–18, the devil is described as the one who sinned from the beginning and whoever sins is of the devil, like Cain, for instance. Thus the origin and the core of sin are addressed. In contrast, it is said in 3:9–10 that a child of God cannot sin. c) In 5:16–17, reference is made to sin that can either be unto death or not. Since these issues are discussed within specific contexts respectively, they should not be dogmatized. They should be considered within their particular contexts. 4.11.1 The devil sinned from the beginning (1J 3:8) Sin is linked to the devil who sinned from the beginning (3:8).195 No indication is given in the Letter of where the devil comes from or why the devil opposes God. Knowledge about these things is simply assumed.196 As is the case in the Gospel,197 the opposition between God and the devil is expressed in family terms (3:1–17). The children of the devil, with their evil deeds and Cain as prime example,198 are contrasted with the children of God 193 Schnelle (2010:76–77) discusses early Christian views on sin and how to deal with it, while Horst Hahn (2009:160) focuses on the issue of sin in 1 John. Cf. also Edwards (1996:16). 194 Lieu (1991:53). Cf. Vol. 1, 141–45. 195 Di Tommaso (2009:1174) argues that because of the cosmic dualism ‘the existence of adversarial forces is naturally assumed’ in many ancient texts. They are present in Second Temple writings of Judaism (cf. 1 Chr 21:1; Jub. 17:16) and ‘are the cause of evil’ (cf. 1 En. 6–16, 86–88). 196 Cf. Bultmann (1973:99–100) and Keener (1993:ad loc.) for possible roots. 197 Cf. J 8:44 in its context. 198 Cf. subsection 3.3.7.2 above.

216

Section 1: The First Letter of John

(3:10), with Jesus, the Son, as their prime example (3:16).199 Sin might therefore be defined as that which militates against God and his family. If you disassociate with and hate the family of God, not showing love towards them, your deeds are evil, since they kill rather than ‘creating life’ (3:11–12). The devil displays his power on earth through his works (3:8), so much so that it is said in 5:19 that the whole world lies under the power of the evil one. The devil’s power is seen in the existence and hateful behaviour of his children, as opponents of the Johannine group.200 They are acting as false spirits and prophets (4:1–3), deceiving others. They have a murderous, unloving demeanour towards the family of God. Believers are therefore warned to be on their guard so that the evil cannot touch them (5:18, 21), something that might have happened with the ‘you’ already. With the coming of the Son, a change in the cosmic power structure took place. The Son of God appeared to destroy the works of the devil (3:8) and life as children of God became a reality, in contrast to those who are of the devil and therefore sin. The works of the devil did not disappear, since the devil, or the evil one, still has power over the kosmos (= those who are not of God,201 5:19) and believers are still exposed to the activities of the devil and his children. His powerful expressions come in the form of a) the antichrist (2:18) whose works are evident in the actions of those who are no longer in the midst of the believers, b) the spirit of error or of the antichrist whose presence is visible through the false prophets (4:1–6), and c) people like Cain, who is the symbolic expression of those who murdered their brothers, that is all those who do not care for believers (3:11–18).202 Even if this is so, victory over the devil is proclaimed throughout the Letter.203 Indeed, those who are born of God and believe that Jesus is the Son of God, share in the victory that overcomes the world (5:4–5). The insightful discussion in 3:4–18 touches on Christ’s victory over the devil and consequently over sinful behaviour. Jesus is described as the one who took away sins (3:5), yes, he destroyed the works of the devil (3:8), because he stands in complete contrast to sin (in him there is not sin – 3:5). The Letter echoes this in different terms, for instance, sins are forgiven in his name (2:14), he is called the expiation of our sins,204 which falls within the conceptual space as his blood purifying sinners (1:9). The ideal of not sinning also applies to believers who must do what their family requires (3:9). Based on the victory of Jesus, believers should practise purity (3:3) and righteousness (3:7) and not sin. Through their faith, believers share in the victory of Jesus (5:4–5). 199

Cf. Van der Watt (1988:75; 2014), Marxsen (1989:263) and Klauck (1991:277–80). Lieu (1991:70) points out that on the basis of the dualist nature of the theology of John, 1J 3:4–10 does refer to the opponents, but that there is no reason why it should not be applied to them and to the whole kosmos, all those who oppose the Johannine group. 201 Cf. H Hahn (2009:339). 202 Cf. Perkins (1979:xxi–xxii), Painter (2002:238–40) and Thatcher (2012). 203 Cf. 1J 2:13–14; 4:4; 5:4–5. 204 ἱλασµός; 1J 2:2; 4:10. 200

Chapter 4: Commandments, paraenesis and free will

217

4.11.2 A child of God cannot sin (1J 3:9–10) The major issue in 3:9 concerning sin is the statement that a person born of God cannot sin (οὐ δύναται ἁµαρτάνειν), although it is stated earlier in the Letter (1:7–10) that believers can indeed sin and if they claim not to have sin, they deceive themselves. Some opine that this claim in 3:9 might suggest sinlessness205 or spiritual perfection. Another popular solution is to interpret 3:9 as referring to a lifestyle of continuous sinning206 in contrast to making a ‘mistake’ that may be confessed.207 In this case, it is important not to dogmatize the statement, but to consider the context of this claim in 3:9. Family imagery forms the core framework for the arguments in Chapter 3. Within this familial context, this powerful, even controversial,208 ethical statement in 3:9 links being born of God directly to the behaviour of his children, confirming the obligation of God’s children to do what God their Father wants,209 marking the context for what ‘cannot sin’ (οὐ δύναται ἁµαρτάνειν) intends. Within group-orientated communal societies, the conventional expectations were that a child should behave like his or her parents, indeed, a boy should do what his father does. Within such a communal family situation it is not strange to expect that a child should not act or even wish or intend to act against the traditions, ethos and conventions of his family. Children were obliged to behave as proper members of their family (although it obviously did not always happen). Indeed, if they are educated properly and with their father’s ‘seed’ (characteristics – 3:9) in them, they would by default follow the path of their family. Lieu likewise argues that birth defines identity, which for her implies that freedom from sin basically involves ‘belonging to the sphere where sin has no place and where the evil one cannot touch the one born of God (5:18)’.210 It is therefore something more than simply not committing certain acts. 205

Lieu (1981:224) explains the ‘sinlessness’ as a theological consequence of John’s dualistic thoughts. She (1991:61) regards this dualistic framework as requiring a ‘perfectionist’ assertion, since no grey areas are allowed for within this dualistic framework. It does not reflect the reality. Since John cannot ‘counter’ the sinlessness through theological development, he simply states alongside this view the recognition of the reality of sin. This explanation of Lieu is partly correct, but as a whole not convincing. 206 For instance, ESV: ‘makes a practice of sinning’; NIV: ‘will continue to sin’; NCV: ‘do not continue sinning’/‘go on sinning’; CEV, ISV: ‘cannot keep on sinning’; NLT: ‘do not make a practice of sinning’; Lewende Bybel: ‘aanhou om sonde te doen’. 207 1J 1:7–2:2. 208 Marxsen (1989:261–62) maintains that the absoluteness of this statement is due to ‘sorglosen Umgang mit der Sprache’ by the author. This is not convincing. 209 Epictetus offers a penetrating description of the duties of a ‘son’ in Book 2.10.7 of the Diatribai reported by Arrian: absolute help, respect, protection etc. are required. Cf. Philo, Spec. leg. 2.236. 210 Lieu (1991:36).

218

Section 1: The First Letter of John

But it is also formulated the other way round, namely, that the righteous deeds of a person prove that he or she is indeed begotten by God (2:29; 3:10; 4:7; 5:1–2). The social ideal was that if you are part of a family that loves and protects you and you love that family, you will (can) not think of acting against the interests of the family. Sinning against the family is in no way part of you, your thoughts or your intentions, not to speak of your actions. To the contrary, the child will imitate the ‘model’ of the family, in this case Jesus, in whom there is no sin (3:5).211 What is intended is indeed an obedient and consistent ‘lifestyle’ according to the will of the Father of the family of God. It is not punctual transgressions that are referred to, but a complete acceptance of God’s will. John also portrays a flexibility in expression when describing the relationship between birth and actions which underline the closeness between the two: for instance, although he states that a person who is born of God cannot sin,212 he also puts it the other way round, namely that the righteous deeds of a person prove that he or she is indeed born of God.213 Identity, also determined by birth, basically determines actions, both positively and negatively (3:10, 11–15).

4.11.3 Confession of sins (1J 1:7–2:2) In contrast to 3:9, where it is said that a person born of God cannot sin, it is stated in 1:8 that ‘if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves’ and in 1:10 ‘we make him [God] a liar, and his word is not in us’. These contrasting remarks about sin of course led to several efforts to address the problem of whether the believer can sin or not, since both possibilities are given.214 At first it should be noted that this reference to sin is made right at the beginning of the Letter (1:7–10), rhetorically suggesting some urgency. This passage does not deal with the moment of salvation or initial justification, but the subjects are already part of the family of God (i.e. the ‘us’), and as Brown notes, this context deals with ‘the forgiveness of sins committed as a Christian’.215 211 His children will act according to his will, which has a strong correlation to the words of Jesus in J 8:38, 41: like Father, like Son. This is why sinful deeds can identify a person with the devil and make him or her a child of the devil (3:9–10), which in turn places him/her in opposition to the children of God. 212 1J 3:9; 5:18. 213 Cf. 1J 2:29; 3:10; 4:7; 5:1–2. 214 Schnelle (2010:78) again argues that the issue of sinlessness was a complex theological issue in the early Church that could have been solved in different ways. He points to the Hellenistic philosophy that underplayed the material body and on that basis it could be concluded that even the body of Jesus is not important, especially after the resurrection. This view led to different possible conclusions; for instance, that it could refer to an ethical ideal, an ontological reality or an ethical responsibility. The theological position the author takes is that the denial of having sin is false, misleading oneself. Cf. also Mills (1998). 215 Brown (1986:202).

Chapter 4: Commandments, paraenesis and free will

219

A popular view is to interpret 1:7–10 as dealing specifically with the opponents’ boasting perfectionism or ‘absolute sinlessness’,216 of course, viewing these contrasting remarks in 1:7–10 as references to the ideas of the opponents, which is then corrected by the author.217 It is opined, for instance, that the opponents professed that ‘(a) the believer is perfect and will sin no more; (b) the believer has no need of ethical directives (or “love of the ‘brothers’”) since perfect conduct is spontaneous; (c) the death of Jesus is not the means by which sin is done away with’.218 According to them a believer has eternal life in its eschatological fullness and sin poses no danger. This erroneous view is then countered by the author, claiming that sin is a reality, also in the lives of believers and should be confessed. The basic problem with this approach to 1:8–10 is the assumption that the remarks about not having sin are the actual views of the opponents. This assumption is shown elsewhere to be a less preferable option, however.219 These words in 1:7–10 rather reflect an inner-Johannine discussion aimed at pastoral guidance and are not aimed at the opponents nor do they suggest a discussion with them. The idea of ethical perfectionism within the group of believers is also not favoured in the Letter, as is evident from the prescriptions in the Letter, for instance, the use of ‘ought to’ (ὀφείλω) in 3:16, 2:6 or 4:11, where the obligation towards love and sacrifice is emphasized, encouraging the addressees not to leave the light. Unfortunately, children of God transgressed,220 but the way in which God responded offers a way to be forgiven. Considering the context of 1:7–10, it is noted that preceding these remarks about sin, the ‘we’221 invites the ‘you’ to full acceptance of the message (1:3) and to enter into koinōnia with them and consequently with the Father and the Son. The pastoral aim is set, while words like father and son already suggest the family imagery as contextual background. The next few verses (1:5–7) 216

Painter (1993:382) and Von Wahlde (1990:138ff.). Culpepper (1998:264–65) prefers to solve the tension between sinning and not sinning by linking it to the author and those who left the community respectively. ‘The opponents apparently exaggerated and distorted the community’s emphasis on realized eschatology by claiming that believers were already free from sin. On the other hand, those who abide in Christ … will lead lives characterized by righteousness rather than sin’. The question is indeed whether the opponents are the subject of these verses, or whether these verses reflect on an inner-Johannine issue, dealing with the ‘us’ and the ‘you’. 218 Von Wahlde (1990:139). 219 The antithetical remarks in 1:5–10 are not intended as polemic against the opponents, but describe what the advantages were of being part of ‘us’. Cf. subsection 1.1.2 above. 220 1J 1:8, 10. 221 The use of the first person plural (‘we’) has the rhetorical function of drawing the addressees into the argument. What is intended here is not a general trespass, but the reality of a person doing something wrong in relation to and within the author’s group. 217

220

Section 1: The First Letter of John

then explain the content of the message, stating that God is light and that a person who shares this koinōnia with Him and the ‘us’, should live in that light. The correct behaviour, that is lifestyle, within the group of believers is thus highlighted (cf. also 2:8–11).222 In line with Johannine dualism, light and darkness are described as two absolute, contrasting and separate spaces (cf. also 2:8–11). However, in spite of the expected lifestyle in the light, the reality is that members of a group might stray into darkness or do something wrong, as is often attested to in families or groups (i.e. ‘grey areas’).223 Schnelle speaks of the ‘Bleibende Realität der Sünde/des Sündigens’.224 Total obedience was the ideal (cf. 3:9– 10), but the reality was that members of a group, also children in a family, could and did disobediently break these conventions,225 but this did not eliminate or totally sever their relationship with their father or with the rest of the group. It did put a strain on the relationship, however, since disobedience was regarded as something very negative, especially because it destabilized the relations within the family. However, in ancient families this did not seem to imply that parents completely disassociated themselves from their children, although disobedience was not something that could just be accepted. This unfortunate transgression should be dealt with,226 since within a family the chance of correcting mistakes was there and was indeed expected.227 It was possible by punishing a person, or simply sorting out the problem through 222

Lieu (1991:53). Living in the light ‘is not simply a matter of right behaviour but is a sphere of existence’, being identified with relationships expressed in love within the group. 223 The conflicts in the Letters of John are clear evidence of people rebelling against the group or even leaving the group, as Cain and the antichrists he represents or Diotrephes in 3 John, or the questionable visitors in 2 John illustrate. 224 Schnelle (2010:181). 225 It should not come as a surprise that people in group contexts make mistakes. Barton (2003:164–65) reminds us that in the narratives in the Hebrew Bible God’s people makes mistakes, follow idols, deviate from the road of righteousness or live inappropriately according to the demands of the covenant (cf., e.g., Amos). Plutarch, Lib. ed. 16 (Mor. 12A–D) encourages parents to supervise their children during their period of adolescence, since they tend to act according to their impulses and do wrong things. The ideal was not always reflected in reality. 226 Discussion of this issue is common in ancient documents dealing with ways to cope with a disobedient child. Such a child needed ‘education’ which could take different forms, from discussion of the problem to severe punishment or even disassociation by the family as a whole. Cf. also Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.26.2–4. These rights of the father to punish a disobedient child include imprisoning him or her, or even putting his child to death, although the latter was not common at all, as Dixon (1991:47–48) points out. Cf. also Deissler (1995:56). On forgiveness of sin, cf. Von Wahlde (1990:157–58) and Roberts (1984:62). 227 In this spirit, Josephus, Ant. 4.8.24 § 264 mentions that if a child is ‘cured’ of his or her wrong ways, he or she hould be spared further reproach. Parents should not act in wrath if there is repentance.

Chapter 4: Commandments, paraenesis and free will

221

discussion and anything in between. In this way the honour of the family could be restored. This also applied by way of analogy to the family of God as 1:6–10 suggests. A closer look at 1:6–10 reveals that five conditional (ἐάν-) phrases deal with the correct lifestyle versus living in darkness and sin.228 Rhetorically these positive and negative expressions form a semantic unit. These are not separate statements, but should be interpreted in relation to one another. Wording in vv. 6–10 6.1 ‘If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, 6.2 we lie 6.3 and do not live according to the truth 7.1 BUT if we live in the light as He is in the light, 7.2 we have fellowship with one another, 7.3 and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8.1 If we say that we have no sin, 8.2 we deceive ourselves, 8.3 and the truth is not in us. 9.1 If we confess our sins, 9.2 He is faithful and just to forgive us these sins 9.3 and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10.1 If we say that we have not sinned, 10.2 we make Him a liar, 10.3 and His word is not in us’.

Structure and contents Claim: Have fellowship – live in darkness Response: lie, do not live according to truth Behaviour: Live in the light Results: We have fellowship Sin is cleansed Claim: We have no sin Response: Deception No truth in us Behaviour: Confess sins Results: Sins are forgiven Cleansed from unrighteousness Claim: We have not sinned Response: Make God a liar His truth is not in us

The repetitive references in the three verses (1:6, 8, 10), to deception, lies and the lack of truth, have a straightforward and simple message. They emphatically emphasize that to claim to have fellowship with God or believers, but to live in darkness – that is metaphorically not in the sphere of his presence and influence – and then to claim to have no sin or not to sin, is an absolute untruth and lie, even making God a liar. The two positive phrases (1:7, 9) describing correct behaviour are both related to being cleansed of sin, emphasizing that if there is sin, a person will be forgiven and cleansed, on the condition of the confession of sin.

228 These five conditional sentences are structured in an intertwined 3/2 pattern, suggesting a synergy. In three phrases (vv. 6, 8, 10) a claim is made with a response and two phrases (vv. 7 and 9) refer to correct behaviour and the results of such behaviour.

222

Section 1: The First Letter of John

This brings us to the role of forgiveness in the suggested scenario.229 Schnelle correctly emphasizes that the author is not making a general remark here, but ‘steigt in einen (realen) innergemeindlichen theologischen Diskurs ein’.230 The Letter was written in a situation of conflict (2:18ff.) and the relationship between the author (‘us’) and the addressees (‘you’) was strained. By not loving their fellow Christians as they should, the ‘you’ were trespassing against God’s commandments and will.231 What should be corrected through the confession of sin is the lack of love of the ‘you’ for the ‘us’. It seems as if the ‘you’ do not form a close-knit unity with the ‘us’, and are under threat of becoming part of the opposition (the ‘they’). It is contextually plausible that confession of sin should refer to exactly this problem.232 If deviant behaviour in the Johannine group takes place, that is not walking in the light in the way they ought to, but walking in darkness, it should not be regarded as the end of the relationship.233 To the contrary, such deviant behaviour could be corrected and guilt be taken away through confession of these actions. This seems to apply to the ‘you’ who were moving away (but not yet separated) from the ‘us’. The ‘you’ group should not be discouraged, since the damage to this partnership could be rectified through the confession of sin.234 God is faithful and just, and forgives these confessed ‘trespasses’ (1:9), resulting in the restoration of the partnership. Brown is therefore correct to point out that what is in focus here is not initial justification for sin, but ‘the forgiveness of sins committed as a Christian’.235

229

Cf. subsection 1.1.6 above. Schnelle (2010:74). 231 This is in line with Lieu’s (1991:53) analysis that sin most probably refers to ‘failure to love; this has been particularly manifested in the life of the community … there is nothing to suggest that sin is a matter of relationships outside the community or of the contravention of any other received moral norms’. 232 In 1:7, fellowship and forgiveness of sins are associatively connected, which supports the idea that these verses are not general remarks, but are specifically aimed at those who are still part of the ‘us’, although they lacked in their love and co-operation. 233 Cf. Ogereau (2014:ad loc.) for the importance of acting according to the requirements of the agreement and partnership (koinōnia). Ps.-Demetrius (Typoi epistolikoi, Introduction 5–8) discussed the process of dealing with sin, saying, ‘for indeed you did not unwillingly commit sins that are great and harmful to many … the trespass that has occurred can still be remedied. For if you aim to correct your behavior, you yourself will be responsible for its not happening again as it did before’. Here the possibility of remedy is linked to the requirement of amending one’s ways. 234 Schnelle (2010:78) links such a confession to the First Testament-Jewish tradition. This would also imply that it is an open confession within the group, through which the person confessing is again taken up within the fellowship of the group. 235 Brown (1986:202). 230

Chapter 4: Commandments, paraenesis and free will

223

This possibility of confession of sin, may create the impression that a person may simply carry on sinning, since the option of confession and constant forgiveness remains. That this is not intended, is evident from the reference that one cannot claim to have fellowship with God and then pursue a lifestyle in darkness. This is further underlined in the remarks following (2:1–2), where 2:1 reads: ‘I am writing this to you so that you may not sin (ἵνα µὴ ἁµάρτητε). But if somebody sin … (καὶ ἐάν τις ἁµάρτῃ)’. Both verbs are in the aorist subjunctive, suggesting that a process (lifestyle) is not envisaged, but rather specific individual actions or individual sins. If such actions occur, ‘we’ have Jesus Christ as Paraclete with the Father who will act on behalf of the ‘we’ (2:1–2).236 Transgressions do not make existing relations between God and his child invalid, however strained they may be because of sin. This must be corrected by way of confession, in which Jesus, as Paraclete, plays a determining role, both through his cleansing blood and his expiatory work (1:7; 2:1–2). This option is there for the addressees. The role of the Greek and Roman concilium as ‘family court’ may be mentioned here as a possible parallel to what is described in 2:1–2 with Jesus as Paraclete.237 Such a ‘small family group’ served as organ of discipline and could be compiled in different ways (usually the core unit of the family, for instance, the father, eldest son, brother of the wife). It basically means that the male head of the family conferred with other designated member(s) before deciding how to react against a member of the family who trespassed.238 At least the term paraclete (παράκλητος) might suggest such a legal situation is possible in 2:1. Jesus’ assistance as Paraclete is needed when somebody belonging to the family of God has sinned. He or she must approach the Father (πρὸς τὸν πατέρα – 2:1). Apart from that the idea of Jesus being the Paraclete, this might refer to the ‘payment/punishment’ which was required for correcting the wrong being done. In this case the ‘payment’ is provided by the Paraclete on behalf of the trespasser – Jesus is the expiation for our sins (2:2).

In sum, it seems that there will be times when members of the Johannine group may make mistakes or may deviate from the group, overstepping the boundaries of what God (and the group) require, thus committing ‘sin’ (1:7– 2:2). This problem is solved and the relationship is restored, by reinstating the person in good standing with God and the group through confession of sin, followed by forgiveness, cleansing and reconciliation (1:8–9; 2:1–2).

236

Lieu (1986:200) correctly remarks, ‘Jesus, the object of tradition and the means of forgiveness stands at the beginning of that Christian existence but it is God who inspires its continuity’. 237 Cf. Van der Watt (1999:491–511). 238 Cf. Dixon (1991:139) and Lacey (1987:124, 127–28, 137–40).

224

Section 1: The First Letter of John

4.11.4 Mortal sin (1J 5:16) The issue of ‘sin to death’ (ἁµαρτία πρὸς θάνατον – 5:16) remains a controversial matter and can lead to long speculative discussions. Schnelle239 discusses several such possibilities240 for understanding this phrase ‘sin unto death’, like mentioning hatred of your ‘brother’ or rejecting authentic faith in Christ (schism). Marxsen241 is confident that ‘sin to death’ in 5:16 refers to a complete disassociation from the Johannine community, where confession of sin plays no part and makes no sense,242 while Lieu regards the sin unto death as ‘the denial of belief or schism from the community’.243 Akin refers to deliberate sins in the First Testament, noting that these sins required death and were therefore beyond the grace of God. He concludes, however, that ‘although the Old Testament’s distinction between lesser (unintentional) and greater (deliberate) sins possibly has some bearing on this text, the view that John is referring to some specific sin cannot be sustained from the context of 1 John’.244 Schmid245 seeks a rhetorical solution, arguing that ‘sin unto death’ should be understood as an empty or ‘blank’ expression, functioning as an invitation to the addressees to think about the possibility that they might have committed such a sin. This opinion seems rather improbable. In spite of all these efforts, Schnelle246 concludes that it is not really possible to confidently make a final decision. It seems probable that the essence of the ‘sin to death’ should refer to the most serious trespass, which is (losing or) not having faith in Jesus, not belonging to the family of Jesus, but to the family of the devil. This corresponds with the view in the Gospel where the essence of sin is not believing in Jesus,247 God’s fundamental ‘work’ is faith (6:28–29) in the One he sent and this is the way to eternal life. Schnelle brings it closer to home by saying it most probably refers to losing your faith in Jesus and thus consciously leaving the ‘Lebensgemeinschaft mit Gott und Jesus Christus’.248 The refer-

239

Schnelle (2010:178). Cf. also Von Wahlde (1990:167–69). Cf. also Culpepper (1998:264) for different efforts to solve this problem, i.e. multiple editors, or sources, or different opponents, or grammatical argumentation (present tense vs past tense). 241 Marxsen (1989:263). 242 Cf. also Akin (2001:209). Plummer (1886:123) regards it as turning against God, which is a bit wider than rejecting faith in Jesus. Calvin and Owen (2010:269) also opined that it involved alienating oneself from God. 243 Lieu (1991:64). 244 Akin (2001:209). 245 Schmid (2004:38). 246 Schnelle (2010:178). Cf. also Akin (2001:208). 247 Cf. Vol. 1, 141–45. Cf. also Brown (1986:618). 248 Schnelle (2010:178). 240

Chapter 4: Commandments, paraenesis and free will

225

ence to those who committed ‘sin to death’249 would then in the first place be to the schismatics.250 The reference might be even broader, namely, to the kosmos (of whom the schismatics were part) that refuses to believe in the Son. In 5:16 there is also reference to ‘sin that is not to death’ (5:16) for which believers must pray.251 This remark may plausibly be linked to what is said about sin in 1:6–2:2, where John encourages believers to keep confessing their sins.252 The remark about sin that does not lead to death might then be, as in 1:7–2:2, an encouragement for the ‘you’ group to restore their relationship and koinōnia with God, a view supported by the use of the term ‘his brother’ (τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ) when referring to those who committed the sin that does not lead to death. The ‘us’ is indeed praying for those who trespass. In 5:14–15 it is said that God listens to the prayers of believers according to his will. In 5:16, the ‘us’ indeed pray for those who do not commit mortal sin, implying that God listens to such a prayer – indeed an encouragement for the ‘you’ group.253 This emphasizes their sincerity in encouraging the addressees to have koinōnia. 249 Like Strecker et al. (1996:203), Schnelle (2010:178) also seriously considers the possibility that Jewish ideas form the background to these remarks. There are examples of sin that should be punished by death (Num 18:22; 1QS 8:21–24 – 9:2). 250 Cf. Kruse (2000:192). 251 The implication is that there are ‘levels of sin’, as 5:17 suggests. 252 Thomas (1993:172) makes an interesting connection between the footwashing in J 13 and the forgiveness of sin in 1J 5:16. He notes that the Johannine group’s concern with post-conversion sin is ‘compatible with the suggestion that some rite accompanied the confession and subsequent forgiveness of sin. The role of fellow Christians in the reconciliation process (1 Jn 5.16) is quite consistent with the evidence from Jn 13.1–20 (especially vv. 14–17) about the significance of the disciples carrying out Jesus’ command. Several of those writers in the early church who advocate the practice of footwashing understood it to signify the forgiveness of post-conversion sin. One writer, Augustine, even makes the connection between the believers’ role in the removal of a fellow believer’s sin (Jn 20.23; 1 Jn 5.16) and the disciples’ commission to wash one another’s feet (Jn 13.14– 17). In the light of these considerations, if the Johannine community practiced footwashing as a religious rite, the most plausible interpretation of the meaning they assigned to it is that footwashing signified the forgiveness of post-conversion sin’. 253 There is an unresolved issue in this interpretation as several commentators, for instance, Stott (1988:191) and Kruse (2002:191) also note. If someone who does not commit a mortal sin will be given life by God (δώσει αὐτῷ ζωήν), it is implied that such a person is dead and did not yet receive eternal life. This militates against the fact that they are called ‘brothers’ (i.e. members of God’s family) in the very same verse. This remains an unresolved problem, although one might speculate that the reference to life means that God will not take away their life (an idea that is not supported elsewhere in John) and therefore will reaffirm it (cf. Kruse 2000:191), or that God will ensure that the prayers are heard and will protect these peoples’ lives as members of the family – God ensures life for those who repent (ibid.). These options just remain speculation.

226

Section 1: The First Letter of John

4.12 Some summarizing and concluding remarks The source of ethics as well as ethical commandments is God the Father. Unlike the Gospel, where Jesus is the primary giver of commandments to his people, God is the giver of commandments in the Letter. He qualitatively determines what is good and what is bad. He is metaphorically identified as authentic love, which serves as the model for the love of his Son and children. He is the light in which believers should live, as he is in the light. He is the point of orientation of all positive ethics, the criterion by which ethical behaviour should be measured. Giving commandments is not the only way God’s will is expressed in the Letter. Compatible expressions are to keep his word (2:5), what pleases God (3:22), or even to abide and walk (live) in the light (2:7–11), walk (live) like Jesus walked (2:6). All of these expressions require obedience of the believer that is often based on and motivated by social expectations like mimesis or reciprocity. Irrespective of the expression that is used, the point of orientation remains the will of God as it is inter alia expressed in Jesus. The prescriptions function within a relational (group-orientated) and not a legalistic framework. Terms, focusing on identity in relational unity like abiding in God, knowing him, loving him, are related to obeying commandments. In a circular process, the unity (Immanenz) between God and believers forms the rationale behind obeying the commandments while the commandments serve as proof of this unity. The commandment (singular) is described in 3:23 as faith in the name of the Son, Jesus Christ (vertical relation), and love for one another (horizontal relation). This commandment forms the basic matrix within which all positive ethics should function. In the following verse (3:24) obedience to the commandments is described as expression of the Immanenz (God in the believer and vice versa) and linked to the Spirit he has given ‘us’. The Spirit functions within the framework of knowledge and guidance within the correct knowledge and confession.254 The Spirit educates believers to know the truth. The truth they heard from the beginning abides in them and ensures the correct confession (2:23–24). Within this relationship knowledge of God that is mainly described in terms of knowledge of the father by his children within a family, forms a key source for knowing correct ethical behaviour (2:3–4). Because of their intimate relationship with God (i.e. their Immanenz) believers need not fear the eschatological judgment that is part of the apocalyptic framework they find themselves in. They may have confidence

254

1J 2:20–27 and 4:1–6.

Chapter 4: Commandments, paraenesis and free will

227

when that happens, because they obeyed the will of God and his commandments. It also ensures them that God knows more than them, so their conscience may be at peace. Emphasis on the old commandments underlines that the message of love has not changed. The traditional message which believers share are the words that they heard from the very beginning (1:1–3) that forms part of their ethos. However, these commandments to love and do what pleases God are new, since they stand in the shining light of God who acted through Jesus (2:9–11). The darkness is passing away and the light shines, referring to the presence of God in Christ. Whether a person is in the light or in darkness becomes evident in whether they obey the commandments by loving their fellow Christians. In encouraging believers to live according to these commandments, the author inter alia opts for a paraenetic approach. In an amicable way he reminds the addressees of their shared knowledge through examples, imperatives and commonly accepted wisdom. They all know what should be done. They must just do it. There is some indication that the Johannine group was influenced by Jewish value systems as they are expressed in the Decalogue, for instance, do not kill, give false witness, covet, etc.255 However, the usual word that is translated by law, namely, νόµος, is not used, most probably because it served as an identity marker for the Jewish opponents of the Johannine group. The Johannine group disassociated from them, as was described already in the Gospel.256 Instead, the word for commandments (ἐντολή) is used. An aim of the commandments, that is to believe in Christ and to love one another, is to take care of the Johannine group (i.e. fellow Christians). They must look after those brothers in need (3:17) and love one another to the point of laying down their own lives – this is commanded by God (3:23). Within the context of their unity and koinōnia as family of God, believers co-operate within a close mutual relationship. Although keeping the commandments might sound like an individualistic approach to ethics, the basic communal emphasis should not be overlooked.257 A mistake often made, is to distinguish too sharply between individual and communal aspects. These do not stand in opposition, since groups and societies consist of individuals. In this sense a person should appeal to individual(s) in order to address the group. It is more a matter of dominance – does the group have priority over the individual or vice versa? The contention in ancient times is of course that group interests 255 These values are general and are part of other value systems too. In the Gospel the context is Jewish, as references to the Sabbath or Jewish festivals indicate (cf. Vol. 1, 385– 97). In the Letter there is no reference to these typical Jewish aspects, so it is an assumption that these references are made within the framework of the Jewish value system, based on the evidence in the Gospel. 256 Cf. Vol. 1, 401–15. 257 Cf. Lieu (1991:31).

228

Section 1: The First Letter of John

dominate individual interests without implying that such a remark cancels all traces of individuality. In 1 John the emphasis remains on the group tradition, their common experience of Jesus (1J 1:1–4) and his words and deeds, their co-operation in the form of koinōnia, or the love of God. Priority belongs to the group: care for the individual directly implies care for the group. Because the ethical behaviour is expressed within this close relationship, where legalism is not regulating everything precisely, discernment is required. Believers, miming Jesus, loving like he loved, living like he lived, being righteous and pure like he is righteous and pure, need to evaluate new situations and then discern what the correct line of action would be, of course based on the ‘characteristics’ of love, righteousness or purity. Obviously, this implies free will, but then within the confines set for children within the family of God. The keeping of the commandments goes hand in hand with praying confidently, underlining the intimate relationship between believer and God. Within this unity it is also not a matter of gradual development of values, that is first, little love, then a little more, etc. It is rather a situation where a child of God is expected to behave like a child of God in the full sense of the word. A more complex picture of sin is given in the Letters than in the Gospel.258 Sin is described as lawlessness, and characterizes the actions of the devil from the beginning (3:5–10). Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil, whose children are identified through their lack of love or doing what is right according to God’s will. Those who are completely opposed to God and who reject the Father and Son are guilty of mortal sin. Prayer for such a person is not even recommended. However, forgiveness of sin and prayer for those who erred in their behaviour go hand in hand. Children of God, who are born of God and have his seed in them, obey their Father and live according to the confines of the family. They will do what pleases God and will not strive to do anything to harm their Father, fellow family members or the family as such. Their lifestyle will be determined by the will of their Father. However, if fellow Christians stray and lack in love for their brothers, they can still remedy the situation by confessing their sin. They will be forgiven through the blood of the Son and Paraclete, Jesus (1:7–2:2) and continue as obedient children of God. This is a real possibility for the addressees of the Letter, the ‘you’ group.

258

Cf. Vol. 1, 141–45.

Chapter 4: Commandments, paraenesis and free will

229

Some key aspects for the grammar of the ethics of John include: Concept

Functional focus

Commandment

* is given by God who serves as source and qualitatively determines the ethical nature of the commandments. * expresses God’s will and may be expressed in corresponding ways, like keeping his word, doing what pleases him or living like Jesus lived. * requires obedience that follows on knowing God and his will. * The commandment of love is illustrated by Jesus. The commandments are called ‘old’, because they contain traditional material, but ‘new’, because of the light of God illuminating them through the actions of Jesus. * are expressed in faith in the name of Jesus and in mutual love. * function within a circular process between Immanenz and commandment, where commandments illustrate Immanenz and abiding in God leads to obeying the commandments. * The Jewish value system as it is presented in the Decalogue influences value judgments in the Letter. * The commandments mainly express what may be called ‘executive virtues’, that is love, truth, etc. Through discernment these virtues must be ‘translated’ into corresponding ethical actions. * is based on free will to make a decision but within the confines of the family of God. Obedience to the Father is basic. * is a synergy of the ‘character’ of the action of the model with the requirements of the particular situation (mimesis). * The Spirit educates and guides believers, thus facilitating discernment. * Responsibility for actions should be taken. * does not suggest growth (first a little, then a little more, etc.) but suggests knowledge of the will of God that should be applied to a new situation in the full sense of the word. * is lawlessness and the devil sins from the beginning. * characterizes the actions of the children of the devil, by not loving God’s children and doing what is wrong. * Sin and the works of the devil are destroyed by Jesus. * is relationally determined – a person born of God cannot sin, but lives according to the confines of the family of God. * Children of God who stray or lack in their love for their brothers may confess their sin and be forgiven through the blood of the Paraclete, Jesus Christ. Believers may pray for such people who sin in this way. * may be mortal, implying rejection of the Father and Son and opposing the family of God by not loving them.

Discernment

Sin

230

Section 1: The First Letter of John

Certain choices determine the nature of the Johannine grammar of ethics. Some of the key aspects are as follows: Some relevant areas Source

Function

Context

Cognitive awareness

The author’s choices * God the Father is the giver of the commandments that formulate the will and values of God. * The gift of the mission of God’s Son is the prime example of God’s love. * By laying down his life for others, the Son is a model of what authentic love is. * The Spirit educates and guides believers in their confession and in what they need to know. * (Some) Jewish values, as expressed in the Decalogue, serve as implicit value system for believers. * Commandments, also formulated in terms of keeping God’s word or doing what pleases him, express the will of God and set the ethical standard for the family of God. * Commandments are proof of the Immanenz and unity of the Johannine group. This is a circular process, with obedience illustrating unity and unity being cultivated by obedience. * Obeying the commandments is instrumental for the well-being of the group. * Discernment functions within the relational ethics common to John. * relational within the unity of the family of God (Immanenz) * The tradition or ethos serve as point of orientation. * Behaviour is determined by the values and principles represented by the Father and Son, for instance, love, righteousness, purity, light. * Social conventions like mimesis and reciprocity play a constant role. * Prayer is answered by God and thus facilitates positive behaviour. * discernment and judgment according to the revelation of Jesus and not the interpretation of the Jewish opponents – always to the wellbeing of the group * Opposition to God or his family, lack of love or doing good are described as lawless sin. These are the visible tokens of the children of the devil. * acceptance of the will of God as it is revealed through the mission of Jesus and the prescriptions, formulated in commandments, imperatives and the like * active discernment based on reflection, ethical criteria and decision making, that is, imitating or reciprocating Jesus * follow the guidance of the Spirit by having and abiding in him * free will within the confines of the family of God, implying acceptance of responsibility for actions

231

Chapter 4: Commandments, paraenesis and free will

Again, it is clear that the grammar of Johannine ethics cannot be restricted to actions only, since the different aspects, that is the identity, a resulting value system, formulated in principles and practically expressed through actions – form a synergy. The one is valid on the basis of the other and the one is motivated by the other. Interpreting the law from a perspective (i.e. worldview) that differs from that of Jesus or the believers would inevitably lead to different identities, values, principles and actions. This is why emphasis is laid on God’s qualitative superiority as authentic love and light. A fixed point of orientation is given that defines truth. Within the process of action formation, the place of prescriptions and related issues are as follows: Worldview

Identity leads to

Organizing and relating the totality of objects in a person’s personal universe Letter: God, as love and light, and as father of his family, is the source of ethics and determines what is ethically correct; behaviour should be orientated towards and determined by God and Jesus. God expresses his will through commandments and teaches through his Spirit. Believers are his children and live in obedience as children of God.

Values expressed in

Conscious and accepted relative position in worldview Letter: The identity of believers is determined by their birth of God; they are children of God who stand in a close unifying relationship with him (Immanenz) through their faith in God; believers are children of God whose identity is expressed in their obedient life in the light.

Norms/ principles

concretized in

Expressing what is valuable based on identity Letter: Seek koinōnia with God and his family inter alia by abiding in the Father and Son and vice versa; doing what pleases the Father and Son; care for and protect the family and its members; obeying commandments.

Prescription: action prescribed in

Expressing how values can be concretely realized Letter: Imitate authentic love by loving one’s brothers; act righteously and pure; discern what love and righteousness are in novel situations; pursue God’s will through obedience to the commandments; reject deviating behaviour; avoid sin.

Prescribing actions based on norms or principles Letter: Help those in need to the point of laying down one’s life; pray for believers who sin and encourage them to confess their sin; have confidence before God. Do not sin, that is, love and do what is right.

Chapter 5

Tradition and ethos as part of the grammar of ethics of 1 John 5.1 Introduction Ethical decisions are always imbedded in some or other theoretical framework, providing the reason for and motivating these decisions. For instance, the Johannine ethical system is based on a theological supposition of the revelatory presence of the pre-existent God. This link to God again guarantees the truth of the tradition that determines the lives of believers. Tradition is key to the identity and behaviour of any group of people. It influences and indeed explains the behaviour of a group and ‘permits humans to discern and deal with the “new” in terms of what was learned in the past, and to relate particulars to the generic patterns within which they fall’.1 Closely related to both tradition and ethics is the concept of ethos, referring to existing knowledge that is implicitly or explicitly part of the social know-how (‘canon of institutionalized actions’2) of a group and is passed on from generation to generation as shared knowledge. Mizzoni notes that ‘an ethical tradition has a theoretical center that passes from generation to generation but it also stays alive through the actions and practices of actual people’.3 The message of 1 John is firmly based on tradition. The author frequently refers to shared knowledge that forms part of the tradition of the Johannine group,4 allowing for a rather detailed picture to be painted of the basic reservoir of knowledge of this group.

1

Van Leeuwen (2005:845). Wolter (2009:133–36) describes ethos as ‘einen Kanon von institutionalisierten Handlungen, die innerhalb eines bestimmten sozialen Systems in Geltung stehen. Ihnen wird Verbindlichkeit zugeschrieben, weil allererst durch solche Handlungen eine bestimmte Gruppe als solche erkennbar und erfahrbar wird’. Cf. also Vol. 1, 27–29, and Introduction 5.3, above. 3 Mizzoni (2009:5). 4 Cf. Schnackenburg (1967:324–25), Lieu (1991:102) and Bennema (2007:129). Part of the research reflected here was offered in honour of Jos Verhijden as an article in his Festschrift. 2

234

Section 1: The First Letter of John

5.2 References to tradition in 1 John Tradition functions as common ground for determining what is acceptable and what is not within a particular group, based on their accepted identity and ethos. This was especially true of ancient group-orientated societies. Terms in 1 John signalling traditional knowledge as well as increasing or confirming that knowledge, include οἶδα, γινώσκω, φανερόω, ἀκούω, γράφω, µαρτυρέω, ἀγγέλλω and derivates. Reference to such common tradition may also be identified through the use of phrases like ‘you/we know that …’, ‘you have heard …’,5 or the addressees being taught (2:27), that suggest a common traditional frame of knowledge. Edwards also refers to the importance of terms like ‘“antichrist”, “Chrisma” and “God’s seed” that are introduced without explanation, presuming that the readers are familiar with them’,6 suggesting traditional material. In the Letter the authenticity and authority of this tradition is also confirmed by its networking (implicitly or explicitly) with the truth.7

5.3 What did the Johannine group actually know (οἶδα and γινώσκω)? Already at the outset of 1 John (1:1–4), clear indications are found of the importance of tradition in the Letter, that is of established, shared knowledge inter alia based on direct eye-witness experience that goes back to ‘the beginning’,8 when the Life and the Word of life were physically experienced on earth in the incarnated person of the Son. This formed the basis of the Johannine tradition as a fixed message the author proclaimed and witnessed to. Two key words, namely, οἶδα and γινώσκω, are predominantly used to refer to what was known in the group. Klauck correctly remarks that the ‘you know’ brings ‘vorgegebene Glaubenstraditionen ins Spiel’.9 Painter is of the opinion that ‘the two verbs seem to be used without difference in meaning’,10 but closer scrutiny shows that in some cases they differ in semantic nuance,11 although in the end they focus on the same thing, namely, traditional knowledge. 5

Cf., e.g., 1J 2:29; 3:5, 13–15; 4:16; 5:18–20. Edwards (2001:40). 7 Cf. 1J 1:6, 10; 2:4, 27. 8 Ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς – 1J 1:1, most probably referring to the beginning of the ministry of Jesus – Menken (2010:52). 9 Klauck (1991:185). 10 Painter (2002:223). 11 In 1J 2:29 the words are indeed used without apparent difference in meaning (ἐὰν εἰδῆτε ὅτι δίκαιός ἐστιν, γινώσκετε ὅτι …), but in 5:20 the two verbs are used together in the same context, the one (οἴδαµεν) emphasizing facts that are known, and the other (γι6

Chapter 5: Tradition and ethos as part of the grammar of ethics of 1 John

235

Excursus: Use of οἶδα and γινώσκω The word οἶδα is used 15 times in 1 John and once in 3 John, mostly with ὅτι to refer to something the people know (i.e. οἶδα ὅτι …). This is John’s favourite way of referring to existing knowledge. The word γινώσκω is used in two ways – i) it refers to knowledge of something, that is ‘you know that …’ or ‘know that …’ – a person knows another object, very similar to οἶδα; ii) with the phrase ἐν τούτῳ (γινώσκοµεν) ὅτι … linking two aspects, usually in a pattern of ‘you know the one thing because of the other’. In this way the practical reality is linked to the spiritual reality.

Based on the use of the two terms οἶδα and γινώσκω in 1 John, what was known, that is what might be considered as their traditional material, could be summarized as follows: Examples of verses 1:3; 2:24

1:4–5; 2:13–14; 3:1, 6; 4:7; 5:20

3:14–15; 5:13, 18–19 2:20–21; 5:20 3:11; 4:16 2:7

2:29 1:8; 3:5; 5:18

5:15 2:18; 3:2; 4:3

Content of verses They have heard the message from the beginning and are therefore solidly imbedded in the eye-witness tradition that was revealed by, and deals with, Jesus. The group was intimately aware of their relationship (κοινωνία) with and knowledge of the Father and Son; they knew God and Christ. Jesus also gave them the insight that they know the true God, and are in the true God and that they are in the light. They are acutely aware of their new identity as children of God, having passed from death to life by being born of God and receiving eternal life. This places them squarely within the framework of the truth; they know the truth since God is the truth. They know the love of God that they must reciprocate by imitating the love of Jesus. They know the commandments, especially of mutual love. They are also aware of the new Christological framework of the commandments, that is, the new commandment that also reflects the old commandment. They know that Jesus, as their moral example, is righteous hence they must be righteous. They knew that Jesus conquered and took away their sin; evil has no grip on the children of God. They may live a conquering life since sin was dealt with and will be dealt with through the blood of Christ. They know that God listens to them, and so they can ask from him according to his will. They were conscious of eschatological events. They have heard about the coming of the Antichrist in the last days. They also know that Jesus is coming again and then believers will be like him. They share in the tradition of early Jewish and Christian apocalyptical expectations.

νώσκωµεν) that a person is known, which might point to a semantically more differentiated use of the words. Cf. also De la Potterie’s (1959:709–25) treatment of these two verbs.

236

Section 1: The First Letter of John

The table above shows that the traditional material covers a wide spectrum of Christian life, confirming that the group is well versed in the tradition and its structure, ranging from knowing God and Jesus,12 receiving identity as part of the group through salvation,13 acting accordingly in love14 and following commandments (2:7), receiving what is needed through prayer, to unfolding eschatological realities while they wait for the return of Jesus (eschatology).15 This confirms a rich and established set of knowledge, in fact, an established tradition, outlining a strong sense of the identity and self-awareness of the group. It should be noted that all of the above-mentioned aspects are also well attested in the Gospel of John, linking the knowledge by the addressees with the content of the Gospel.16 The repetition of the phrase ‘we know that …’ (οἴδαµεν ὅτι) in 5:18, 19 and 20 poses the question of whether the author wants to remind the addressees of what they have in common in their tradition, or of whether he wants to establish the common tradition in this way, or both. These remarks do not really seem to convey any novel knowledge. This re-affirmation of what is already known seems to favour the idea that the author wants to paraenetically17 confirm a shared tradition. The schismatics who in certain respects deviated from this traditional knowledge, especially when it comes to the confession of Jesus Christ, were declared antichrists (2:18ff.), not knowing God (4:6) and therefore no longer part of the Johannine group.18 They no longer adhered to the ethos of the Johannine group. Although they seemingly continued to proclaim Christ, this was not done within the tradition and ethos presented in the Letter (4:1–6).

12

1J 1:1, 3, 5; 2:20–21; 5:20; 2J 1. 1J 3:5, 14–15; 5:13, 18, 19. 14 1J 2:29; 3:11; 4:16; 2J 6. 15 1J 2:18; 3:2; 4:3. I can therefore not concur with Lieu (1991:105), who argues that the actual expressed content of the tradition ‘is surprisingly meagre, neither is there any interest in the process of transmission or present authentication’. The missionary references, though not in focus, as well as the strong argument in 1:1–6, argue against the latter points that Lieu makes. 16 Cf. Brown (1986). 17 Malherbe (1986:125), in discussing paraenesis, noted, ‘That its content is traditional and not new is indicated by such phrases as “as you know” … Related to this feature is its general applicability … Since what is advised is already known, the exhorter disavows the need for further instruction, but merely reminds his listeners of what they already know … He similarly compliments them for what they are already doing and encourages them to continue … and example is offered for imitation’. 18 Malina and Neyrey (1991:100) call this ‘negative labelling’: ‘Negative labels, in fact, are accusations of deviance. Behavior is deviant when it violates the sense of order or the set of classification which people perceive to structure their world’ (cf. also Malina and Rohrbaugh 1998:33). 13

Chapter 5: Tradition and ethos as part of the grammar of ethics of 1 John

237

The ethos of the congregation also existed in the awareness and knowledge of the Spirit that is with them and forms a crucial part of their union with the Father and Son. In actual fact, the Spirit educated and guided them within the framework of the tradition of the group.19

5.4 What they have heard (ἀκούω) Related to what they know is what they heard (ἀκούω).20 The content of what they heard partially confirms and overlaps with what they know. Emphasis falls on the fact that this is knowledge they heard from the beginning, forming a part of the core of their tradition. i) They heard about the word of life from the beginning and also from Jesus (1:1, 3; cf. also 2:24). ii) They heard the message that God is light (1:5). iii) They heard an old commandment from the beginning (2:7). iv) They should love one another as they heard from the beginning (3:11; 2J 6). v) They heard about the antichrist who is coming (2:18; 4:3). It is on the basis of what is heard from the beginning (except for numbers ii and v above), that the author proclaims and writes (1:1–5), confirming that his message is solidly grounded in the tradition of the historical Jesus (1:1–3). It concerns the word of life, Jesus and mutual love. This is indeed part of the Jesus tradition behind the Letter.

5.5 The author writes, proclaims and witnesses Another way in which the author usually confirms shared knowledge is when he notes that he ‘writes’ (ταῦτα γράφοµεν ἡµεῖς) for a specific purpose or reason (a phrase including ὅτι or ἵνα).21 These references serve as a reminder of what is known and is thus related to their common tradition. He similarly uses the phrase ταῦτα γράφω (‘I write these things’) where ταῦτα not only refers to the immediate context,22 but also implicitly to the contents of the 19

Cf. Vol. 1, 251–56. The word ἀκούω is semantically used in a different though related way in the latter part of the Letter (from 4:5 onwards). Reference to what the people heard occurs up to 1J 4:3, and from 1J 4:5 onwards the use of the word changes to listening rather than hearing. 21 Cf. 1J 1:4; 2:1, 12, 13, 14, 21; 5:13. 22 In 1J 2:7–8 and 2J 5 we have the only places where there is reference to what the author writes – he writes them a command they had from the beginning, although it is new. 20

238

Section 1: The First Letter of John

Letter.23 He indeed writes about things that both he and the addressees are aware of as part of the Johannine tradition – they know the Father and Son, their sins are dealt with and they should not sin any more, they are victorious over evil,24 they know the truth, they know the commandments from the beginning. This has the rhetorical effect of cognitive cohesion between author and addressees. This is confirmed in 2:13–14, where the identity of the addressees is described as those who know God and whose sins are forgiven, in contrast to the antichrists. Related, but not as prominent as the references to the ‘author writing to the addressees’, are the few references to his proclamation and witness (ἀγγέλλω and derivates and µαρτυρέω), two concepts that are often used in combination. This proclamation and witness indeed relate to some basic and well-known elements of the Johannine message, namely, to his witness to the life (Jesus – 1:2–3), that they must love one another (3:11), or that the Father sent his Son (4:14), as well as to the light (1:5). This obviously serves to outline the tradition of which the author is the witness.

5.6 Statements as rhetorical devices The author presents himself as the bearer of the eye-witness tradition by making statements in a variety of ways to argue his points. In many cases these statements are simply assumed to be true,25 while in other cases they are argued elsewhere in the Letter, or seem to suggest common beliefs. These statements serve as anchor points for his arguments and are presented as ‘fixed’ and accepted information within the circle he represents. A few examples of the numerous occurrences in the Letter will suffice also to illustrate the diversity as far as content and rhetoric are concerned. – Absolute statements as base for further argumentation: The statement that ‘God is light’, for instance, serves as basic truth for the ethical arguments that follow (1:5–10). There is no motivation for the truth of this statement – it is simply stated as truth that forms part of the accepted knowledge that the author represents.26 – Statements logically linked to one another: Conceptual logic holds statements together, based on shared knowledge, often echoing the Gospel tradition (the underlined phrases below, e.g., echo shared Gospel tradition). 1J 3:7–10 may serve as example: 23

Cf. 1J 1:4; 2:1, 26; 5:13. For instance, 5:13 states, ‘I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life’. This refers back to what was previously stated in 5:10–12 about God giving eternal life through his Son, echoing the essence of the Gospel message on this matter, thus reaffirming the tradition. 24 In 1J 2:26 he warns them directly against the deceivers. 25 Cf. the terms gnōmê or sentential; Parsenios (2014:16–20). 26 Cf. also 1J 2:15–17; 3:7, 22; 4:8, 19; 5:4, 17.

Chapter 5: Tradition and ethos as part of the grammar of ethics of 1 John

239

3:7: Imperative: Do not let anyone deceive you. Statement: He who does what is right is righteous like Jesus. 3:8: Statement: He whose sin is of the devil.27 Reason (ὅτι): The devil sins28 from the beginning. Statement: For this purpose Jesus came, to destroy the works of the devil.29 3:9: Statement: He who is born of God30 does not sin. Reason (ὅτι): Because God’s seed remains in him … Statement: He cannot sin. Reason (ὅτι): He is born of God.31 3:10: Statement: By this it is evident who are the children of God32 and of the devil33: Those who do not practise righteousness and do not love their brothers34 are not of God. The argument is developed in a logical and systematic way, starting with the devil and sin, moving to Jesus destroying the works of the devil, making it possible for those who are born of God not to sin, but to practise righteousness and love. This illustrates how the author unfolds his argument by combining what is known in the Johannine tradition with his additional material. – Statements motivated: The statement, ‘God is love’ in 4:8, 16 is motivated by the action of God sending his Son, as the basic idea within the Johannine tradition.35 Linking a statement to a commonly shared motivation to support the validity of the statement is common in 1 John. The author remarks in 3:8 that he who sins is of the devil, with the motivation that the devil sins from the beginning; while in 5:3 the commandments should be kept because that is what it means to love God. Closely related to the above, are statements that are motivated by or based on (reflecting on) dogma: In 3:13 a statement is motivated by the development of remarks reflecting what was commonly accepted, namely that believers have eternal life and love their fellow believers:36 3:13: Statement: Do not be surprised if the world hates you. Tradition: We know we passed from death to life. Reason (ὅτι): We love our brothers. A further example is found in 2:1–2, where the salvific significance of Jesus is simply spelled out: Jesus is the Paraclete, the atonement for the sin of the world. These remarks are dogmatic remarks that are not motivated, but simply stated. It seems as if they formed part of an accepted and shared set of ‘truths’ about Jesus that need no further clarification. These ‘truths’ are then used to explain other concepts, like how sin is dealt with, as is done in 2:1–2.

27

Cf. J 8:44. Cf. J 8:44. 29 Cf. J 1:29; 12:31; 16:11. 30 Cf. J 1:12–13; 3:3, 5. 31 Cf. J 1:12–13; 3:3, 5. 32 Cf. J 20:17. 33 Cf. J 8:44. 34 Cf. J 13:34–35; 15:12. 35 Cf. J 3:16; 4:34; 5:23, 30, etc. 36 Cf. also J 4:7–10, 19, 21; 5:1–2; 3J 4–8. 28

240

Section 1: The First Letter of John

– In 3:4–6 statements are developed around a reference to tradition: 3:4: Statement: He who sins practices lawlessness. Reason: Sin is lawlessness. 3:5: Tradition: You know Jesus came to take away sin. 3:6: Statements: He who remains in him does not sin. Certain statements are made based on what is known from tradition. This confirms that tradition was interpreted, leading to conclusions and statements that logically echo tradition. Motivating ethical behaviour is by no means a stagnant repetition of tradition, but a reflective process in which tradition serves as final control. – Statements motivating previous remarks in discussions: Believers are exhorted not to love the world (2:15–17), since the worldly desires pass away. The latter remark serves as ethical motivation why persons should not love the world and behave accordingly. The pattern of ethical argumentation should be noted: 2:15: Imperative (do not love the world) Statement (conditional) with ἐάν spelling out the consequences 2:16: Statement as explanation with ὅτι 2:17: Dogmatic (apocalyptic) statement as motivation of the previous statements. – Statements motivated by social expectations: In 5:1–2 a set of remarks is made to link faith in Jesus to being begotten by God. Familial conventions and expectations are then used to link the love for the father to the obligation to love his children also (cf. also 3:9– 10; 4:21). – Question motivated by statements (allowing the argumentation to develop in a certain direction: While referring to the deeds of Cain, the author uses a question (as statement) related to Cain’s actions as platform to launch the rest of his argument (3:12).

The examples above show how the author uses certain ‘truths’ or makes certain statements that serve as authoritative basis for his arguments. This affords the arguments with a considerable measure of authority. By simply stating that this is what the readers know and how it is, and this is what should be done, the parameters for behaviour are set. There seems to be no room for contradiction, which implies that these statements are shared knowledge, that is part of the traditional knowledge of the Johannine group. The author combines tradition (what they know) with his own directives and statements, also adding reasons. In this way his message (and directives) as a whole are imbedded in tradition and thus gain more authority. This shows that tradition was interpreted, leading to conclusions and statements that logically echo this tradition. Motivating ethical behaviour, for instance, is by no means a stagnant repetition of tradition, but a reflective process in which tradition serves as a basis for development as well as final control.

Chapter 5: Tradition and ethos as part of the grammar of ethics of 1 John

241

5.7 Authority and the traditional message Noteworthy is that the author is very hesitant to identify himself in the Letter, even at the beginning, and even if he does so, he identifies himself as part of the group adhering to the traditional message. There is very little evidence that he appeals to personal authority. However, in his dictum he shows the awareness of some authority. Many of his statements seem to be absolute or at least reflect absolute facts, as was clear even from the remarks above. It seems that what he says or the statements he makes are based on solid, accepted and undeniable truths, that is solid tradition. What seems to happen is that he ‘hides’ behind the authority of the tradition, allowing the tradition to speak for itself. He just conveys the authoritative tradition as the one who writes, witnesses and proclaims that tradition. In 5:9–12 reference is made to the witness of God concerning his Son (5:10): ‘he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son’. His testimony is that God’s Son brings life, which overlaps with the basic traditional message the author is witnessing to (cf. 1:2; 4:14) What the author testifies to is confirmed by the testimony of God himself. To not believe this (his) message is to make God a liar (5:10). This elevates the author’s proclamation and witness to a considerable level of authority.

5.8 The role of the Spirit in preserving the tradition within the Johannine group As is the case in the Gospel, the Holy Spirit has a very specific role to play in 1 John, which is especially linked to the tradition of the group.37 Olsson summarizes the role of the Spirit aptly, ‘the letter recipients are to abide in the teaching which the Spirit has given and continues to give them (2:27), and also in that which they have heard from the beginning (2:24). Only by so doing can they abide in the Son and in the Father. The Spirit and the truth, that is, the tradition passed on from Jesus as interpreted by the Johannine “fathers”, cannot be separated without serious consequences’, however, ‘the author seems to be describing more the result of the Spirit’s activity than the Spirit’s activity as such’.38

37 References to the Spirit are found in the second part of the Letter (3:24; 4:1, 2, 3, 6, 13; 5:6, 8). The references show a consistent and interrelated pattern of use. Cf. Von Wahlde (1990) and Olsson (1999:156–57). 38 Olsson (1999:157).

242

Section 1: The First Letter of John

5.8.1 The work of the Spirit The word πνεῦµα is used in the following verses: Verse 3:24 4:1 4:2 4:3 4:6 4:13 5:6 5:8

What is said Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God. By this you know the Spirit of God. Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God. And every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist. We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and these three agree as one.

The above table shows that the Spirit is involved in the correct confession about the person of Jesus, in contrast to what the false spirits (i.e. not of God – 4:1) confess or do not confess (4:1–3). As the Spirit of truth (5:6), his function is linked to his witness to the truth. From the context (5:9–13) it is clear that this divine witness, solidly grounded in the baptism and death of Jesus (5:6–9), deals with the salvific mission of Jesus, bringing eternal life to this world. The confession of Jesus indeed remains the primary focus of the work of the Spirit, as is also evident in the function of the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, in the Gospel.39 The test for distinguishing between false spirits, that is the spirit of the Antichrist (4:3) and the Spirit of God (that is of God) indeed relates to the correct confession, that is the tradition about Jesus.40 Klauck41 even interprets the evidence of the witness of the Spirit more specifically in terms of keeping the double commandment of faith and love (3:24), two cornerstones of the tradition. Having the Spirit forms part of the Immanenz42 between God and believer (3:24; 4:13).43 39

Cf. Schnackenburg (1984:210–11), Painter (2002:258) and Menken (2010:77). Olsson (1999:156) notes that if the idea of the presence of the Spirit goes back to the covenant ideas in Jer 31 and Ez 36, the idea of revelation and prophecy is predominant (cf. also Joel 2:28–29; Isa 60:1). ‘The Spirit is above all the spirit of prophecy’. Cf. also Menken (2010:91). 41 Klauck (1991:225). 42 Immanenz is networked throughout the Letter and is therefore discussed in different places. 43 By the Spirit the believer is aware of God abiding in him or her and vice versa. Schnackenburg (1984:209) correctly notes that ‘An den zwei Stellen, wo ausdrücklich vom 40

Chapter 5: Tradition and ethos as part of the grammar of ethics of 1 John

243

5.8.2 ‘Anointing’ in 1J 2:18–28 The ethos of the Johannine group also existed in the awareness and knowledge of the Spirit that is with them and forms a crucial part of their union with the Father and the Son. In actual fact, those who were not willing to work within the framework of the group’s ethos are described as false prophets, people who do not know God (4:1–6). The discussion in 2:18–28 might be of some help in understanding the dynamics of the Spirit in relation to the Johannine tradition. Here the author addresses the problem of schism within the community,44 distinguishing the Johannine group from the antichrists with the following statement: ‘But you have an anointing (ὑµεῖς χρῖσµα ἔχετε) of the Holy One, and all of you have knowledge’ (2:20). He continues by pointing out that the Johannine group knows the truth and thus they correctly confess the Son, which illustrates their union with the Father and Son (2:22–23). In 2:27 the author returns to the concept of anointing, ‘but the anointing which you received from him abides in you,45 and you have no need that any one should teach you; as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie, just as it has taught you, abide in him’.’ In the latter case the anointing is personified: ‘it’ teaches, making any other teaching unnecessary.46 Apart from that, the believers’ union with God (being in or having God) is consistently linked to the anointing and the knowledge resulting from that union.47 This knowledge is the knowledge they heard from the beginning (2:24) and is thus linked to the tradition within which the group members finds themselves. By having this ‘anointing’ believers can detect and even understand the errors of the schismatics, because of the spiritual insight resulting from the ‘anointing’. These remarks therefore function within the conflict about the nature of the Johannine tradition. The question now is: what exactly is intended by the term ‘anointing’? It is not directly clear from the passage and several possibilities exist.48 In 2:20 it Geistbesitz des Christen die Rede ist (3,24; 4,13), wird er als ein Kennzeichen der Gottesgemeinschaft gewertet’ (emphasis original). Cf. further ibid. 209–15. The Spirit is indeed (indirectly) related to ethical behaviour in the sense that it confirms identity and confession that is then expressed in obedient behaviour. 44 1J 2:18–19, 21–22, 26. 45 ‘Abiding in them’ emphasizes the permanence of the ‘anointing’ among them (Smalley 1984:124). 46 Akin (2001:125) opines, ‘Additional revelation was not needed; indeed it could be deadly. Spiritual illumination of the received traditions was the pattern they should follow’. 47 1J 2:23–24, 27–28. 48 Liddell and Scott (1996:ad loc.) point out that in classical Greek the word is used to refer to anything that smeared on. The use in the Septuagint is usually to kings, priests and prophets being anointed. Arndt et al. (2000:ad loc.) distinguish between two views:

244

Section 1: The First Letter of John

seems to refer to an act (of anointing)49 or it may also refer to an object (like the oil) which might then symbolically50 represent the Spirit. Some scholars are reminded of baptism, since the gift of the Spirit is often associated with baptism,51 even though Smalley52 points out that there is no evidence of people being anointed during baptism in the first century. One should therefore be careful not to link anointment and baptism too quickly. Another view enjoys attention, as some scholars are of the opinion that the ‘anointing’ refers to the word of God, that is, ‘the teaching of the Christian gospel itself’53 that indwells in a person, enabling him or her to teach. Gnostics argued that anointing equalled initiation into supernatural knowledge, which could serve as a parallel to receiving the word of God. Apart from that there is evidence elsewhere in the Johannine literature that the word remains in the believer,54 this is further borne out in this context where it is said that what they have heard from the beginning remains in them – this might be the word of God. Smalley refers to the view of Dodd in this regard: ‘Thus Dodd concludes that χρῖσµα, in vv. 20 and 27, “which confers knowledge of God, and is also a prophylactic against the poison of false teaching, is the Word of God, that is, the Gospel, or the revelation of God in Christ, as communicated in the rule of faith to catechumens, and confessed in Baptism”’.55 ‘anointing (so lit. Ex 29:7) 1J 2:20, 27a, b, usu. taken to mean anointing w. the Holy Spirit (differently Rtzst., Mysterienrel.’ 27, 396f, who thinks of the “formal equation of the baptismal proclamation w. the χρῖσµα”)’. It may also be used in the sense of an assignment (cf. Louw and Nida 1996:ad loc.). Haas et al. (1972:65) distinguish between the possibilities in the following way: ‘The noun “anointing” occurs only here and v. 27 in the New Testament. It may refer, (1) to an object, “the means of anointing,” that is, “anointing oil” (cp. Ex. 29:7; 30:25), or (2) to an event, either (2a) “the (act of) anointing”, or (2b) “the (result of) being anointed.” Meanings (1) and (2b) are both possible here’. Menken (2010:49) favours the idea that ‘anointing’ refers to the result of the action in this instance. Brown (1986:342–47), Strecker (1989:126–28), Klauck (1991:156–58) and Schnelle (2010:ad loc.) provide a good overview of positions taken in this regard. 49 Cf. Bultmann (1973:37) against Westcott (1902:73). 50 Lieu (1991:29–30). Haas et al. (1972:66) remark, ‘The New Testament probably does not use it with reference to the actual performance of the rite, but in a comparable metaphorical or symbolical sense’. Cf. also Marshall (1978:153) and Painter (2002:198). 51 See Mk 1:10; Lk 4:18; Acts 10:38 – this might refer to the baptism of Jesus – Lk 3:21–22. See also 2 Cor 1:21–22. Klauck (1991:157) supports this idea strongly, as do Johnson (1993:57), Painter (2002:198) and Menken (2010:49). Lieu (1991:30) rejects this notion. Later, in the church fathers the anointment at baptism is often referred to. 52 Smalley (1984:106). Cf. also Marshall (1978:153–54). 53 De la Potterie (1959:12–69), with Haas et al. (1972:65), Smalley (1984:106), Lieu (1991:35), Kistemaker (2001:279), Menken (2010:49) and Keener (1993:ad loc.) against Klauck (1991:157). 54 1J 1:10; 2:14; 2J 2; J 5:38; 15:7. 55 Smalley (1984:107).

Chapter 5: Tradition and ethos as part of the grammar of ethics of 1 John

245

Most commentators read ‘anointing’ as a parallel expression for ‘Spirit’.56 It is argued that anointing in the Old Testament was in tandem with the presence of the Spirit,57 while in two cases in the New Testament Jesus was anointed with the Spirit.58 The association of ‘anointing’ with the Spirit is also supported by the personification of ‘anointing’ in 2:27, namely, that the Spirit teaches believers everything. This sounds like an echo of a similar view in the Gospel, namely, that the Spirit will lead the disciples in the truth.59 Smalley is therefore convinced that there are good grounds for accepting that ‘anointing’ refers to ‘God’s indwelling Spirit acting as teacher and guide in all matters of truth’.60 Several scholars sensibly argue that perhaps the concept of ‘anointing’ includes both of these latter views. ‘John is deliberately using the idea of χρῖσµα to signify both the Spirit and the word of God. The faithful, that is to say, are those who have (inwardly) received the gospel of truth, and made it their own through the activity of the Spirit (cf. 1 Thess 1:5–6); thereby they possess the antidote to heresy’.61 For our purposes there is no need to distinguish between these two options, since both strongly emphasize the importance of the tradition within the Johannine group. Their identity, who they are, what they believe and should believe is deeply embedded in the Johannine tradition, that forms an essential part of their ethos. Olsson aptly remarks, ‘The author … would link teaching from the Spirit closely together with the tradition. What is required is both the Spirit and the truth … the Spirit does not operate independently’.62 These considerations in 2:18–28, read with the remarks about the Spirit in 4:1–4, show that the Spirit works within a well-defined traditional framework, outlined by the authenticity of the confessions linked to the Jesus tradition.63 The Spirit confirms what is known, as Akin puts it: ‘Additional 56 Westcott (1902:73), Haas et al. (1972:65), Marshall (1978:153), Schnackenburg (1984:210), Klauck (1991:157), Johnson (1993:57–58) and Akin (2001:ad loc.) following Smalley (1984:107) and Kistemaker (2001:279). 57 1 Sam 16:13; Isa 61:1. 58 Lk 4:18; Acts 10:38. 59 J 15:26; 16:8–15; cf. Schnackenburg (1984:151–54), Smalley (1984:107, 126) and Menken (2010:49). 60 Smalley (1984:106). 61 Ibid. 107. In support Smalley refers to Pauline literature like Eph 1:13, where attaining knowledge by hearing the word of truth and receiving the Spirit are connected. This is also the case in 2 Cor 1:21–22. Haas et al. (1972:66) are of the same opinion: ‘The two do not exclude one another, for the Gospel cannot give true knowledge unless through the Spirit, and the spirit is to be tested by the Gospel’. Elwell (1995:ad loc.) gives preference to the Spirit, although he does not deny the possibility of the ‘anointing’ also referring to the word of God. Cf. Marshall (1978:154). 62 Olsson (1999:157). 63 Westcott (1902:79).

246

Section 1: The First Letter of John

revelation was not needed … Spiritual illumination of the received traditions was the pattern they should follow’.64 This implies that the remark that they need not be taught anything confirms and protects the borders of their tradition, perhaps against the (Gnostically inclined) schismatics who claim their own special knowledge.65 As is the case with Spirit in the Gospel, the Spirit in the Letter is only indirectly linked to direct ethical remarks. The Spirit ensures that believers abide in the truth and in God and stay true to the confession. In this sense, the Spirit is the warrantee for the confession and tradition. The tradition is in the last instance not bound to and guaranteed by people, but by the Spirit of truth. Believers will listen to believers who have the Spirit of truth (not to false prophets – 4:5–6) and obey the commandments that are based on the truth. In this way, the work of the Spirit influences the behaviour of believers. However, the role of the Spirit has more to do with what (i.e. the tradition) is believed than how one should behave.

5.9 Experience in the process of learning An interesting ethical feature in the Letters is the way in which practical life and teaching are linked by using the expression: ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκοµεν ὅτι (‘by this we know that …’). Two things are related: what a person experiences and what he or she can learn from that experience, as the following table illustrates: Verse

What a person does

What a person learns

2:3 2:5 2:18 3:16 3:19–20

if we keep his commandments whoever keeps his word now many antichrists have come he laid down his life for us God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything by the Spirit whom he has given us every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us he has given us of his Spirit we love God and obey his commandments

we have come to know him we66 are in him it is the last hour (nature of) love we are of the truth

3:24 4:2–3

4:6 4:13 5:2 64

he abides in us the Spirit of God

the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error we abide in him and he in us we love the children of God

Akin (2001:125). Cf. Brown (1979:142), Schnackenburg (1984:162), Smalley (1984:126) and Johnson (1993:58) for discussions on this option. 66 In this case ὅθεν γινώσκοµεν is used. 65

Chapter 5: Tradition and ethos as part of the grammar of ethics of 1 John

247

These ‘experiences’ (second column) allows for a specific conclusion (third column).67 For instance, Jesus laid down his life for ‘us’, leading to the conclusion that this is how love works. This is a learning process – Jesus gives his life and in and through that event the believer learns what true Christian love is. Further, adhering to the authentic confession of Jesus leads to the conclusion that such a person has the Spirit of God (4:2–3), while those who do not listen to this confession have the spirit of error (4:6). Similarly, keeping the commandments (2:3) or the word (2:5), and therefore acting as Jesus acted (2:6), lead to the conclusion that the person knows God and is in him (Immanenz). Having of his Spirit should lead to the same conclusion of Immanenz (3:24; 4:13). By practically obeying the commandments, a person may be assured of the Immanenz with God, even more, also of having the Spirit. Ethics are thus directly linked to an intimate relationship with God and the presence of the Spirit.

5.10 Ethics and eschatology in 1 John Ethics are also motivated by eschatological perspectives, like the final day of judgment, that display apocalyptic traits.68 Two opposing spiritual powers are in conflict in this world, namely, the divine and evil, God and the devil. This conflict will be resolved with the (final) judgment, when according to the hope of believers, the situation in the present will change to an ideal one in the future (3:1–3). Believers will then be like, and as pure as, Jesus. Therefore they should now already behave like him, not sinning but acting righteously (3:6–7). Their current existence is viewed from a future perspective. Typical of the apocalyptic worldview, this ideal situation will only come about after the escalating of the presence of evil in the last hour in the form of the antichrist, deception and false prophets (2:18–19) that is referred to in 2:18–22. Although the conflict itself is not described in any detail, as for instance in the Apocalypse of John, the use of certain concepts within the arguments implies knowledge of such an eschatological conflict. Within this context believers must seek koinōnia with God and fellow believers that should be expressed in their positive moral actions.

67 The remark of Lieu (1991:105) may be noted here, ‘if we are to speak of tradition in 1 John, it is something heard and proclaimed, something that dwells within the believer and becomes part of her or his relationship with God’. 68 Cf. Bultmann (1973:35–36), Strecker (1989:62–63) and Lieu (1991:55–56). Menken (2010:47–48) sees early Christian traditions as the foundation of the Johannine ideas here. Schmid (2004:34) even claims that ‘the apocalyptic worldview is at the centre of the Johannine system’.

248

Section 1: The First Letter of John

… an apocalyptic expression associated with the final eschatological events.69 The phrase ‘last hour’ occurs only here in the New Testament, but the absence of an article (ἐσχάτη ὥρα) might suggest that it was a general and well known phrase in Greek, although Bultmann70 suggests that the term might stem from Jewish apocalyptic literature. It seems to refer to the period of escalating evil before the final Parousia and judgment, meaning that the ‘community’s own story is being played out in the immediate context of apocalyptic events of the end time.71

This spiritual battle between good and evil unfolds in this material world. People are influenced by the spiritual reality which is qualitatively distinguished as being either good or evil. The spirits of error work in false prophets as the Spirit of truth works in the believers, impacting their lives and actions. The transcendent ‘battle’ between good and evil, truth and error,72 becomes evident in this world in their ethical behaviour, their actions, desires and group alliances: believers have the anointing which teaches them and keeps them in truth (2:27); the people of the world hate believers and even kill them, because they (the people of the world) are from the evil one (3:11– 13); believers, however, have passed from death to life and live a life of truth (3:19) and love for one another (3:14–17). The destruction of the devil’s works (sin) by Jesus is highlighted in 3:8. This does not imply a total destruction of the devil’s presence in this world, since evil remains a factor in the everyday life of the Johannine group. Not only is the ‘whole world [except for God’s children] in the power of the evil one’ (5:19), but the Johannine group concretely experienced the destructive presence of the antichrists,73 the desires of this world (2:15–17) and the deception of the false prophets who act under the influence of the spirits of error.74 However, references to the darkness that is fading in the presence of the light (2:8) or to the victory of Jesus and believers,75 serve as positive (ethical) motivation of believers. The eschatological certainty exists that the evil is overcome, and the eschatological hope exists that good will replace evil, and purity impurity (3:3).76 ‘For John is in no doubt about the ultimate outcome of the conflict 69 Cf. Marshall (1978:148), Smalley (1984:101), Brown (1986:497), Klauck (1991:234) and Schmid (2004:34–35). 70 Bultmann (1973:36). 71 Smalley (1984:95). Cf. Strecker (1989:63). 72 Smalley (1984:227) remarks that the ‘allusion to the battle between spiritual truth and error, God and the evil one, grazes the edge of dualism’, a dualism which ‘is ethical and not cosmic (see the comment on 2:15), Jewish and not Greek’. The ethical and cosmic cannot be separated so sharply, since the ethical flows from the ontological, which is decidedly linked to the cosmology of the Letter. 73 1J 2:18, 22; 4:3. 74 1J 4:1–6; 2J 7–11. 75 1J 2:13–14; 4:4; 5:3–4. 76 In this regard Lieu (1991:90) remarks, ‘Faced with schism and perhaps with hostility, 1 John does not take refuge from the present in the hopes of the future. It is easy to see

Chapter 5: Tradition and ethos as part of the grammar of ethics of 1 John

249

(“he in you is more powerful”; cf. further 5:4–5; Rev 5:5; 12:11; 17:14). With such an assurance, victory in the present encounter between right and “worldly” wrong may be achieved by the faithful Christian.’77 This places John firmly within early Christian traditions about eschatological events. A crucial part of this victory and eschatological hope is the ethical expression of this victorious identity through the obedience to God’s commandments. There are several references in 1 John to Jesus’ parousia or return (2:28; 3:2). Brown argues that because the term is not explained in the text, it points to a known ‘Johannine apocalyptic tradition’.78 This parousia will lead to the final judgment at which point believers will not shrink from him in shame because of their righteous behaviour (2:28–29)79 or have fear, but will rather be confident (4:17–18) in their eschatological hope for the return of Jesus, that is (appearance – φανερόω) of Christ.80 Then they will be transformed to be like him, although what they will be is not known yet (3:2–3). With Jesus’ return, the final cosmological division will take place through the final judgment (4:17–18). Since the eschatological events are not yet completed (3:1– 3), the ethical task of believers is to realize the eschatological reality through their behaviour in this world. Their ethical behaviour is encouraged in light of this futuristic eschatological hope. It is a constantly realizing eschatology. What is eventually going to happen upon the return of Jesus (2:28; 3:2)? There were several possible ‘models’ available within the Christian framework to give an answer to this question, for instance, Jesus taking believers to heaven (1 Thes 4), heaven and earth being destroyed but believers are saved and allowed to live on the new earth under the new heaven (2 Pet 3), or alternatively, that after everybody has been judged in heaven and evil punished, the new heaven will descend onto the new earth and God will dwell with his people (Rev 21). There is mention in 1 John of Jesus ‘appearing’ (3:2) or ‘coming’ (2:28), implying the model of Jesus returning to the abode of people and then believers will be like him (3:2). Being like him suggests an ideal (heavenly) situation, however. what it does do as a retreat into tradition, a turning in on itself’. However, the author does not exclude hope in the future (cf. 3:1–3). Lieu is correct that a reason for defining and motivating the group lies in their tradition and history with Jesus. It would be more accurate to say that the past and future merge in the present, obviously with the main emphasis on the tradition that was developed in the past. This tradition also carries the promise of the future, however. 77 Lieu (1991:28). She points out that concepts like life, knowledge, victory, strength (2:12–14) normally appear as eschatological realities in the rest of the New Testament. Cf. Schmid (2004:35). 78 Brown (1986:381). 79 Klauck (1991:174) shows that this is an apocalyptic topos. O’Cearbhalláin (1975:42– 46) deals with the question of whether it is the believer or God who is the actor here and concludes that God is the actor – he will not cause (nor have reason to cause) the believer to shrink in shame. 80 Frey (2021:396–408) points out that the focus of Johannine eschatology is the return of Jesus Christ. In the meantime the eschatological remarks mainly focus on the ‘interim’ period between Jesus’ hour and his return.

250

Section 1: The First Letter of John

A few things are further mentioned. There will be a judgment, which believers need not fear, but look forward to, while unbelievers by implication should fear this final judgment (4:17–18).81 What exactly will happen to the evil and the evil one is not developed in detail, except that it is suggested that they have reason to fear the final judgment with the accompanying punishment (4:18). It is also said that the world (kosmos) will pass by (2:17), most probably referring to the physical world with its lusts as it is currently. What will replace this kosmos, if it is replaced at all, is not said. A point of consistent discussion is the difference between the eschatological views found in the Gospel and the Letters. The realized eschatology (having eternal life) of the Gospel (e.g., Dodd) is often favoured, although the idea of realizing eschatology (i.e. the eschatological process is not yet finished but is unfolding, realizing itself, culminating in the resurrection on the final day – J 6:39–40, 44) is nowadays widely acknowledged. On the other hand, passages like 1J 2:28–3:4, suggest an eschatological view with strong futuristic tendencies, implying that the eschatology of 1 John is based on a cosmological drama with apocalyptic traits. Thus the current existence of believers is interpreted in terms of future hope (3:3–4). Although some elements of this apocalyptic view are found in the Gospel too (e.g., the conflict between God and the devil, the devil being conquered), the apocalyptic view is much more developed in 1 John. This suggests that in 1 John a more traditional Christian eschatological view is foregrounded, but in synergy with the typical Johannine realizing eschatology: believers already have eternal life (3:14–18; 5:11– 13) and also look forward to the return of Christ. This synergy is even more evident in John’s treatment of the concept of antichrist (2:18–19; 4:3), identifying the presence of the antichrist(s) and thus the presence of the apocalyptic last hour (2:18) as ‘now’, an apocalyptic expression associated with the final eschatological events.82

The way in which the author combines typical Johannine tradition with more general Christian tradition illustrates the living interpretative tradition of the Johannine community. It was by no means a stagnant repetition of tradition, but a lively application of the tradition to their situation. In the case of 1 John, a crisis with the schismatics prompted a view that the last hour is now and the antichrist(s) are here, thus drawing on end time apocalyptic ideas to interpret their situation. The author indeed finds solace in both the Johannine and more general Christian traditions. What happened was expected – at least according to the tradition. In spite of these apocalyptic events being realized among them, the future hope is not abandoned, but clearly defined – when Jesus comes again, believers will be like him. This is their hope, their futuristic eschatological expectation, as well as the motivation for their ethical behaviour.

81 Cf. Strecker (1989:248–49) who also interprets this verse within a Jewish apocalyptic framework. 82 Cf. Marshall (1978:148), Brown (1986:497), Klauck (1991:234) and Schmid (2004:34–35).

Chapter 5: Tradition and ethos as part of the grammar of ethics of 1 John

251

5.11 Some concluding remarks Both the identity and behaviour of the Johannine group are firmly grounded in the tradition that the group observed and preserved from the beginning and are located in the teaching of Jesus as the eye-witnesses observed it (1:1–4). It is a tradition that is grounded in a new symbolic universe in which the transcendent reality revealed by Christ becomes the central and dominating reality of believers. Who they as Christians are and how they should behave are not based on human whim, but are to be understood through the God-given message as it is expressed in and ‘prescribed’ by their eye-witness tradition. This tradition is revealed through Christ and is not self-conceived, and is therefore not of this world. People of this world will not listen to or accept it (4:5–6). If somebody does not live within the confines of this tradition, he or she is not of God and his or her actions not according to the truth or God’s will. The traditional message indeed is a ‘Bindemittel zwischen Christus und den Glaubenden’,83 that leads to and constitutes the fellowship with the Father and the Son (2:24). It is by knowing this tradition that the believers find moral guidance. Although there is space for discernment and decision, for instance in the process of imitating Jesus, behaviour is always orientated towards what the tradition expects as it is confirmed by the Spirit of truth (4:6), or the anointment (2:20ff.). It is part of their ethos. If they were simply told: ‘Behave yourselves’,84 the Johannine believers would at least have had some idea of what was expected of them, by recalling existing ethical knowledge. Concrete detailed actions are not spelled out when it comes to John reminding his readers of what they know, but part of their ethos was to act like Jesus acted and to love and serve one another because they are part of God’s people. This has more to do with imbeddedness within a social frame or tradition and less to do with an objective abstract set of fixed rules of what is right and wrong. The centrality and authority of the tradition also become apparent in the fact that the author does not identify himself or claim authority in the Letter, as was typical in ancient letters, for instance, as someone in some other position of authority, perhaps appointed by God or a church, thus establishing the authoritative basis for what he writes. He presents himself rather as the anonymous carrier of this traditional eye-witness message, seeing himself as part of an ongoing process of transmitting the tradition that started and was revealed at the beginning (Ὃ ἦν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς – 1:1) when Jesus was heard, seen and touched, which refers to the remembered Jesus of the Gospel. Real authority was seated in this Jesus tradition and not in him as the messenger.

83 84

Schnackenburg (1984:159). Cf. Klauck (1991:185). An example Meeks uses.

252

Section 1: The First Letter of John

In any case, John paraenetically accepts that the addressees are well acquainted with the message he represents. Where could one find the core of this tradition? In the development of the Johannine tradition, the Gospel as such represents the development over the larger part of the first century, while the Letters were written most probably at the end of the first century as situational documents. Tuckett85 correctly opines that the language of 1 John reflects the language of the Gospel itself and although there are differences in theology, major themes in the Letter seem to echo those of the Gospel.86 Brown87 is, for instance, adamant that the ‘water’ of the Gospel forms the major source of the ‘stream’ that flows into the Letter. Some88 suggested a ‘Relecture’ of the Gospel in the Letter, suggesting that the author of 1 John referred back to the Gospel tradition and interpreted it anew. This indeed would suggest a very close relation between these two documents. However, there is typical Johannine material that is treated in the Letter but not in the Gospel and vice versa, or material from the Gospel that is treated in more detail in the Letter. These include references to eschatology, the Theo-logical emphasis in the Letter, the confession of sin, and so on.89 This suggests a ‘wider Johannine tradition’ than simply the Gospel, based on the concepts and vocabulary of the Johannine group. There is more to it, however. The Letter addresses material that covers a comprehensive body of knowledge encompassing a wide spectrum of Christian life, from the knowledge of the transcendent reality, to salvation, ethics and even eschatology.90 The reference and treatment of these issues go wider than the Gospel material or language. The eschatological remarks or the reference to expiation, for instance, reflect what is known from the other New Testament writings as early Christian tradition and imply reception and acceptance of these views by the author. This combination of ‘sources’ suggests a living tradition that is solidly rooted in the Johannine tradition as it is reflected in the Gospel, but goes wider, including a wider Johannine tradition, but is also receptive of early Christian views that are consequently integrated into the message in the Letter. The above summary should suffice, without a table summarizing the contents due to the condensed focus of this chapter. The interrelatedness of identity and behaviour is also clear from the above discussion – you behave according to who you are and who you are may be seen in what you do. This is the ethos of the Johannine group and is expressed in their tradition. 85

Tuckett (2001:173). Cf. subsection cf. 13.8.3 below. 87 Brown (1986). 88 E.g., Horst Hahn (2009) as well as Zumstein and his students. 89 Cf. the comparison of the Gospel and Letter in Ch. 13 below. 90 Cf. Bennema (2007:110–12). 86

Chapter 6

Some practical issues addressed in 1 John 6.1 Introduction Authentic love plays the key and indeed overarching role within the grammar of ethics of John. Apart from the references to love, little is said about concrete morals. Even when it comes to the opponents in 1 John, no conflict on a moral level is mentioned, but the conflict relates instead to confessional issues, with moral implications of course. In 2 and 3 John it is different, where practical issues are directly addressed, especially in relation to socioreligious interaction.1 The limited evidence related to practical issues in 1 John will now be considered.

6.2 Caring for the poor 6.2.1 The position of the poor in antiquity The reference to the needy in 1J 3:17 provides a concrete example of how specific ethical issues should be treated. Caring for the poor in the community was indeed part and parcel of the Jesus movement in general. Dunn remarks, ‘the proclamation of the good news to the poor evidently ranked at the forefront of Jesus’ conception of his mission’.2 However, compared to Luke (cf. Lk 6:20–213), for instance, there seems to be relatively little specific emphasis on the poor in the Gospel of John,4 although the theme is not absent.5 The theme of persons in need is addressed in 1J 3:16–17, how1

See Sections 6.2 and 6.3. Dunn (2003:517). 3 Even in other gospels, like Gos. Thom. 54 and 69:2 the theme of poverty receives attention. Cf. Scheffler (2006) and Hays (1996). 4 Cf. Vol. 1, 497–98. 5 Parallel texts in Matthew should be treated carefully, since they seem to emphasize a spiritual side also, as Dunn (2003:524–25) opines, namely, that the focus in Luke is on material poverty, while Matthew ‘focused more on the other end of the spectrum’. Cf. Ling (2006) who, against the views of the Context Group, aligns his views to the Weberian views on virtuoso religion, thus identifying the Johannine group as ‘poor in spirit’. The ‘poor’ should therefore be seen as a self-appellation of the Johannine group. 2

254

Section 1: The First Letter of John

ever, where the attitude and behaviour towards the poor (within the group) is used as a ‘test case’ for displaying authentic love. This saying catapults care for poor members of the group to an essential requirement for being a member of the Johannine group. Excursus: Caring for the poor in antiquity Before the influence of Christianity there seems to have been little effort in the GraecoRoman world to financially assist the ‘poor’ as a distinctive group6 – it seems that before 360 CE, the idea of care for the poor was a rather novel idea.7 However, this does not mean that ancient moral philosophy did not know generosity; to the contrary, Morgan8 notes that according to popular moral philosophy, ‘to seek wealth is both natural and right; to use it to help others is right but not natural’.9 Brown10 points out that on another level, before the Christian period, a particular style of public giving was common in the Graeco-Roman world, in which the benefactor (εὐεργέτης) played an important role.11 The city or population in general has always been the recipient of gifts. This had a strong political undertone, setting into motion a process that (reciprocally)12 enhanced the honour of the giver and his position within the commun-

6

Cf. Brant (2011:165), who gives some examples showing that in ancient times there were negative attitudes towards giving money to the poor. Some ancient writers argue that such gifts would just prolong the misery of the poor. Plutarch, for instance, has a positive view of the poor being relocated to new colonies. Seneca argues that if one gives to a poor man, it should be with the perspective that he would be able to contribute to society afterwards. 7 Brown (2002:3) and Brant (2011:165). Cf. the presence of charity in the Jewish world, however. 8 Morgan (2007:120). 9 Morgan (2007:167) notes that Ps.-Isocrates and Valerius ‘think that generosity to the poor is an excellent thing, as both virtuous in itself and encouraging gratitude and political support among its recipients’. On the other hand, there are also some ancient proverbs and fables ‘observing that the rich must treat the poor with a minimum of consideration in order to secure their labour and obedience’. Chronologically, references in ancient literature are a bit wide-spread, but nevertheless provide information about possible general tendencies. 10 Brown (2002:3–4). 11 Cf. Joubert (2014) for a detailed description of benefaction. An interesting question to consider here is if the requirement of all believers to care for one another should not be interpreted as an implicit negative commentary against ancient benefactorism. The argument for the Johannine group would be that all of them, rich and not so rich, should care for one another, which eliminates the hierarchical relationship with the social implications attached to it, that are so typically linked to benefactorism. It should be noted that caring for one’s friends in need was by no means unique to Christianity. 12 Hands (1968:48) draws our attention to the Graeco-Roman practice of reciprocity in giving. Within such a system one would give to an equal, which normally excluded the penniless. Parkin (2006:61–62, 65) argues that such gifts would be to respectable citizens who fell into hard times and needed help. They could, of course, repay by way of honouring the donor.

Chapter 6: Some practical issues addressed in 1 John

255

ity. ‘A great giver was expected to give to a specific group and to no other: and in the definition of this group, the “poor”, as such, had no place whatsoever’.13 The ‘poor’ or some or other form of altruism was never the aim of the gifts, always the city or group to which the giver belonged, thus seeking recognition.14 Charity or care for the poor was not high up on the agenda, although it seems of course logical that the poor benefitted like any other from these gifts to the community.15 In distributing the corn, the rich who qualified received a similar portion to the poor.16 In spite of the lack of an official system for providing to the poor (with the exception of the annonae for the city of Rome), there is evidence that almsgiving did exist on a private level, especially among non-elites who gave small amounts to those in need.17 Morgan shows that according to ancient moral philosophers it was a ‘good practice to be generous and to help those in need’.18 Ps.-Isocrates,19 for instance, remarks that there are two reasons why one should be happy to have money: because one can afford a significant loss and secondly, because one is then in a position to help a friend in need. Philosophers like Seneca20 mention the presence of beggars, although this is not a major point of discussion among all the philosophers. Although Seneca insisted that almsgiving does not qualify as an act of beneficium, numerous attestations of the presence of beggars and anecdotal notations about giving alms strongly suggest that people were inclined to give to the needy on an ad hoc basis.21 Parkin further notes that even Seneca22 claims that helping a needy person without any form of gratitude expected (i.e. reciprocity), constitutes a socialis res, and argues that ‘elite self-representation and lack of interest in our sources mask a reality of desultory, but habitual, giving’.23 According to Bolkestein,24 a Greek benefactory practice is known that created expectations that poor people should be helped with the basics (water or fire, burial, directions), while the person who fails to do this will be cursed. Assisting people in need was therefore not foreign to Graeco-Roman society, although it was by no means a mainline priority. A related issue is euergetism, which was prominent throughout Graeco-Roman antiquity, though not specifically targeting the poor nor motivated by altruism. Acts of euergesia benefitted the city as a whole, but did not constitute what could be called ‘charity’ or ‘relief for the poor’. Instead, it represented an ideology establishing the wealthy and notable as inherently superior, and was part and parcel of the reciprocal benefit exchange as well as the ancient gift economy in Graeco-Roman society. Nevertheless, as noted above, euergetism certainly resulted in benefits to the city and its inhabitants, including providing resources such as education and medical care.25 One charitable

13

Brown (2002:3). Ibid. 4–5. 15 Hands (1968). 16 Brown (2002:5). 17 Parkin (2006:68–70). 18 Morgan (2007:41, 94). 19 Ps.-Isocrates, Demon. 28. 20 Seneca, Ben. 3.8.3. 21 Parkin (2006:81). 22 Seneca, Ben. 3.8.3. 23 Parkin (2006:81). 24 Bolkestein (1939). 25 Hands (1968). 14

256

Section 1: The First Letter of John

programme that originated under this system was the alimenta,26 designed to provide for needy children by investing capital to small farmers through mortgage loans, the interest on which provided for the children. The programme was expanded first under Nerva but then substantially under Trajan, who advertised its success on the arch at Beneventum.

The Judaeo-Christian27 perspective of actively assisting the poor distinguished itself from the Graeco-Roman approach28 but in the end also influenced the situation pertaining to later Roman practices. The strong positions taken by post-exilic prophets like Zechariah against social injustice and oppression, emphasized the care that was expected for the poor and oppressed in the Jewish context.29 Likewise, the responsibility to care for one another (whether poor or downtrodden)30 is common in the New Testament and could be called one of the basic ethical requirements of Christianity. The giving of alms was seen as a positive practice,31 while the poor were high on the agenda, as far as both care and equality were concerned.32 Care for the poor even serves as a criterion for the last judgment.33 Believers’ communal style of living, as is described in different episodes in Acts 2–6, also aimed at taking care of all people in the community so that no one would be in need any longer.34 The following description by Justin Martyr, although later than our documents, gives some idea of what could possibly have been the practical situation within Christian communities:

26

Pliny, Ep. 7.18. Allen and Sitzler (2009:23) note, ‘For Jews, as for Christians, almsgiving was compulsory’. Chester (2013:130) also points out that caring for the poor was a ‘distinctly Jewish virtue’. This was seen within the perspective of their praise and honour of God. Gardner (2015:1) discusses ways in which the Jews ‘formalized’ charity from the second century onwards, not to help the poor, but to solve the problems related to charity in light of the widespread phenomenon of begging. This suggests a strong awareness of caring for one’s own poor among the Jews, even in the first century. 28 Brown (2002:6); Allen and Sitzler (2009:16) argue that the idea of Christians being different from the common practices of Graeco-Roman society was firmly established by Bolkestein, Veyne and Patlagean. 29 Cf. Deissler (1995:132–42). 30 It must be noted that the concept of ‘poor’ in the New Testament may not necessarily only refer to people lacking money, but also to the downtrodden or people who are socially marginalized. Cf., e.g., the use of the Greek word ταπεινός in Jas 1:9–11, that is used to describe the lowly and not necessarily the financially deprived. Cf. also the beatitudes, esp. Mt 5:3. 31 Cf. Mt 5:43; 6:2–4; 25:35–36. 32 Cf. Gal 2:10; Rom 15:25; 1 Cor 9:7; Jas 2:1–10. 33 Mt 25:31–46. 34 Cf. Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9; Tit 1:8; 1 Tim 5:10. 27

Chapter 6: Some practical issues addressed in 1 John

257

And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday (τῆ τοῦ Ἡλίου λεγοµένη ὴµέρᾳ), all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, … and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows, and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds, and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need.35

6.2.2 The poor and earthly goods in 1 John Jesus, laying down his life for ‘us’, serves as prime example of what authentic love is (3:16). This should be imitated by believers: ‘By this we know love, that He laid down His life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers’ by caring for the needy amongst the family of God (3:14, 16–17). As imitating involves copying the ‘character’ of the deed, the ‘character’ of the model’s action ought to be applied to new situations. The above excursus shows that there was an awareness of the responsibility of the community towards the poor, especially in Jewish and Christian circles. Obviously, there were different reasons for caring for the poor, as was argued above. In the case of 1 John there are two essential reasons that distinguish the call for help from other approaches to the problem, namely, i) the example of the love of Christ who laid down his life for ‘us’ (3:16), and ii) the extent of helping others, namely, from assisting them with ordinary earthly goods up to the point of laying down one’s life for one’s fellow Christians (3:16–17). Indeed, the needy should be cared for with what the believer has (3:17), up to the point of total self-sacrifice (3:16), that is laying down one’s life like Jesus. Giving one’s life, indeed includes everything less, like humbling service, care, protection, etc. Hays is correct in opining, ‘One suspects, then that a general formulation … is intended to cover a considerable range of behaviours that are not actually specified’.36 In 3:16–17, it is reiterated as an absolute necessity within the family of God, ‘But whoever has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love reside in him?’ (3:17). This rhetorical question implies that it is impossible not to assist your brother in need37 if you share in God’s love. Hays remarks about this requirement, 35

Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 67 (trans. S. Thelwall, 1185–86). Hays (1996:145). 37 The present participle suggests an ongoing situation. Cf. also Painter (2002:242). 36

258

Section 1: The First Letter of John

‘Although this admonition is not developed at length, it shows that the Johannine talk of love does have practical implications. Love within the community is not merely a matter of warm feelings: rather, it is a matter of action’.38 Klauck further notes that ‘Soziale Fürsorge und Hilfe in Notlagen hingen in der Antike fast gänzlich vom Netzwerk der persönlichen Beziehungen ab. Christen konnte es zustoßen, daß sie durch ihren Übertritt zur Gemeinde aus allen sozialen Sicherungssystemen herausfielen’.39 This means that it happened that believers were no longer supported by their physical family members, but were now dependent on their spiritual brothers and sisters. Believers had to take mutual responsibility for the well-being of their new spiritual family. It goes without saying that this required discernment. Different situations ought to be evaluated and addressed accordingly in the spirit and character of Jesus’ self-sacrificing action on the cross. It must also be noted that the conditional phrase ‘whoever has the world’s goods’ in 3:17, does lend some perspective to the requirement of self-sacrifice. The gift is linked to the ability to give.40 In ancient popular moral philosophy, it is regarded as important that a person’s speech should synchronize with the person’s behaviour, something that is also true of the Letter. Morgan notes the importance of words and deeds for the identity of a person: ‘the important sayings or doings of famous men form a large and good part of their reputations’.41 Malherbe speaks of ‘the common wisdom that one’s speech should agree with one’s deeds’ and that this ‘was applied to philosophers who justified their exhortation by their own moral progress or attainment’.42 The cynics, for instance, wore certain clothes and behaved in a certain way in public to demonstrate the principles they taught. Malherbe refers to Pseudo-Diogenes who says ‘One should not promise much and then do what is not sufficient, but should demonstrate that the spoken claims conform to the way of life’.43 It is therefore not surprising that ‘a favourite means of attacking philosophers was to accuse them of inconsistency between their speech and behaviour’.44

38

Hays (1996:145). Klauck (1989:168). 40 This is also echoed in Luke, where it is imperative to care for those in need (cf. the Good Samaritan in Lk 10), but in practical terms Zacchaeus generously gave away only a part of what he possessed (Lk 19:8). Balance was suggested in the process of helping the needy. 41 Morgan (2007:141). 42 Malherbe (1986:38). 43 Ps.-Diogenes, Ep. 15. 44 Ibid. 39 referring to Lucian, Icar. 29–31. 39

Chapter 6: Some practical issues addressed in 1 John

259

6.3 Having or desiring earthly goods The corrupting influence of the kosmos is described in 2:15–17 and includes the desire for earthly things and the pride following from that (2:16). This love for earthly things is judged negatively, since love for the kosmos and what belongs to the kosmos is said to oppose the love for the Father (2:15). It is the general attitude of affection for earthly wealth that is opposed here, implying that such behaviour is not conducive within the family of God and that it opposes the love for the Father of the family. The use of the word ‘love’ emphasizes a commitment and affection for something, holding it in high regard, implying that such things are valued above all. If this love is focused on the world and earthly things it militates against the love of God, since it is held in higher esteem than God. The implication is that having earthly goods is not wrong, as is evident in 3:17 where it is positively accepted that there are believers who have earthly goods. Such goods should not be coveted, however, but rather be handled in the correct loving way, like helping those fellow believers in need.

6.4 Lies, deception, murder Since God is the source and criterion of truth, views that militate against his will, word or what he stands for are described as lies.45 Obedience to the truth is an absolute value in the Letter.46 Deception through falsehoods is therefore regarded as the work of the spirit of error, the spirit of the antichrist (4:3, 6). Ethically, lies belong to those who are not of God and who do not listen to the children of God (4:5–6). By not accepting the orthodox message about Christ, of which God is a witness, also makes God a liar47 and ironically exposes the big lie of those who do this. Truth is not in them. The concept of lies is therefore not used in the general sense of not telling the truth, but is focused on untruths within the context of the confession and tradition represented by the eye-witnesses. A positive value in countering these lies is accepting, confessing and proclaiming the truth.48 The same applies to murder. Murder is not conceptualized in general terms of taking a life, but specifically as not loving and assisting the children of God, especially when previously being associated with this group, as the

45

This is clear from 1J 1:6, 8; 2:21, 22, 26, 27; 4:20. Cf., e.g., 1J 3:24; 5:3, 21. 47 1J 1:10; 5:10. 48 Cf. 1J 1:3; 4:2, 14–15. In 5:8–12 the testimony of God is by implication presented as the basis of the testimony of believers who believe this testimony (5:5, 13). 46

260

Section 1: The First Letter of John

antichrists were (2:18–19). Their hate (instead of love – 3:13) is the basis of their unresponsiveness and hatred towards the family of God.

6.5 Concluding remarks In suggesting a scenario, it was pointed out that the Letter focuses on the conflict in the Johannine group, especially on the addressees who are in flux between the ‘us’ and the ‘they’ (the opponents), as is evident in their lack of love for and co-operation (koinōnia) with their fellow believers. This is clearly evident in the author’s lack of interest in matters that are not related to this issue. Other ethical references, for instance to the needy, or to murder and lies, are all related to this problem and are quite limited. They are mentioned, but not treated in detail. This does not imply a sectarian approach, but rather a focused approach that does not focus on other general ethical matters, because these are not relevant at this point.49 This is evident in the acceptance of values that are part of the Jewish tradition as well as the links to other early Christian ideas. The author is open to these ideas, but only mentions what is relevant to the focus of the Letter. It is indeed not a closed sectarian group, but a group that is open to adaptation to and application of the Christian tradition of which it is part.

49

The mistake should not be made to make conclusions because of silence, i.e. because other ethical matters are not mentioned. In symbolic logic this way of arguing is erroneous. In the other two letters values related to hospitality or authority are dealt with, that are not part of 1 John. One would not conclude that the author of 1 John is not concerned about these issues simply because he does not mention them.

Chapter 7

Some concluding remarks 7.1 Introduction 1 John has a very specific ethical focus, which is largely influenced by the conflicts the group is experiencing, although guidelines for countering these conflicts are indeed applicable to other, wider contexts too, of course with the necessary hermeneutical finesse. What follows is a brief overview of the grammar of ethics of 1 John.1

7.2 The scenario Ethics in 1 John is not ahistorical, but is firmly imbedded in the situation that caused the Letter to be written. There are both internal and external conflicts mirrored in 1 John and although these are two different issues, they are related. The external threat focuses on the presence of schismatics (who are addressed as ‘they’), who were once part of the orthodox group (identified as the ‘us/we’), but left that group (2:19). This schism signalled the apocalyptic ‘last hour’ with the antichrist and false teachers coming (2:18). They act under the influence of the spirit of the antichrist and are not of God (4:3) which is evident from their deviating confession about the humanity and messiahship of Christ. They formed an opposing group that was religiously active in the society, seemingly with even more success than the author’s group (4:5). In spite of the fact that this group opposed the author’s group and actually threatened that group’s unity in their efforts to deceive some of them, the Letter was not addressed to these opponents, although their influence on the ‘us’ group is more than evident in the Letter. It should therefore not be read as a polemical letter against the schismatics.

1 This is just an overview and aims at covering the most important aspects of the grammar of ethics of 1 John. It is not intended to repeat every detail discussed in the previous chapters.

262

Section 1: The First Letter of John

The internal conflict involved a third group (addressed as the ‘you’), who were still identified as part of the orthodox group, but were no longer regarded as part of the fellowship because they did not co-operate with the orthodox group (the ‘us’) as they should. This was evident from their lack of love for and co-operation with their fellow believers in the ‘us’ group. It seems that this lack of love for their fellow believers (the ‘us’) was the result of being deceived by the opponents. A real danger existed that they might join the opponents (the ‘they) and become part of the schism. It is to this unstable ‘middle’ group (the ‘you’) that the Letter was written with the pastoral aim to convince them to draw closer to their fellow orthodox believers and to have fellowship with God and them by co-operating with them in mutual love. Therefore the author warns them against deception and aims at guiding them in strengthening their bonds with the group they still belong to (the ‘us’). This he does by paraenetically reminding them of their status and identity as well as the responsibility to behave accordingly. They should also remember that the ‘us’ group prays for them (5:16) and that God will forgive those who confess their sin and start to walk in the light again (1:7–2:2). In this way the author aims at protecting the family of God.2 Some would even argue that the basic ethical motivation of the Letter is to preserve the identity and existence of the eye-witness group and its tradition. Ethical demands are inter alia in service of preserving the community. In light of the above, the conflicts envisaged by the author in 1 John has two levels. The first level deals with the relation between the ‘us’ and the ‘you’, since members of the ‘you’ group lack in their love and co-operation with the ‘us’ group. This opens the possibility for a second level of conflict that includes the schismatics. Since the relationship with the ‘us’ is deteriorating, the ‘you’ group was open to influence from the schismatics, thus being confronted with their erroneous confession of Christ. Although this is not the main focus of the author of 1 John, he appropriately warns the addressees against them, pointing out that succumbing to these views they will associate themselves with the spirit of evil and the antichrists. This deception should be avoided by people who have fellowship (koinōnia) with God. These conflicts are described in light of a specific cosmological framework that is characterized by dualism, that is by what is earthly versus what is transcendent. Ordinary people who live in this world are involved in a cosmological conflict between God and the devil. The transcendent realities of God and the devil are qualitatively distinguished, with God representing what is true and authentic in contrast with the evil of the devil. This transcendent conflict is reflected in the identity and actions of people on earth, 2 Loader (2014:234), for instance, remarks that the author focuses ‘on the danger of neglect of mutual support for survival’. Lieu (1986:184) views that protection of the group’s boundaries of prime interest to the group.

Chapter 7: Some concluding remarks

263

forming two distinctive groups: the children of God and children of the devil, the good and evil. This cosmic conflict is indeed raging among people in this world and impacts on their ethical behaviour.

7.3 God as source of ethics in 1 John God is the focal point in the Letter, not only as the source of what is true and authentic, but also as the One who serves as essential model for qualitative life and love in the light. He is the true qualitative measure of all positive ethical behaviour. The emphasis in the Letter is indeed Theo-logical. God’s presence and activity in this world are described in different ways, especially in relational and functional terms, for instance, through his love for this world that is functionally expressed in the mission of Jesus, as illustration that the Father loved ‘us’ first. Through his love, word, commandments and the Spirit he abides in believers and believers abide in him expressing their relational and functional unity (Immanenz). Believers have koinōnia with him (and fellow believers) that emphasizes their direct relationship with him that is visibly expressed in their co-operation. The concept expressed by the Greek word koinōnia (mostly translated as ‘fellowship’) covers the semantic areas of partnership and co-operation due to a close relationship that results in sharing and caring. Since koinōnia is not a typical Johannine word, its prominent use at the beginning of the Letter (and only there) rhetorically signals that this conceptual field forms an ‘umbrella concept’ for the overall message, even though the actual term is not used after 1:7. The concept of koinōnia is networked throughout the Letter, however, and is associated with key Johannine terms like life, love, light, truth and to proclaim. That God is the point of ethical orientation is crucial to the grammar of ethics of 1 John, since it distinguishes this ethical system from others. An ethical system is mainly determined by its point of orientation. For instance, if the aim or point of orientation is to be happy (i.e. Socrates) then actions will be focused on attaining that aim, or if being a virtuous person is the aim, this will determine the system of this type of ethics. In 1 John the focus and aim is Theo-logical and this determines the system, for instance, God gives new identity to believers as well as commandments that must be obeyed. He determines the qualitative nature of ethics, etc.

This unity in fellowship between God and believers is expressed in two distinctive ways in the Letter, namely, in terms of family imagery and Immanenz, that is abiding in one another.

264

Section 1: The First Letter of John

7.4 The family of God as ethical society 7.4.1 The Father gives believers a new identity: they are now children of God The family imagery is the key framework within which the relation between the Father and his children is expressed with the concept of being born/ begotten by the Father as a key part of this imagery in the Letter. The frequency of the use of this concept in the Letter is the highest in the New Testament.3 Birth of God leads to eternal life that enables participation as children of God in the reality of the family of God.4 Spiritual life starts with God the Father, who begets his children (3:9) and indeed acknowledges them as his family, by lovingly calling them his children (3:1–2, 10). With God’s ‘seed’ that now remains in them (3:9), their character and behaviour are determined by God, their Father. The confines of this new reality is determined by the expectations, tradition and ethos of this new family. Because believers are part of this family, they should behave according to the requirements of the family. For instance, the claim that a child is loved like his father (5:1–2) is part of the social family conventions of the time – no further motivation for the truth of this family convention is needed. Similarly, children are expected to behave according to the will of their father – they should do what their father does. This was the way they thought of their ethical responsibilities and obligations. It should be noted that the concept of life as such is not directly linked to ethical behaviour, while birth is. Contexts where life is mentioned focus more on the identity, confession and Christology, while birth determines behaviour. Obviously, as part of the larger family imagery, having eternal life enables a person to act ethically. However, the use of the term is linked to ethics more indirectly than directly. As other side, faith in the Father and Son also forms part of becoming a member of the family of God, forming a synergetic pair with birth,5 as 5:1 states, ‘Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God’. Faith and birth are indeed two sides of the same coin: a person is born of God (an action only God can perform) by believing (a human action) in his Son, with the result that a person receives eternal life, becoming a child in God’s family. In 1 John the emphasis of faith is more on ‘believing that’ than on ‘believing in’. This might be because the opponents also appeared to believe

3

This, of course, excludes references to ordinary birth (e.g. of Jesus) in the Gospels. In the Gospel life is the key metaphor in the family imagery (cf. Van der Watt 2000), but in the Letter the concept of being born/begotten stands central and is networked throughout the Letter. 5 1J 5:1, 4, 13, faith in Jesus inter alia leads to birth of God. 4

Chapter 7: Some concluding remarks

265

in Christ, but in a deviant and therefore false way. They do believe ‘in Christ’ but not that Christ is human or the messiah. The behaviour of the children of God is determined by their relation to the Father, which means that behaviour is based on (reciprocal and mimetic) relations and conventions and not on other requirements like abstract rules or social agreements. Loving fellowship and co-operation form the framework of ethical behaviour, based on unity (Immanenz) among family members. God the Father ‘appears as the great Giver who grants forgiveness/cleansing, the Spirit/anointing, new birth, eternal life, love, the Son, testimony/commandment and answer to prayer’.6 All these relational actions have to do with creating and then sustaining life within God’s spiritual family. 7.4.2 The Father guides his children through his word and commandments Parents in ancient families were responsible for the education of their children.7 The father was the model for the character and identity of the family. Part of this function was to indicate what is acceptable or not to his family and this was done inter alia through commandments. Obedience to the commandments of God the Father is of course an essential part of family ethics and is presupposed in 1 John when commandments are mentioned. Obedience in Johannine terms is not a mechanical reaction, but an expression of an intimate relationship of faith and love (3:23). In contrast to the Gospel, where Jesus is the giver of commandments to believers, God is the giver of commandments to believers in 1 John. His commandments are focused on faith and love, representing the two basic relationships – with God and fellow Christians (3:23). The implication is that faith and love are not optional, but indicatives for membership in the family of God. These are key ethical concepts in 1 John. As such, the commandment to love one another is basic to Johannine ethics as is evident in the Gospel too (J 13:34–35).8 It is part of the group’s Jewish inheritance that goes back to the First Testament. In that sense it is not at all new. But the author of the Letter points out that there is a new motivation for this love. It is not based on an agreement (the covenant), but on the presence of the true light. God showed his love by sending his Son, who illustrated what authentic love is by laying down his life for others. In this sense loving one another is a new commandment, since it is defined in terms of the incarnated Christ. Not a (covenantal) law but a loving relationship determines the ethics of the Letter. 6

Olsson (1999:144). There were other options, like private tutors, schools, guilds, etc., but the norm in ordinary families was that the parents were responsible for the education of their children, both morally and professionally. 8 Cf. Vol. 1, 287–325. 7

266

Section 1: The First Letter of John

The concept of giving commandments is networked with other central concepts in the Letter, for instance, keeping his word (2:3–5), do what pleases God (3:22) or the Immanenz between God and believers (3:24). A typical term for law (νόµος) is not used, since this term is used in John to indicate the identity of the opponents. By not using this term, the author disassociates the Johannine group from these Jewish opponents.9 Although the ethics in the Letter is relationally determined, there are some clear echoes of the values expressed in the Decalogue when it comes to practical matters, although there is no claim that the Decalogue is in mind.10 However, the Johannine group did not completely sever themselves from all their Jewish roots. The first table of the Law is represented by stressing only one God who must be worshipped (commandments 1 and 2), and that selfpride is not acceptable. That God, as Father, must be obeyed, resembles commandment 5, while murder and lies echo commandments 6 and 9.11 Commandment 10 is recognized in the references to desire. There are a few notable exceptions from this list, namely, the misuse of God’s name (3), the Sabbath law (4),12 and the law about adultery (7). It therefore seems plausible that values related to the Decalogue are still part of the ethos of the Johannine group, without claiming that the Decalogue is directly referred to. It is imaginable that they would follow the value system of the Decalogue if confronted in practice with ethical issues.

7.5 The close cognitive and functional unity (Immanenz) between the Father, Son and believers Another key relational concept used in conjunction with the family imagery is the unity (Immanenz) between the Father, Son and believers. This unity is expressed through phrases like ‘being in’13 or ‘abiding/remaining in’.14 These expressions do not refer to ontological unity (i.e. like water mixed with ink), but to a relational unity expressed in cognition, function, influence and be9

Cf. Vol. 1, 365–73. Although several of these ethical references may also be applicable to other value systems, like murder, lies and perhaps pride, the context of the Jewish God and the Jewish messiah as well as the Jewish roots of the Johannine group give these remarks a Jewish flavour. Cf. also Vol. 1, 358–97. 11 It is a question whether refusal to help a needy member of the group in a ‘limited goods society’ might not be regarded as stealing from the poor (cf. Malina 1986:171–74), echoing Commandment 8. 12 This is most probably so because the Letter reflects an inner-Johannine debate where the Sabbath is no longer an issue. 13 E.g., ἔστιν ἐν ἡµῖν – 1:10. 14 E.g., ἐν ἡµῖν µένει – 4:12. 10

Chapter 7: Some concluding remarks

267

haviour. This Immanenz (mutual abiding) is a way in which the transference of influence from God to the believers and the obedient acceptance of this influence by believers are expressed. There are two ways in which this Immanenz is experienced, namely, by (P)persons abiding in one another, and by other objects (like the word of God) or abstracts (like love) abiding in persons or vice versa. The main emphasis is on God and his qualities abiding in believers and believers abiding in God.15 A main result of this Immanenz is the influence exerted through this unity, for instance, abiding in love means that love influences the person. This unity has several facets. i) The unity has a cognitive side, as is evident from expressions like God’s word16 or love abides in a person (2:24).17 This means that believers are influenced in the way they think and act by the message they have heard or the characteristics of the love of God. Through discernment, they should express this cognitive knowledge in deeds and in truth (3:18). This is also equated with believers ‘abiding in the Son and in the Father’ (2:24), that is, thinking and doing what the Father requires is to be in the Father, that is obeying his commandments is to abide in him and he in them (3:24). Likewise, the ‘anointing’ abides in them, which means that they do not need any further teaching, since they are cognitively influenced by the anointing (2:27), an expression again linked to ‘abiding in him’. Mainly related to the cognitive side of the unity is receiving the Spirit, who guides believers in their confession and knowledge (4:13) that will be functionally expressed in a sound confession (4:14–15), which again confirms mutual Immanenz (4:15). ii) Knowing what the Father wants, leads to obedient behaviour, thus transforming the cognitive knowledge into functional actions that correspond to the requirements of the knowledge, that is, behaviour is a functional expression of the knowledge and ethos of the group. Balz18 points out that expressions like ‘fellowship with God’ (1:6–7), ‘knowing God’ (2:3–4; 4:6– 7, 12–13) or ‘remain in God’ (2:5c–8) are used in inseparable relation to ‘walking in the light’, ‘keeping commandments’, ‘live according to the example of Jesus’ and active, ‘mutual love for fellow Christians’. Through the unity between God and believers, identity and behaviour are combined. They functionally behave according to what they cognitively know God requires. Acting alike as Father and child is an expression of this functional unity, as 15 Little emphasis is on Jesus who abides, and the anointment abiding in believers might be a reference to the Spirit. However, God is in focus when it comes to ‘abiding in’. If one considers J 15 (the vine and branches) the emphasis in the Letter differs. 16 What they have heard from the beginning refers to the message/word about Jesus. 17 1J 2:15; 3:16; 4:16–17. 18 Balz (1986:49).

268

Section 1: The First Letter of John

2:6 says, ‘He who says he abides in him, ought to walk in the same way in which he walked’19 and will not sin (3:6, 9), because that person is born of God (4:9) and has seen and knows the Son (3:6). Believers, in whom God abides, will love one another and thus perfect his love and make the unseen God visible (4:12, 16–17). It is therefore fitting that the author uses the concept of koinōnia, which refers to partnership and co-operation in the context of a close relationship. Sharing in such fellowship obliges a person to co-operate in accordance to the expectations of such a solid partnership. iii) Influence is the result of Immanenz. The influences of God, his word, love, etc. on believers are closely linked with the concept of their Immanenz, that is ‘abiding/being in’. This implies a hierarchical structure, namely, God and his qualities are influencing believers who obediently accept and express his will. God abiding in believers means God influences them while believers who are in God means they are influenced by God. Whenever God is the object in 1 John, ‘relational words are used almost exclusively: know (9x), love (4x), remain in (4x), see (3x), have (2x), and believe’.20 This suggests a very specific way in which mutual ‘space’ is perceived. God allows believers into his ‘space’ (his family), while believers in faith submit their ‘human space’ to the presence and influence of God. In this shared ‘space’ believers are cognitively influenced by the presence of God’s Spirit, his words, his love, etc. This influence is then further conveyed by believers to others through their behaviour in deeds and truth. Through this unity God becomes present in this world. Where believers functionally act, he is present, since he abides in them and they in him.

7.6 God is love … and his family loves one another Love21 is a basic and essential characteristic of God the Father: He is love (4:8, 16) and his actions are examples of what authentic love is, since love is of God (4:7). This theme is developed in detail in the Letter and forms a basic ethical requirement in it: what ethical behaviour involves, is basically expressed in terms of authentic love. The statement that God is love cannot be turned around, that is, that love is God. That would turn God into an abstract attitude. So, wherever authentic love (i.e. love of God) is seen, it refers back to the intimate relationship (Immanenz) between God that influences a person – ‘he 19

This expression refers to Jesus, but Jesus likewise behaves in obedience to the Father. Olsson (1999:144). 21 Cf. also the summarizing and concluding remarks on love above, subsection 3.3.9 (pp. 175ff.). 20

Chapter 7: Some concluding remarks

269

who loves is born of God and knows God’ (4:7), indeed, ‘he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him’ (4:16). The initiative for this love did not come from humans, but God loved first – ‘not that we loved God but that he loved us’ (4:10), indeed, ‘we love, because he first loved us’ (4:19).22 God thus showed people what authentic love is all about. All authentic love should therefore be modelled on his love. The essential character of authentic love is illustrated by God who sent his Son into the world as the expiation for ‘our’ sins so that ‘we’ might have eternal life through him (4:9– 10). A crucial part of this love is the active gift of life. It is not selfish love, focusing on the benefits of the subject, but outward love that actively seeks the benefit of others. This is also the way believers should reciprocally love – ‘if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another’ (v. 11). The mutual love of believers should mime the love of God by being willing to lay down their lives for their fellow Christians miming the example of Jesus who laid down his life for ‘us’ (3:16). Like the love of God, the love of Jesus is also aimed at the benefit of others. This mimetic action of believers of laying down their lives for their fellow Christians, is immediately illustrated by the expectation to care for fellow believers in need, thus expressing the love of God to them (3:17). The exemplary action of love expected from believers (3:17), namely, helping fellow believers in need, seems to tone down the radical reaction of laying down their lives, that is dying. There is a clear reason behind this example, however. This highest gift of Jesus, giving his life, illustrates a willingness to give everything, up to the point of giving one’s live. This includes all lesser gifts, like caring for one’s fellow believers. Such ethics requires discernment, since this characteristic of love should be applied to serve particular situations, which requires careful consideration as to the outcome of one’s behaviour – it should be to the benefit of others. Through the mutual love of believers, the love of God is perfected, that is, reaches its aim and goal in this world. People experience God’s love through the authentic loving deeds of his children. This is the way God, who is unseen, becomes ‘visible’ in this world (4:12) – where authentic love is shown, the presence of God is experienced. Presence is here described in functional terms – experiencing the quality of authentic divine love in a practical way is equated with experiencing the presence of the source of that love, namely, God. This is when God’s love reaches its goal, and is indeed per22 In spite of the emphasis on love in the Letter, only three mutual relations are mentioned, namely, God who loves believers, believers who love God and believers who love believers. In 3:16 the actions of Jesus serve as example of what love is, and might be an indirect reference to the love of Jesus, but it is not stated directly. This differs from the Gospel where all the mutual relations between God, Jesus and believers are directly mentioned, except that believers should love God (their love for God should be illustrated through obedience).

270

Section 1: The First Letter of John

fected (τελειόω). Love must be experienced, implying that it should always be expressed in appropriate deeds. In this way Johannine ethics is steered away from ethics that is only ‘spiritual’, existing in claims and talk, but is firmly grounded in practical ethics that is expressed in deeds and truth (3:18). Although love is the main ethical requirement in the Letter, there is evidence of some other values that play a part, namely, to be true to the truth and not to lie. Murder, that is taking a life is also not acceptable. The responsibility to care for those in poverty is also a value, especially in light of the contrasting love for the world that prioritizes lust for what others have as well as excessive pride in earthly goods. However, there is no reference to the Decalogue that echoes these values, although the Jewish nature of the Letter might suggest a connection. The Johannine group has their roots in the religion described in the First Testament and confesses the God of Abraham, which suggests continuity. Within this context where mutual love is focused on, it is understandable that caring and protecting the Johannine group is a basic value or principle, as Lieu remarked, ‘The decision for faith is a decision for a community, a decision to be worked out in the life of the community’.23 Believers are bound together as children of God, that is, as belonging to God and are therefore obliged to love one another through their mutual practical care and protection. Those, like Cain, who hatefully harms the family by killing his brother, are regarded as murderers. Hate is described as not caring for the lives of believers, murdering them. They do not act righteously or in authentic love (3:10). They are doing the works of the devil whose children they are (3:10). By contrast, the calling of children of God is to care for one another in loving fellowship. This contrast should encourage those (i.e. the ‘you’ group) who are wandering away from the ‘us’ group to seriously reconsider their fellowship with the ‘us’ and God. By rejecting this fellowship through hateful actions and separation, such people are not only distancing themselves from ‘us’, but also from God. They run the risk of being excluded from the true ‘Gottesgemeinschaft’.24 Falsely directed love is mentioned in 2:15–17, where love for the world and worldly things stands in sharp contrast to the love of God. Desires of the flesh and eyes as well as hubris based on earthly possessions are typical of this falsely directed love. It most probably refers to a type of lifestyle that was typical of ancient societies, especially at meals or banquets. The licentious freedom for lust and pride does not correspond with God’s self-sacrificing love and represents a lifestyle that should be avoided. These earthly things perish which emphasizes the lack of true value of these earthly things.

23 24

Lieu (1991:107). Schnackenburg (1970:72).

Chapter 7: Some concluding remarks

271

Little attention is given to love for outsiders in the Letter. Visions of love to outsiders are not under discussion here, but the focus is on believers (‘brothers’) and the crisis they are experiencing,25 that is an inner-group conflict. However, there might be signs that love for outsiders is hinted at.26 It might be argued that the main expression of the love of God is sending his Son into this world for the sake of others (4:9) and offering expiation for the sins of the whole world (ὅλου τοῦ κόσµου). Love for the unbeliever, by extension, should similarly be focused on bringing the unbeliever into fellowship with God. As soon as such a person becomes a believer he finds himself within the circle of mutual love.

7.7 Jesus as model for the behaviour of believers 7.7.1 Salvific actions with ethical implications Jesus functions as a key model for ethical behaviour. Apart from being an example of positive ethical behaviour, he is also the one sent by the Father to bring and ensure salvation, which includes, bringing life, being the expiation of sins, cleansing sins through his blood or acting as Paraclete (Special Helper) if believers commit sin. These salvific actions are indirectly related to ethics. For instance, giving eternal life enables people to be part of the family of God,27 which obviously impacts on their behaviour. Being cleansed has an impact on the relational status of those who confess their sins and opens the way for them to continue living in the light. In these instances, the emphasis falls more on salvation than on ethics, however. Rhetorically, references to Christ (Jesus) mainly seems to focus on the confession of him being Messiah (4:2; 5:6) who came in the flesh.28 The pastoral approach to the Letter, which is the most likely view,29 suggests that the Letter is written to help the ‘you’ group to reorientate themselves in their relationship to the ‘us’ group and consequently to God. Two phases of the process should be distinguished. The first phase, that is evidenced in 1 John, 25

Cf. Vol. 1, 319–25; Konradt (2022:404–408). Cf. subsection 3.3.6 above. 27 1J 2:23; 5:1, 5, 11–13. 28 1J 2:22; 5:1. Other references are to having fellowship with him (1:3), him being righteous or true (2:1; 5:20) or that people should believe in him (2:23). 29 Cf. subsection 1.1.6 above. If it is accepted that the Letter is written with the opponents as addressees, thus accepting that the contrasting sections present a valid description of the views of the opponents, confession of Jesus, not being human, directly determines the ethical expectations. If Jesus did not come in the flesh and flesh is not important, then sin of the flesh also has no effect on believers, who can then behave as they like. The link between confession and behaviour is therefore direct. 26

272

Section 1: The First Letter of John

is that the author is more concerned with the lack of love for and co-operation (koinōnia) of the ‘you’ group with the orthodox Johannine group. There is little evidence that their major problem is with their confession. This would introduce a second phase, namely, if the ‘you’ group succumb to the deception of the opponents, they would obviously also accept their views, including those on Jesus and their confession. At this point the author only focuses on ‘phase one’, although phase two seems to lurk in the background.30 7.7.2 Jesus laying down his life for ‘us’ As was mentioned, the reference to Jesus laying down his life for ‘us’ (3:16) serves as major example of the believers’ ethical behaviour: they ought to do likewise. As Schnelle remarks, Jesus’ ‘vorbildhafte[s] Verhalten … wird unmittelbar auf die Gemeinde übertragen’.31 It is not the only example, but rhetorically dominates, since it not only illustrates what love is, but is also illustrated by way of a practical situation (3:17). Believers ought to mime the character of Jesus’ love, by being willing to care for the family of God by helping those in need. They should be willing to do what is needed or asked for, up to the point where they are willing to lay down their lives for others, with everything less included. Self-sacrifice to the benefit of others forms the basic attitude of the loving behaviour of believers. This stands in sharp contrast to the murderous actions of Cain, who serves as stereotypical example of the actions of the opponents. Breaking away from the family of God and not showing any fellowship and co-operation with this family, equates to actually ‘murdering’ them like Cain murdered his brother (3:12–15), that is even their apathy is interpreted in terms of Cain’s murderous acts. They take lives rather than sacrificing their own to the benefit of the lives of others. This should serve as ethical warning to the addressees who are lacking in their love for the orthodox group. 7.7.3 Believers ought to walk like Jesus walked, righteous and pure The ethical excellence of the incarnated Jesus forms the model for the lives of believers. Apart from him laying down his life there are also several other examples that should be mimed or reciprocated. Qualities of Jesus that should be mimed include his righteousness (3:7) and purity (3:3). People ought to ‘walk’ in the same way Jesus ‘walked’ (2:6).32 They should also mime him by not sinning (3:6). The results of their behaviour are not salvific in the same 30

1J 2:26; 4:1. Schnelle (2010:189). 32 Although there are lines of interpretation that link the issue of ethics in the Letter to Gnostic ideas and in that context refer to problems with perfectionism or libertinism, this does not seem to be the main focus in the Letters. 31

Chapter 7: Some concluding remarks

273

sense as that of Jesus, who is the expiation of their sins, but is nevertheless aimed at the benefit of others, not murdering them (3:15), but helping fellow Christians in need. Even their prayers for those who did not commit sin unto death might lead to life (5:16). 7.7.4 Mimesis and reciprocity as key ethical conventions Accepted social expectations underlie some of the ethical argumentation in the Letter. Apart from the family conventions, the use of mimesis and reciprocity are good examples. They were common motivations for ethical behaviour in ancient times.33 The author encourages (ὀφείλω – 2:6) believers to mime the life of Jesus which places them under the obligation to behave in a certain way. They should purify themselves as Jesus is pure and be righteous as Jesus is righteous, each time using the adverbial comparative ‘as’ (καθώς) that suggests following an example. They ought to follow the loving act of Jesus by laying down their lives as he did (3:16). They are even said to mime the love of God (4:11). Two poles are kept in synergy, namely, the physical example set by and through Jesus and the consistent application of the character of the example in new situations. This balances a norm-bound ethics with deontological characteristics, with ethics that is driven by the eschatological vision of Jesus that his people would be like him (3:2–3), implying teleological ethical features. Likewise, reciprocity is used in motivating ethical behaviour, for instance, ‘if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another’ (4:11), pointing to the response to God’s love that obliges believers to respond in kind. The ethics of John is often criticized for being too general, that is, one should just love and that is it. Specifics about marriage, personal discipline, general juridical matters, etc. go unmentioned. However, in fairness it must be remembered that these issues were not the problem(s) addressed at that moment of the crisis and are simply not made a point of discussion in the Letter. Arguments from silence are obviously unacceptable. Because of the situation addressed, the overarching and inclusive concept of love is favoured as key ethical concept.

Although the Letter has a strong Theo-logical emphasis, Christo-logical aspects should not be downplayed, especially in terms of soteriology and ethics. The incarnated Christ remains the one the Father sent as the representative of the unseen Father, the one who brings life, salvation, is the expiation of sins, and so on. He serves as example and model for positive ethical behaviour. He should be mimed. This would ensure that believers walk in the light as God is in the light (1:7).

33

Cf. subsection 2.4.1 above.

274

Section 1: The First Letter of John

7.8 Tradition and ethos in service of ethics There is not much discussion in the Letter about what the righetousness of Jesus or ‘walking like him’ involves. Except for the death of Christ (3:16) and the general remark that God sent him (4:9), little is said about his life in flesh. It seems that the Johannine group, who knew the Gospel material, would be familiar with the behaviour of Jesus mentioned in a cursory way in the Letter. The author consistently emphasizes the shared knowledge believers have that forms part of the tradition of the Johannine group, allowing for a rather detailed picture to be painted of the knowledge of this group. This shared knowledge included a network of concepts. Lieu describes this interrelatedness of themes in 1 John aptly, ‘the moral life, faithfulness to the tradition and to fellow members of the community, and the religious experience of community with God belong inseparably together, but it does not seem that they are to be simply equated with each other’.34 The references to knowledge may be divided into two major areas, namely, i) that believers are taught by the anointing that is inter alia associated with the Spirit, and ii) that believers share a significant amount of knowledge that forms part of their tradition and ethos. i) The author motivates the knowledge believers have by referring to their anointing (2:20–27). This discussion about the anointing by the Holy One (2:20) is part of the discussion about the antichrists who departed from the orthodox group. Believers know these antichrists are wrong because the anointment taught them the truth, also as far as the confession of Christ is concerned (2:22). Believers have no need of deceivers teaching them (2:26), since the anointing teaches them everything. They should abide in what they were taught by the anointing of the Holy One (2:20, 27) who assist them in their confession (4:2). The Spirit of God also guides believers, especially in the correct confession. Having the Spirit and obeying the guidance of the Spirit are directly related to the Immanenz35 between God and believer (3:24; 4:13). By the Spirit the believer is aware of God abiding in him or her and vice versa and is thus evidence of being children of God. The Spirit is indeed (indirectly) related to ethical behaviour in the sense that it confirms identity and confession that is then expressed in obedient behaviour. By not obeying the Spirit, people show that they are false prophets, people who do not know God (4:1–6).

34

Lieu (1991:43). Immanenz is networked throughout the Letter and is therefore discussed in different places (cf. subsection 2.3 above). 35

Chapter 7: Some concluding remarks

275

ii) The ethos of the orthodox group also existed in the awareness and knowledge of the Spirit who educated and guided them within the framework of the tradition and ethos of the group.36 The true knowledge believers shared is emphasized throughout the Letter. The author writes about things that both he and the addressees are aware of as part of the tradition – they know the Father and Son, their sins are dealt with and they should not sin any more, they are victorious over evil,37 they know the truth, they know the commandments from the beginning. This has the rhetorical effect of cognitive cohesion between author and addressees, sharing in this common knowledge. References to such knowledge may be identified through the use of phrases like ‘you/we know that …’, ‘you have heard …’,38 or the addressees being taught (2:27), that suggest a common traditional frame of knowledge. By simply stating that this is what the readers know and how it is, and this is what should be done, the parameters for behaviour are set. There seems to be no room for contradiction, which implies that these statements are shared knowledge, that is part of the rather fixed traditional knowledge of the Johannine group. This forms the basis for the paraenetical approach in the Letter, that consistently reminds the addressees of the knowledge they share with the orthodox group, thus motivating them to adhere to what they know to be true. They should act according to their existing, shared knowledge that they had from the beginning (2:7) and which is based on the proclamation of the eye-witnesses (1:1–3). This should serve as motivation for the ‘you’ group to seek koinōnia with the ‘us’ group. This shared knowledge should in the first instance be linked to the shared knowledge of the Gospel. It was written for them to believe (J 20:31). This is evident from the similarities in vocabulary and concepts.39 Although the Gospel should be regarded as the main influence, the Letter also reflects information from a wider tradition. There is material that is treated in the Letter but not in the Gospel and vice versa, or material from the Gospel that is treated in more detail in the Letter. These include references to expiation (2:2; 4:10), the stronger development of eschatological motifs, the confession of sin, and so on.40 This echoes broader Johannine or Christian traditions that are not so explicitly mentioned in the Gospel.41

36

Cf. Vol. 1, 251–56. In 1J 2:26 he warns them directly against the deceivers. 38 Cf., e.g., 1J 2:29; 3:5, 13–15; 4:16; 5:18–20. 39 Cf., as example, the commandment of love, references to faith in Jesus who brings life, birth and eternal life, etc. 40 Cf. the comparison of the Gospel and Letters later in Section 4. 41 Cf., e.g., subsections 1.3.3.3 above and 13.7 below. 37

276

Section 1: The First Letter of John

This combination of ‘sources’ suggests a living tradition that is solidly rooted in the Johannine tradition as it is reflected in the Gospel, but goes wider, including a wider Johannine tradition. It is also receptive of other early Christian views. Nevertheless, the Johannine tradition is essentially located in the teaching of Jesus as the eye-witnesses observed it (1:1–5) not shying away from creative application of this tradition. Apart from these ‘sources’ the author adds his own flavour to the argument. He combines tradition (what they know) with his own directives and statements, also adding reasons. In this way his message (and directives) as a whole are imbedded in tradition and thus gain more authority. This shows that tradition was interpreted, leading to conclusions and statements that logically echo this tradition. Motivating ethical behaviour, for instance, is by no means a stagnant repetition of tradition, but a reflective process in which tradition serves as basis for development as well as final control. Dealing with the tradition is both conservative and creative. Knowing of their tradition serves as constant moral guideline for believers. This knowledge covers a comprehensive body of knowledge encompassing a wide spectrum of Christian life. Believers should keep the words of God and in this way they know what to do to satisfy him. Although discernment and decision are necessary, for instance when miming Jesus, tradition always serves as point of orientation for the actions of believers. In this sense it is referential ethics. It is not necessary to remind believers in detail how they should behave, since their tradition is imbedded in their ethos. This has more to do with imbeddedness within a living tradition and less with an objective abstract set of fixed rules of what is right and wrong. The author does not identify himself or claim personal authority in the Letter. He rather emphasizes the centrality and authority of the tradition. He presents himself as the anonymous carrier of this traditional eye-witness message, seeing himself as part of an ongoing process of transmitting the tradition that started and was revealed from the beginning (1:1). Real authority was seated in this Jesus tradition, confirmed and championed by the Spirit of truth, and not in him as the messenger. He also adds authority to his message by aligning his message to the message of God the Father (5:10): ‘he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son’. His testimony is that God’s Son brings life, which overlaps with the basic traditional message the author is witnessing about (cf. 1:2; 4:14). What the author testifies about is confirmed by the testimony of God himself, and is inspired by the witness of the Spirit of truth. To not believe this (his) message is to make God a liar (5:10). This elevates the proclamation and witness of the author to a considerable level of authority that forms the tradition of the Johannine group.

Chapter 7: Some concluding remarks

277

7.9 Growth in virtue? In ancient virtue ethics, it was expected that a person should grow in virtue based on the consistent exercise of such virtue. It was not a matter of a person immediately having a virtue in its fullness, but it was rather a process of growth. In the Letter, a different approach is found. When the author asks his addressees to love their fellow Christians, the intention is not that one should first love a little, next time a little more, and so on, thus ‘growing’ in their love. The reason is because ethics functions within contexts where relationships are fundamental. Believers are not portrayed as people who try to behave properly in order to grow into some mature person, but is seen as people who behave according to who they are, that is, children of God. If they fail in some respects, the Father is willing to forgive them on the basis of their confession of sin and restore the tarnished relationship. This type of argument moves from a position of ‘identity or location’ (being a child of God) rather than from the idea of ‘movement’ (growth). Prescriptions and requests related to behaviour (i.e. paraenesis, imperatives, commandments, etc.) aim at refocussing ethical agents on their relationships and how they ought to behave as children of God. This also explains the necessity of discernment. Believers should consistently reflect on what is expected of them in particular situations, based on their knowledge of the confines of the family of God. Their ethos enables them to behave in an appropriate manner.

7.10 Sin in different forms The concept of sin is addressed in several ways in the Letter and the term is used in a variety of contexts. The source of sin is described in 3:8 and sin that leads to death is mentioned in 5:16, while the statement that the believer cannot sin is made in 3:9–10 and if believers sin, there is forgiveness if they confess their sin (1:7–2:2). In 2:15–17 a practical description is given of people who love this world and not God which suggests a sinful life. In 3:4–15 a short narrative about sin focuses on the origin of sin and the change Jesus made. The devil sinned from the beginning and sin is an expression of his works (3:8). He is the source of this evil and people who sin show that they are of the devil (3:8) and are guilty of lawlessness, since his work, or sin, is lawlessness (3:4). Cain is the stereotypical example of such evil behaviour (3:12). He murdered his brother and thus showed his hatred (i.e. absence of love) through his evil deeds. To define this more closely, sin is not loving your spiritual family (in this case fellow orthodox believers) and not doing what is right. Sin also serves to identify such a person as not being

278

Section 1: The First Letter of John

a child of God, but of the devil, which means that they are spiritually dead (3:14–15). Being spiritually dead is an expression to indicate the lack of any relationship with the true God. The author’s anthropological point of departure is that the whole world is in the power of the evil one (5:19) and is therefore in need of salvation. The cosmic conflict between God and the devil is played out among people in the world. Jesus was sent to destroy the works of the devil (3:8) and this is done by bringing life, allowing people to pass from death to life (3:14). Jesus destroyed the works of evil, by giving a new existence to believers within the family of God. In other words, they are no longer ‘in the power’ of this world, but are born into the family of God. Although they are still living in this earthly world as human beings, they live there as members of a divine reality, namely, the family of God. In this way they conquered the world through their faith in Jesus (5:4–5). This determines their ethical behaviour. They should therefore not behave in a sinful, lawless manner, because they are born of God (3:9). Jesus did not eliminate the influence of the devil in this world completely, but saved his people from this darkness and death by giving them eternal life to live in the light of God (1:7). The attitude of believers towards sinners is touched on in 5:16. Believers are encouraged to pray for those who did not commit mortal sin (5:16), which most probably refer to sin that does not classify a person yet as being spiritually dead, but is also not behaving as a child of God should, of which the ‘you’ group is an example. However, there are also mortal sins, which refers to the rejection of the Father and Son and consequently murdering his family in hatred, as Cain is the stereotypical example. He does not have eternal life in him, but is full of hatred, murder and death. This seems to refer to the children of the devil, or the antichrists who severed their relationship with God and his children. Believers are also warned against love for this world or the things of this world (2:15–17). The lust and pride that are referred to as of this world most probably refer to a decadent lifestyle in which self-love, focus on material possessions, and hubris play a central role, with care for others being forgotten and out of the picture. Such earthly love shows that the Father’s love is not in such a person (cf. 3:17). Life without the love of God is a sinful life, being driven by the desires of this world. Another form of sin is mentioned in 1:6–10, where the reference is to people who claim to have fellowship with God, but do not behave accordingly. These words are directed to the addressees, or the ‘you’ who are lacking in fellowship, co-operation and love. They have not committed a sin which leads to death by rejecting the true confession of Jesus, and are still regarded part of ‘us’. They are encouraged to mend their ways so that they can have fellowship with God and co-operate fully again in love with the orthodox believers. Their trespasses, not showing proper love or co-operation, there-

Chapter 7: Some concluding remarks

279

fore does not completely disqualify them from fellowship with God and other believers, since upon confession of their sins the blood of Jesus will cleanse them from their sins. God is faithful and just to forgive their sins and they will be able to again live in light as he is light. In this process they have the assistance of the Paraclete, the Special Helper with the Father (2:1–2). Directly following the reference to forgiveness, the argument continues that with their sins forgiven, they can obey his commandments and thus be sure that they know him (2:3ff.). Confession of sin is aimed at correcting the tarnished relationship between God and the believer. In 3:9–10 it is stated that a person born of God cannot sin, because such a person is born of God and has His ‘seed’ in him or her. This remark is made within the context of family conventions. A child ought to behave like his or her father and should focus on the well-being of the family. There will not be any desire to act against the will of the father or family, but the child will be righteous as his or her father is righteous. This is also true of the family of God. The children of God will strive to act like the children of God in love and all righteousness. As was seen in 1:7–2:2 this does not exclude that they might make mistakes, which could be corrected through their confession of sin.

7.11 Theo-logy and Christ-ology Lieu correctly mentions that ‘1 John is notable for its theocentricity’.42 God takes centre stage, although Jesus is not absent. In comparing 1 John with the Gospel, the theological ‘shift’ from Jesus to God cannot be denied. For instance, in the Gospel Jesus is light (8:12), while God is light in 1J 1:5. In the Gospel Jesus gives commandments to his people,43 while God is the giver of such commandments in the Letter. The references to love in the Letter focus much more on God than on Jesus. In the Gospel it is not said that believers ‘love God’, but their love for him is evident through their obedience to him, while in the Letter love for God is emphasized.44 Being begotten by God is used more frequently in the Letter to indicate the change in identity, rather than references to Jesus giving life (although such references are not absent in the Letter).45 While in the Gospel abiding in Jesus like a branch in a vine is prominent, abiding in God is favoured in the Letter.46 Could there be a plausible reason for this shift? Some suggest different authors for the Gospel and Letter, separating the two documents theologi42

Lieu (1991:103). God also gives commandments in the Gospel, but they are directed to Jesus. 44 Cf., e.g., 1J 4:20–21; 5:2, 3. 45 Cf., e.g., 1J 4:9; 5:11–12. 46 Cf., e.g., 1J 4:15–16. 43

280

Section 1: The First Letter of John

cally, while others think that the difference in situation should explain the differences. The following suggestion acknowledges the difference in situation, but also suggests rhetorical reasons for the difference.47 The problem with the opponents was Christological in nature: The opponents denied that Jesus came in flesh or was the expected messiah. The addressees, the ‘you’ group, was moving in the direction of the opponents, neglecting their fellowship and love for the orthodox group. In writing to the addressees, the author could have attacked the opponents and their Christological views, going into a discussion about who Jesus Christ is. However, he does not do this, but rather focuses on the problematic behaviour of the addressees, namely, their lack of love for their fellow Christians.48 In doing this, he follows a specific rhetorical strategy. The author does not engage in detail with the erroneous Christology. He rather focuses on a common denominator between the orthodox group and schismatics, namely on God, who is light and love. The schismatics were initially part of the orthodox group, but due to differences in the confession of Christ they separated. They do not believe that Jesus is the messiah, which means that they know and perhaps expect the messiah to come, but does not regard Jesus as such. This description suggests that the schismatics find themselves within a Jewish sphere of influence, which again implies that they also believed in the true God of Israel. This is also the God the orthodox Christians profess, which means that belief in this true God is a common denominator between these two opposing groups. The author rhetorically applies shared belief in God to the validation and acceptance of his Son, Jesus Christ, who is doubted by the opponents. It is this very God of the people of God who showed his love for the world by sending his unique Son into the world in order that people might live through him (4:9). If God is accepted, his loving actions through Jesus Christ, his Son, should also be accepted, which means that Jesus should be accepted as the one who was sent to the world to die on the cross. This is also God’s witness to his Son: God gave people life, and this life is his Son. Not to accept this witness is to call God a liar (5:10). God even commands that people should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ (3:23). Indeed, if a person denies that Jesus is the Christ, he or she denies God the Father and is the antichrist (2:22–23). 47

In light of the above, the ethical material in this Letter should hermeneutically not be interpreted in a too general way. It is very specifically tuned to the crisis situation evident in the Letter that threatens the unity of the Johannine group. This forms both the basis for and the motivation behind these ethical remarks. 48 Cf. his rhetoric about the nature and requirement for love from 3:11–5:3. The author is not yet worried about the confession of the ‘you’ group, that implies that they are not fully in the circle of influence of the opponents. If they were, they would have already accepted the confessional views of the opponents.

Chapter 7: Some concluding remarks

281

In this way the author links the true God to Jesus, resulting in the conclusion: ‘No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also’ (2:23). The author does not argue about the role of Jesus, but simply states that Jesus’ mission is God’s vision for the world. Jesus is therefore directly linked to the God of life, to light and love that gives him the authenticity of the Father himself. This above view is supported by the shift in both vocabulary and theological content in the last part of the Letter (from 5:6 further on), reflecting typical Johannine language regarding the Son and his mission. Some of the language corresponds with that of the Gospel, that is, God is the source of life, which is mediated through his Son who has life, God testifies to the Son, and he or she who has not the Son has not life (5:11–12).49 In addition, the cross (and baptism?) of Jesus is mentioned by referring to water and his (human) blood that has strong witnesses behind it (5:6). By denying this earthly mission and death of Jesus, the testimony of God himself is denied and by doing this God is made a liar (5:10). Again, the emphasis is on God who testifies and should be believed (5:9–10). By rejecting the Son, God and his testimony will be rejected. The reason for accepting this message is not so much based on the authority of the resurrected Jesus (as in the Thomas episode in J 20:28) but on the testimony of God. If a person believes in God and his testimony, he should also believe in Jesus who came by water and blood (5:6), that is, as human and messiah. The author therefore rhetorically aims at convincing the addressees to have koinōnia with the Father and Son (1:3–4) without moving into a detailed debate about Christology, although he confirms the orthodox Christology of the Gospel, especially in the latter part of the Letter. This confirmation also validates the ethical behaviour of believers, who should behave like Jesus did. In sum, rhetorically the author departs from God, as love, light and life, as Father of the family of God, guiding his children through his commandments. This is commonly accepted knowledge – the addressees would not argue against this. This is what they also believe. This accepted knowledge about God is rhetorically used by the author to validate the Son and his mission. Accepting this God also implies that his actions through the incarnated Jesus Christ should be accepted. Jesus Christ, his unique Son, is sent to this world to mediate life and be the expiation for the sins of believers. By accepting the Son, the Father is also accepted, and accepting the Father by default implies accepting the Son whom he sent in flesh. The ethical implications are to follow the example of Jesus, his live, righteousness and purity, and to live like he lived. This is the knowledge the addressees traditionally have and this should motivate them to seek the koinōnia with God and his children.

49

Cf. Vol. 1, 151–63.

282

Section 1: The First Letter of John

7.12 Summary Some of the key aspects of the grammar of ethics in 1 John may be highlighted (only as example and not comprehensively): Some relevant areas John’s choices Source

Function

* God is love and the source of authentic love. * God is light and thus the source enabling proper behaviour. * God is the source of salvation, by loving ‘us’ first and sending his Son to bring eternal life. * The life of Jesus, for instance, his purity, righteousness and love (laying down his life), are ‘models’ to be mimed by believers. * Another, opposing source of love may also be the world and worldly things. Such love is not authentic love, that is, the love of God. * God gives believers a new identity by giving them life through birth, thus making and declaring them children of God. * Being God’s children in his family implies an intimate relationship between God and his children. This unity (Immanenz) is not ontological but is expressed in cognitive and functional synergy. Believers should act like children of God. * Jesus is sent as mediator of life and love. He illustrated what love is by laying down his life for others. His way of living, that is his righteousness, purity, rejection of lawlessness function as ‘model’ for ethical behaviour. * Through the mutual authentic love among believers, God’s love reaches its goal (is perfected). By showing God’s love to fellow believers, the invisible God becomes visible among the members of his family. Love also drives out fear and gives confidence on the Day of Judgment. * The love and care believers show to one another protects their group. Care for the poor is singled out as example of such care. * The guidance of the Spirit ensures correct confession and appropriate and true knowledge. * Koinōnia (relational co-operation) between Father, Son and believers ensures unity in identity and behaviour. This unity is hierarchical between God and believers (believers should obey God), but egalitarian among believers (they should serve one another). * False confession about Christ and deceiving others are characteristics of the antichrists. They oppose the orthodox Christians which is described as hate and murder. * Rhetorically, paraenesis, imperatives and other forms of encouragement appeal to the ‘you’ group to move to a closer relationship with their fellow orthodox Christians.

Chapter 7: Some concluding remarks Context

Conveyance of ethical knowledge

Human nature

Cognitive awareness

283

* A conflict between the orthodox eye-witnesses and the schismatics about Christology forms the context for writing the Letter, with the schismatics trying to deceive the ‘you’ group. * The conflict caused some of the orthodox Christians to move away from their group, apparently being lured away through the deception of the opponents. The aim of the Letter is to put an end to this tendency. * The theological context of the Letter refers to God the Father, who is love and light and gives life. He is the One who sent his Son to the world to mediate life and love as the expiation of sins. The functional space of love is divinely characterized by the Father and by his Son and should be reflected in the identity and behaviour of believers. * The social framework is basically established through the use of family imagery. The relational unity is developed on the basis of the family of God (Immanenz). This forms the physical context within which believers should live by adhering to the confines and requirements of this family of God. * The life of Jesus forms an ethical context for believers to follow. * Authentic love is revealed by God through the mission of his Son. * Jesus reveals what authentic love is by laying down his life for others. * Jesus’ righteousness and purity serve as models for the behaviour of believers. * Knowledge is mediated by the anointing and the work of the Spirit of truth. This also applies to the correct confession of Christ. * God’s Commandments and words guide believers in what is ethically expected of them and expresses the will of God. * Shared knowledge is part of the ethos and tradition of the group, and echoes the Gospel material, as well as wider early Christian convictions. * People are presumed to be in spiritual darkness and death. They are in need of salvation (life) that is mediated through faith in Jesus. * Believers in Jesus will live eternally after receiving forgiveness and life through the Son. * Having eternal life in the family of God has total priority over human nature that focuses on own desires, self-interest and hubris. * Unbelievers, that is the kosmos, are spiritually dead, do not know God, do not listen to his words or accept his salvation. This amounts to mortal sin. * Knowledge of God is networked with the unity (Immanenz) in the family of God that is expressed and confirmed in mutual love and obedience. * Faith involves the acceptance of divine reality as it is revealed through the mission of Jesus to the group. * Discernment is necessary to apply the character of Jesus’ example of self-sacrifice to everyday practice. This implies free will within the unity of the family of God with its required ethical conventions.

284

Section 1: The First Letter of John

The above overarching concepts in the Letter confirm interrelatedness of such concepts as well as their synergy within the grammar of ethics of 1 John. The following table may serve as example and not as a comprehensive presentation of the data in order to give an impression of the logical flow of the ethical thinking in the Letter. Worldview

Identity leads to

Organizing and relating the totality of objects in a person’s personal universe As light and love God is the source of ethics. Jesus was sent as mediator of salvation (bringing life) and love. Being begotten by God introduces believers into the family of God, providing them with a new identity as children of God who have koinōnia with him. They are of God and should be orientated towards him, since they know him.

Values expressed in

Norms/ principles concretized in

Prescription: action prescribed in

Conscious and accepted relative position in worldview

Expressing what is valuable based on identity

Expressing how values can be concretely realized

Prescribing actions based on norms or principles

Believers are children of God, are in him and he in them (Immanenz). They are of God and have God’s love in them. They have eternal life and do not fear the eschatological judgment, since they overcame the world through their faith and their sins are forgiven. Children of the devil do not know God and are of this world.

Believers should reciprocally love and obey God. They confess Jesus for who he is. The well-being for brothers and the family of God through relational cooperation (koinōnia) is important. They walk in God’s light and regard Jesus as the ‘model’ to be mimed. They do not value the world and worldly things.

Love God and obey his commandments, inter alia by believing in Jesus and loving one another to the point of death. Care for and preserve the family of God by helping the needy. Do not succumb to the world and worldly things by lusting for them, being self-centred and full of hubris. Resist the deception of the opponents.

Give own life or anything less required (like earthly goods) to the benefit and assistance of fellow believers. Do not fear the eschatological judgment but have confidence in God. Work together in love (honour the koinōnia). Avoid idols and earthly desires or pride. Confess sins if necessary.

The above table shows the logical flow from identity to physical behaviour, from the acceptance of a particular worldview to actual actions required (morals), thus characterizing the grammar of Johannine ethics as an integrated and structured process.

Section 2

The Second Letter of John

Chapter 8

A possible scenario 8.1 Introduction The Second Letter of John is the second shortest letter in the New Testament, having only thirteen verses. For this reason one cannot confidently speak of a consensus when it comes to some of the issues addressed and especially the details underlying the situation that occasioned the Letter, since the information given is brief and cursory. Nevertheless, on this Lieu1 must be taken seriously, ‘The argument here is that, while we must recognise that the occasional nature of the texts, and our total ignorance of what else the author would have said given space and time, they do reflect theological views both in their expression and in the events which provoked them. The task is both to respect their specificity and to sketch those views as far as possible’. The close links between 1 and 2 John regarding vocabulary2 as well as some basic theological views3 do allow for some enlightening comparisons. The task the interpreter faces in reading 2 John may therefore be compared to building a puzzle without knowing what the picture as a whole looks like. The limited information given in the Letter should not discourage attempts to suggest an acceptable scenario, however. The solution to different problems in the Letter often does not lie with an individual issue but with the plausible networking of various issues in the Letter. As will be shown,4 several scenarios have been suggested by different scholars (i.e., there are several constructions of the puzzle, each one looking [slightly] different). The challenge is to reach a scenario that integrates the pieces of information in the Letter in such a way that the different statements and pieces of information form a plausible synergy, meaning that specific remarks in the Letter could be plausibly explained in the light of and in terms of the other. The scenario that synergizes the information in the Letter most adequately and leaves little or no open or unanswered questions should be regarded as the most probable. The aim here is to consider the different 1

Lieu (1991:97). See, e.g., the use of words like love, truth, kosmos, antichrist, commandment, etc. 3 See, e.g., to love one another, to beware of the influence of false teachers (the apocalyptic antichrist), to live according to the truth, to obey God’s commandments, etc. 4 Cf. subsection 8.3 above. 2

288

Section 2: The Second Letter of John

pieces of the puzzle (through a close reading of the text)5 and consequently to suggest a scenario that addresses the tensions within the text in the most adequate way possible. Some enlightenment in this process may be found in the other Letters of John and even in the Gospel.6 Although some argue for the individuality of each Letter,7 the closeness of 2 and 1 John, as well as the Gospel, cannot be ignored. In light of the particular situation addressed in 2 John, it would be methodologically sound to first observe exegetically what the Letter itself has to say and then to add information from the other sources as a second step, by enlightening, confirming or profiling the issues in 2 John, without erring in the direction of the referential fallacy of trying to create a ‘plausible situation’ behind all these texts from the references in the texts alone.8 1 and 2 John are often read in close unity, especially because of the similarities between the references to love in 1 John and 2J 4–6. Already Ebrard9 referred to similarities in theological form and content, though there are some differences in style according to him. Smalley10 lists some options for explaining the theological resemblance between 1 and 2 John: a) 2 John could have been intended as a first draft of 1 John (also according to Williams); b) 1 John could be an extended version of 2 John;11 c) 2 John could have been a fictitious imitation of 1 John. Smalley then opines that 2 John could have been written shortly after 1 John, since acquaintance with some ideas in 1 John are necessary to understand 2 John.

Some scholars argue for a direct and close link between 1 and 2 John. For instance, Bultmann was influential in claiming that ‘the epistle is not original or theologically independent. It consists essentially of traditional motifs and reminiscences from 1 John’.12 Lieu even argues that the Presbyter uses

5

The intention is not a comprehensive analysis of all opinions, but at least a significant number of the major options will be considered to observe some of the dominant tendencies. 6 Cf. Brown in his 1986 commentary. 7 Lieu (1986; 1991:91; 2008). 8 Hakola (2010:35) warns against over-interpretation, especially referential fallacy where scholars use scattered allusions in the text, for instance, to construct the historical situation outside the text or to reconstruct the exact thinking of the opponents. If a particular issue in 2 John is described in terms of the Letter itself, similarities of differences with the other two Letters will be noted. Obviously 2 John is also influenced by Gospel material, especially in the first six verses. These verses partly overlap with material from 1 John that are also related to the Gospel, which means that it also overlaps with what is said in 2 John. References to the overlaps with the Gospel will not be repeated here. 9 Ebrard (1860:359). 10 Smalley (2002:315, 328). 11 Marshall (1978:10) thinks that 2 John was written to the same community as 1 John, though earlier. 12 Bultmann (1973:110).

Chapter 8: A possible scenario

289

1 John, especially in the first part of the Letter, for the sake of authority.13 Rensberger14 is of the same opinion, namely, that there is no difference in the settings of 1 and 2 John and that 2 John is not much more than a summary of 1 John, while Schnackenburg refers to the ‘gesicherte nahe Verwandtschaft von 1 und 2 Joh’.15 Dwight Moody Smith calls 2 John ‘a pale imitation’16 of 1 John, underscoring and supporting the teaching of 1 John, while Streett is of the opinion that 2 John ‘primarily reiterates the main points of 1 John concerning the opponents’.17 Not everybody is so comfortable with these claims of closeness between 1 and 2 John, however.18 Even if one takes the closeness of these two Letters seriously, one should not overlook the valid reasons for reading 2 John as a letter to specific addressees in a specific situation, with (a) specific problem(s) giving it an individuality of its own, even though it drinks from the same theological fountain.19 2 John should, therefore, not be regarded as just a general letter or copy of 1 John, but as an independent letter, making use of the Johannine vocabulary and tradition. The link between 2 and 3 John is based on the use of similar vocabulary (e.g., the use of the concept of truth) as well as the apparent problem of ‘visiting missionaries’. According to some scholars this issue is approached from different angles which creates some tensions in the interpretation of these two Letters.

It is widely assumed that the Letters of John are situational documents, implying that their aim, content, composition and rhetoric were determined by, and should be related to, the situation they addressed at the turn of the first century.20 It is to be expected that the ethical comments will be aligned to the situation addressed. If a scenario is constructed and the ethics is then interpreted in light of this proposed scenario, the methodological question arises as to whether this does not amount to circular argumentation in establishing the situational context and then interpreting the ethics in terms of that scenario. Falling into the trap of circular argumentation is of course a constant danger, but this should not discourage attempts to propose the most plausible scenario, based on the available data in the text and done in a responsible, controlled and critical way.21 An approach using a close exegetical reading of the text, not using 13

Lieu (2008:239–40). Rensberger (2001:107). 15 Schnackenburg (1984:305). 16 DM Smith (1991:14, 18). 17 Streett (2011:3, 256ff.). 18 Cf. discussions in Du Rand (1997:153–58) and Rensberger (2001:107). 19 Cf. vv. 10–11, which are not found in 1 John, although this seems to have some connection to 3 John. 20 Locating the time of writing of the Letters at the turn of the first century is widely accepted; cf., e.g., Marshall (1978:47–48), Smalley (1984:xxxii), Brown (1986:101), Johnson (1993:4) and Menken (2010:16). 21 Cf. Lieu (2008a:805–19). 14

290

Section 2: The Second Letter of John

external interpretative material or scenarios22 too quickly, aiming at addressing any obvious tensions intra-textually and suggesting a synergy of the remarks addressing the situation described in the text, should assist in testing the validity and applicability of a particular scenario. This is of course more an approach to the data in the text than a method (although different exegetical methods are of course used in analysing the text). In the end, it remains a hypothesis, but at least a well-argued one, allowing for open and critical evaluation. No claim is made about the reality outside the text or that it was identical to the description in the text (i.e. referential fallacy). However, communication requirements suggest that religious texts aiming at convincing people rhetorically to favour one or other position, should correspond as closely as possible to the real situation. Religious letters like the Johannine Letters do not pretend to be fiction or only general remarks devoid of any reality, but intend to address a particular situation of crisis – they want to proclaim, warn, convince, remind, teach, etc. They are performative texts that aim to influence and move people in their convictions and actions. This suggests a close proximity between the perception of the situation by the author and the situation itself. Without such proximity, the performative nature of the text will make little sense.

Because of the danger of falling into abstract, ahistorical remarks, and in light of the above remarks, it is required that a plausible scenario be suggested, based on the available data in the Letter. A scenario is therefore imperative in order to suggest the space (who, why, when, in what situation, etc.) within which the ethics should be understood. What follows is formulating the suggested scenario upfront and then motivating this scenario by arguing in detail the different aspects of the suggested scenario in light of other possibilities and scenarios. Since considering the possibilities is a complex process (the lack of data hinders the refinement of a scenario and consequently allows for more possibilities), some detailed arguments (that might be tiresome) investigating the synergy of the remarks in the Letter might be necessary.

8.2 The structure of 2 John This short Letter is complex in its brevity. Several major themes are interwoven, giving the Letter a specific focus within the broader theological framework of Johannine ethics.

22 This would also mean that the Gospel material will not be applied too quickly to interpret what is being said in the Letters, although I am of the opinion that the Gospel and Letters share a common tradition.

Chapter 8: A possible scenario

291

The thematic structure of 2 John is rather straight forward, however: A) Greetings (normal in ancient letters): vv. 1–3 B) Appeal to love one another in truth, according to the commandments: vv. 4–6 C) Warning against deceivers and the antichrist with false doctrines: vv. 7–1123 D) Final greetings (normal in ancient letters) with hope expressed to come and visit the addressees: vv. 12–13

Two basic issues are addressed, namely, loving behaviour is encouraged (B) and the addressees are warned against deceivers with false doctrines (C). These two issues are interconnected, implying that they should be interpreted in terms of one another. In v. 7, where the author switches from encouraging love (vv. 4–6) to the danger the deceivers pose (v. 7–11), the causal particle ὅτι (‘for that/because’24) is used to syntactically link these two thematic sections together, that is, love is necessary because there is danger of deception. In interpreting the Letter and developing a scenario, this basic connection between the two sections, namely, love and deception, should not be overlooked.

8.3 The preferred scenario for 2 John A good point of departure is to first describe the preferred scenario followed in dealing with 2 John. A more detailed motivation and rationale for the preferred scenario will afterwards be discussed, arguing why the suggested scenario is preferable.25 8.3.1 The preferred scenario The author identifies himself as ‘the Presbyter (Elder)’ (v. 1) who inter alia seems to be responsible for securing sound teaching and doctrine in the Christian groups under his influence. The author presents himself as somebody who has authority, which he exercises with some politeness (v. 5) rather than forcing it onto the addressees. The Presbyter writes to ‘the elect lady and her children’ (v. 1), most probably a figurative family (of God – church) with at least the lady’s physical family as a core of the group. It seems that some of the members (‘her children’) of this group are not behaving as they should and are not showing the love for their fellow believers (family members) as they should (vv. 5–6, 8), suggesting a relational problem. In other words, within the lady’s group 23

In vv. 7–9 there is a movement of focus to outsiders who are trying to deceive the group. In vv. 10–11 practical arrangements are made in connection with receiving visitors who do not carry this doctrine. 24 Arndt et al. (2000:1266). 25 Cf. Van der Watt (2015).

292

Section 2: The Second Letter of John

there are members (spiritual children, probably also including physical children) who do not behave as is expected, who are opposed to those behaving in truth (v. 4), creating social tensions within the group. This impacts on the social bonding, co-operation and love within the lady’s group. The members of this deviating part of the group are still called ‘children’ of the lady by the Presbyter, that is, they are still regarded as part of the lady’s group, but their behaviour is criticized based on their non-compliance to the responsibility to love one another.26 A third relevant ‘group’ is also identified, namely, ‘the deceiver and antichrist’ (v. 7). The lady’s group is said to be under threat of these deceivers (v. 7)27 who are not directly regarded as part of her group, but are somehow associated with the larger Johannine community. These deceivers could have been travelling visitors and/or some locals (both known and unknown, from the area) who wanted to doctrinally deceive the lady’s group with their false teachings about Christ (vv. 7, 9). They consequently aimed at visiting the lady’s house (group) in order to share and discuss their deviating views about Christ coming in the flesh (v. 7), meaning that this was not a private or personal visit, but a ‘religious’ one. The lady, who was seemingly able to identify (at least some of) these locals, since they (or some of them) were locally known to her, is encouraged by the Presbyter to show them the door, based on their doctrinal deviance. She should not even greet them nor have any social or religious dealings with them, most probably since she knew what they stood for. In this manner, her group is not identified with the deceivers. This is a social and public statement of disassociation. However, hospitality in the strict sense of the word is not involved when it comes to locals, as it is with travelling visitors. Discouraging social and religious contact, that is, not giving the deceivers a chance to spread their deception, is the strategy the Presbyter suggests for preventing deception, negatively influencing the lady’s group or threatening co-operation and unity within the group. Not complying, may cost the group everything they had worked for (v. 8). This underlines the extent of the threat – it involves their identity as a whole and indeed their existence as family of God. The problem is even more complex: although it is not directly mentioned, these deceivers might influence or have already influenced the lady’s misbehaving (spiritual) children (v. 4). Therefore, the Presbyter implores the lady to strengthen the inner-group relations through love, since God commands it and this will ensure they all live their lives in truth. In this way the Presbyter 26

This calls to mind a similar situation in 1 John with the ‘us’ and ‘you’ groups that are separate but nevertheless overlap. 27 Although the singular is used, the reference at the beginning of v. 7 is to deceivers, i.e. more than one or a group. The reference is not to a single person, but to anybody who behaves like this deceiver. It refers to an opposing group that shares these deceptive views.

Chapter 8: A possible scenario

293

aims at keeping the lady’s group sound while countering the influence of the deceivers.28 One main difference from the other dominant stream of scenarios relates to their claim that hospitality plays a key role here. If hospitality is involved, it implies that these visitors were not locals that were known, but part of a wider (deviant) missionary movement that seemingly advocated, for instance, a docetic-related view of Christ. This alters the relationship between the lady and the visitors, and changes the view of the misbehaving children (v. 4), making their behaviour a problem of its own, apart from the problem with the deceivers. However, it also creates some problems with the synergy of the material that will be shown in the section following. The view taken here is that focus on hospitality is a weaker option than the one suggested above, as will be argued later. 8.3.2 Motivating the preferred scenario 8.3.2.1 The Presbyter and the lady The introduction to the Letter (vv. 1–3) offers a picture of unity, based on love and truth as cohesive forces between the author (Presbyter) and two other groups, namely, the ‘elect lady with her children’ (addressees), and a wider group, namely, ‘all those who know the truth’ (v. 1). a) The Presbyter What do we know about the author (the Presbyter)? He does not identify himself by name, but writes with a measure of authority (he requests and warns, but does not demand – vv. 5, 8)29 to another group of believers, representing and defending the truth and propagating mutual love among the group. As defender of this truth, he implies that anything that goes against these convictions does not qualify as truth and might even cause believers to lose what they have worked for (v. 8). Schnelle describes the Presbyter as ‘ein charismatischer Lehrer und Traditionsträger …, der zugleich als Gemeindeleiter eine rechtliche Autorität in Anspruch nimmt.’30 The Presbyter (implicitly) associates the lady and her children to the group he represents, thus assuming shared views. In vv. 1–2 the Presbyter identifies himself with the ‘us’, that is, ‘all who know the truth’ (v. 1). This includes all who adhere to the truth, widening considerably the group that the Presbyter 28 Brown (1986:643) gives a general characterization of the Letter, ‘A letter from the Presbyter to a church warning against any reception of secessionist teachers who are spreading christological and moral errors (of the type described more fully in 1 John)’. Cf. also Du Rand (1997:174). 29 Cf. Lieu (1991:91–92). 30 Schnelle (2010:20).

294

Section 2: The Second Letter of John

represents.31 A grammatical movement from first to second person serves as a form of identification between the author and the recipients. In vv. 5–6, the author speaks of ‘us’ (which could include him and his group) who love one another (v. 5). He then moves to the addressees who should also love one another like the ‘us’ did, identifying author and addressees. Similarly, in v. 8 they are asked to look after themselves (βλέπετε ἑαυτούς) so that ‘you’ might not lose (ἀπολέσητε) what ‘we’32 worked for (ἃ εἰργασάµεθα). This rhetorical strategy strengthens the relation between author and addressees.33 This is the same rhetorical technique that was used in 1 John.34 Schnackenburg, therefore, calls this a ‘Gemeindebrief’ that was written ‘aus einem bestimmten seelsorgerischen Anlaß’.35 The author’s continual relationship with this ‘Gemeinde’ is further expressed in vv. 13–14, where he states that he plans to visit them to discuss some other issues, perhaps not of similar urgency or importance than the two issues mentioned in the Letter.36 b) The lady and her children The addressees, the lady and her children, are perceived as an individual group which is not isolated, but are part of a larger group, namely, ‘all who know the truth’ (vv. 1–2), relating and identifying them with a particular wider tradition and ethos. An important issue is whether the addressees are a single physical person (a lady) with her children or whether the expression ‘lady and her children’ should be understood figuratively as referring to a group (church).37 31

Paul uses the argument of a broader community to increase the authority of his message – cf. 1 Thes 1:8, Col 1:6. 32 Some ancient manuscripts read ‘you’ here. Metzger (1994:652–53) comments on this as follows, ‘Despite the relatively meagre external evidence supporting the reading εἰργασάµεθα, on internal considerations the Committee was persuaded that the delicate nuance (“… that you do not destroy the things which we, apostles and teachers, wrought in you”) is more likely to be due to the author than to copyists. On transcriptional grounds also this reading best explains the origin of the second person verb, which arose through a levelling process.’ Cf. Ebrard (1860:389–90) for an earlier view. 33 Johnson (1993:153) sees the ‘we’ as inclusive of the author and the lady’s church. The reason for this identification might be that their relation (author and addressees) could also be put under threat by the schismatics who aim to deceive the lady’s group, thus setting them against the Presbyter (Brown 1986:684). 34 Cf. subsection 1.1.2.1 above. 35 Schnackenburg (1984:304). 36 The Letters were occasional writings. One of their characteristics is that they usually focused on important issues that needed to be communicated, as in this case. Other issues without the same urgency could wait (vv. 12–13). 37 This will influence the scenario, for instance, in questions of where and in which situation the opponents knocked on the door, what type of hospitality was being addressed in vv. 10–11 and whether the Letter is referring to a network of churches or just one.

Chapter 8: A possible scenario

295

Several suggestions have been made about the reference of the phrase ‘elect lady and her children’:38 – The phrase might be taken literally, implying that the elect lady (ἐκλεκτὴ κυρία) is an individual39 and the children are her physical family. Several efforts have been made by those accepting this view to identify this individual, for instance, as Electra (Clement); the noble Kyria;40 a gentile proselyte widow (Harris); just an anonymous dear lady (Ramsay); a specific woman who was the leader of a house church41 (Edwards42); Martha, and so on. – The phrase is often interpreted figuratively, implying that the ‘elect lady and her children’ refer to a Christian group (church) with its members (‘children’).43 Painter44 goes so far as to opine that it is conclusive that the reference is to a church group since the concluding greeting in v. 13 calls the Presbyter’s church ‘elect sister’, which should be interpreted in relation to the lady of v. 1. The reference seems to be to ‘sister churches’, activating the metaphorical world of spiritual families.45 – Others are of the opinion that the phrase might be taken as a reference to the universal church, or the church at large.46 This would imply that 2 John is a general letter. Along these lines, Bultmann47 interprets the Letter as catholic, being addressed simultaneously to several churches. – If it is a single family, that is, the lady with her physical children who also share in the family of God, it would mean that two relevant relations come into play: there is a direct physical filial relation, which will always be there, irrespective of the beliefs of the different members of the community. There will also be a religious (metaphorical) filial relationship between those who believe and act in truth (some might be figurative but not physical children). This could then explain that only ‘some’ of the children act in truth

38 For overviews, cf. Brown (1986:652–55), Guthrie (1996:887), Edwards (2001:27– 29), Akin (2001:219) and Smalley (2002:316). 39 So already Clement of Alexandria in his Hypotyposeis. 40 Cf. Athanasius, and later Ebrard, Bengel and de Wette. 41 Painter (2002:334) argues against this possibility, since in v. 13 there is an equivalent expression that refers to a ‘sister’ church. Apart from that, according to him, ‘children’ in v. 1 should be taken figuratively – they are not her physical children. Johnson (1993:147– 48) takes this as evidence for the existence of a family (metaphorically speaking) of churches within the same geographical area. 42 Edwards (2001:27–29) discusses different possibilities in detail. Cf. Bultmann (1973:107), Brown (1986:651) and Watson (1989:106). 43 Cf., e.g., Gibbens, Houlden, Bultmann, Schnackenburg, Williams, Brown, Marshall, Painter, Smalley, and others. 44 Painter (2002:333). 45 Cf. Watson (1989:115). 46 Cf. Jerome, Oecumenius, Bede and Schmiedel. 47 Bultmann (1973:107).

296

Section 2: The Second Letter of John

(share faith in the teachings) while the others do not act accordingly. They are all children, but not all are believers or at least act as believers should. The view that the lady and her children should be interpreted figuratively as a religious group (i.e. church) represents the majority view and indeed seems the most plausible. The implication is that the visit mentioned in v. 10 involves a religious meeting and is not a ‘private’ visit with an individual lady (option a).48 If the relationship between the Presbyter and the lady is a religious one (which obviously does not exclude social or personal relations, but these are not in focus), it relativizes the importance of the problem of whether the ‘lady and her children’ represent a private group or perhaps a larger house church (the numbers would also be relatively small since it is a house church).49 From a religious perspective, the size does not matter, regardless of whether it is a single family or a few more families (house church). The same would apply to all: they must live in truth according to the commandments, loving one another. The same applies to the hospitality (if at all required); whether it was a small or larger group, the expectations regarding hospitality (or not) would be the same. In a larger group, the person(s) representing the group or who are appointed by the group would have the responsibility to serve as host on behalf of the whole group. When it comes to the social position of this religious group, several possibilities present themselves. – The lady and the Presbyter are seen as part of a network of house churches50 of which the Presbyter was most probably the, or at least a, leader. Painter proposes a situation where a network of house churches are addressed individually. ‘This assumes that we are dealing with a group of local churches where the threat of “deceivers” was real’.51 Obviously, a common tradition and teaching form the foundation of the relationship between the different parties.

48

This decision will, for instance, impact on the type of reception intended and the purpose of the visit, as well as on the nature of the network of churches (if there was indeed a network). 49 Smalley (2002:333), for instance, remarks, ‘The “house” (οἰκίαν) to which access by the heretics is to be denied may refer to the dwelling of an individual member of the Johannine church. But more probably it denotes the “house” in which one section of that community met for worship (a “house church”) … John is not therefore forbidding private hospitality, but rather an official welcome into the congregation, with the widespread opportunities which would then be available for the heretics to promote their cause’. 50 See εἰς οἰκίαν in v. 10 as well as τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἀδελφῆς σου in v. 13. Cf. Malherbe (1983:691) and Painter (2002:333–34, 347). 51 Painter (2002:334; also 347). Cf. Ebrard (1860:372–73), Brown (1986:676) and Johnson (1993:161–62).

Chapter 8: A possible scenario

297

– The possibility that the lady’s group was not so tightly bound to that of the Presbyter should also be considered, suggesting a more loose relationship with the Presbyter’s group. That would, for instance, explain the care the Presbyter in v. 5 takes in ‘requesting’ (sometimes translated as ‘begging’ – ἐρωτῶ) instead of ‘asking’ or ‘commanding’. – Another possibility is offered, namely, that the Presbyter represents the traditional orthodox group (which is also referred to in 1J 1:1–4) that sees itself as representing true (Johannine) Christianity that forms the basis of tradition and doctrine. They oppose the actions of opponents and therefore warn all ‘related’ groups (everywhere) about deception and false prophets. This would suggest a more formal than personal situation and would add to the authority behind the Letter. The idea of a network of house churches is favoured by most, suggesting participation in a wider tradition and shared dogma (by those who know the truth and in whom the truth abides – vv. 1–2), forming a common bond between the different churches and groups that are represented by the Presbyter.52 This view may also be supported by the idea that the deceivers have gone out (of the orthodox Johannine group – v. 7) and are therefore ‘exJohannine believers’ who might still have some affinity to the views of the orthodox group. The Presbyter’s hesitancy to ‘command’ the lady (i.e. to force his own authority on her) but rather to ask politely,53 is suggested in v. 5 by the choice of the term ἐρωτῶ54 (to ‘request’). The preferred translation of this word here is in question. It is interpreted by many as semantically more nuanced than merely asking (αἰτέω), and possibilities for translating it into English include praying,55 beseeching,56 pleading,57 begging,58 urging,59 or something along 52

This networking of groups sharing identity and tradition, is common in New Testament times, and was continued into the following centuries. This also serves as argument for the networking of the three Letters of John. 53 Brown (1986:683) notes that the author seems to be very polite, especially here. This does not mean that he does not view himself to be in a position of authority, which becomes evident in vv. 8–10: ‘with all his formal politeness he expects cooperation’. Schnackenburg (1984:304) opines, ‘er schreibt autoritativ und doch väterlich-warm’. Cf. also Strecker (1989:346). 54 Arndt et al. (2000:ad loc.) distinguish between two uses for this word, a) ‘to put a query to someone, ask, ask a question’ or b) ‘to ask for someth., ask, request’ or ‘beseech’ (cf. also Schenk 1978:57–58). The former meaning of asking a question is not relevant in this context; the latter, asking, beseeching or requesting is. Liddell and Scott (1996:ad loc.) list beg and entreat as translation possibilities, however. 55 1953 Afrikaans translation; Statenvertaling. 56 KJV, ASV, Young. 57 NKJV. 58 RSV. 59 Holman Christian Standard Bible.

298

Section 2: The Second Letter of John

these lines. The Presbyter, as leader, guides the ‘lady and her children’ with sensitivity (politely – ἐρωτάω, v. 5). This polite rather than overly authoritative attitude is a problem to some, but might suggest care taken by the author not to alienate the lady, who has an ‘in house’ problem with her ‘children’. This view is semantically convincing and supports the idea of a wider circle under the Presbyter’s influence. Furthermore, this term semantically seems to carry some form of urgency. It does not refer to casual asking, but rather implies that the author feels that the commandments related to truth, and love, may come under pressure and he must, therefore, politely plead or urge that the commandments should be obeyed for the sake of the group’s spiritual health.60 c) Children of the lady (not following the truth?) When dealing with the group of the lady, a crux interpretum is the reference in v. 4 that only ‘some’ of the children are living in the truth: ‘I rejoiced that some of your children (ἐκ τῶν τέκνων σου) are walking in the truth’. Strecker61 specifically notes that the Presbyter shies away from mentioning that ‘all’ live in the truth, an issue that Watson62 regards as the main concern of the Letter. This poses the reader with some problems: why are only some63 found to be walking in the truth? This seems to imply that others are not and if so, are they still to be regarded as part of the group, or are they already aligning with the deceivers? If they are already part of the deceivers, why does the Presbyter still classify them as children of the lady whom he loves (v. 1)? Two major lines of interpretation should be distinguished: – The first option is that the remark that only ‘some’ lived in the truth need not imply that others did not live in the truth. Brown64 argues that this partitive genitive need not necessarily mean that some are living according to the truth while others are not – it might mean that some are, without implying that others are not living in the truth. Like Strecker,65 he adds, that it would be strange for the author to refer negatively to some of the children of the lady in the captatio benevolentiae where rhetorically the goodwill of the reader must be secured. It is also doubtful whether the Presbyter would refer to those who do not live in the truth as children of the lady. An explanation as 60 Brown (1986:664) warns against over-interpretation of this word – he opines that it is not begging or praying but that a translation such as ‘requesting’ should suffice. This is confirmed by the warning in v. 8 that they beware lest they deviate from this road. Nevertheless it does not take away from the increased urgency and emphasis placed on this word. 61 Strecker (1989:327). 62 Watson (1989:110). 63 ἐκ τῶν τέκνων is a partitive genitive – cf. Brown (1986:661). 64 Brown (1986:661). 65 Strecker (1989:327). Cf. also Edwards (2001:30).

Chapter 8: A possible scenario

299

to why the Presbyter formulated the sentence in this way should then be provided. Within a situation where members of the individual churches travelled and visited one another, it is suggested that the Presbyter only met some but not all and cannot say anything about those he did not meet.66 Therefore, in all honesty he can only refer to those whom he met (the ‘some’). – The second option is that the reference to ‘some’ who live in the truth indeed implies that there are other children who are not living in the truth, a situation which became clear through their lack of love in the group (vv. 4– 6).67 This suggests that there might have been perceivable tension in the lady’s group that had not yet resulted in a total schism, at least not as far as ‘the children’ are concerned, but behaviour (love) and dogmatic opinion (truth) showed clear signs of concrete deviation among them. Johnson indeed opines that ‘not all of them are walking in the truth, for some have joined the secession’,68 while Smalley remarks, ‘the letter is addressed to a church family which is undergoing schism’.69 In this regard Strecker notes that the remark about ‘some’ who are not walking in the truth are preparing the reader ‘sachlich’70 for the remarks about unity and future loving behaviour that follow. If it is assumed that the ‘other children’ do not live according to the truth (v. 4), a plausible assumption seems to be: the lady’s group is experiencing a practical crisis in the sense that some of her members are deviating from the unifying practices and perhaps doctrine of the group and could most probably have opened themselves to the influence of false teachers. In other words, an (initial) form of separation (whatever that might imply, and there are differences of opinion about this) is in progress within the lady’s group. It might be

66

Cf. Marshall (1978:65), Kruse (2000:207), Akin (2001:225) and Schnelle (2010:23). Ebrard (1860:385) approaches this problem from another angle, namely, that ‘the Presbyter conceals the blame he has to express under the form of limitation of his praise’. According to him the absence of the article here should not be interpreted as a reference that the Presbyter only met some. ‘On the contrary, the failure of the article gives more distinctiveness and prominence to the idea of “some”’. Strecker (1989:327) also argues that these words are not meant as criticism (‘Damit ist keine indirekte Kritik ausgesprochen’), but are a statement of fact, since the situation already exists. 68 Johnson (1993:152). 69 Smalley (2002:323). Bultmann (1973:111) thinks that those not included in the ‘some’ are ‘the gnosticizing heretics’ addressed in the rest of the Letter. This remains an assumption based on a suggested ideological background. In any case is it problematic that children of the lady could be called heretics. Cf. also Haas et al. (1972:164). 70 Strecker (1989:327). Cf. also Ebrard (1860:384) and Painter (2002:347). A direct relation of content between vv. 4 and 5–6 is logically expected – there is no real reason why these verses should be interpreted as unrelated, especially not, since a copulative (καί) links the two. 67

300

Section 2: The Second Letter of John

that they form a ‘middle group’71 that have little (yet) to do with the deceivers, but that this might become a threatening possibility since their relational links with and love for the lady were getting weaker as is evident from their lives that are no longer ‘in the truth’.72 This echoes the similar situation that confronted the addressees of 1 John. A century and half ago Ebrard73 proposed that the ‘other children’ must in some or other way be associating with the deceivers: the Presbyter ‘had heard concerning the latter that they had entered into some kind of fellowship with false teachers and that their love for the Church and the children of God had grown cold’.74 This suggestion favours a more local threat, of course. However, it is not suggested that these ‘other children’ are already associated in some way to the deceivers, since the Presbyter then would most probably not have called them ‘children of the lady’,75 except if they were physical children. It is also not suggested that they were part of those asking for entrance into the house (v. 10), or else the refusal to accept them might be seen as a form of excommunication or completed schism, which is not implied in the Letter. However, it cannot be excluded that (some of the) deceivers are known to them and the lady, that is presumably as locals who hold deceiving views.76 The deceivers are also not mentioned by name, but are only identified by the stereotyped and vilifying terms ‘antichrist’ and deceivers. This might 71

This would be in line with the situation found in 1 John, where the addressees who indeed started to follow the deceivers were still reckoned as being part of the ‘us’ (orthodox group) in spite of their negative behaviour. Strecker (1989:327) even refers to 3 John and opines that this situation could relate to the problems with Diotrephes, if, of course, 3 John was written before 2 John, as he argues. This is improbable, since there is little or no evidence that the conflict in 3 John was theological in nature (cf. subsection 11.2 below). The issue was rather related to a power struggle (cf. Malherbe 1977:92–112). 72 Painter (2002:347) deals with the possibility that if the church of the lady still recognized these people as part of them or somehow members, ‘it would not have served the Elder’s purpose to ignore them’. The question is rather whether the church was already troubled by this group. To what extent this had already happened cannot be established with certainty, but what should be accepted is that problems were imminent, if not already present. 73 Ebrard (1860:385). 74 Smalley (2002:327) formulates it aptly, ‘it therefore seems reasonable to suppose that the continuing disintegration of John’s circle, clearly evident in the congregation addressed by the present writer, was brought about by the increasing dominance of schismatics with a docetically inclined estimate of the person of Jesus’. 75 Menken (2010:122) opines that it must have been a ‘group in between’ that does not (yet) form part of the opponents, since if the latter was already true, it would have been impossible for that author to still regard them as ‘children’. 76 No mention is made of a letter of recommendation as is the case in 3 John, which might imply that these visitors did not need letters of introduction. And argument from silence is always quite hypothetical.

Chapter 8: A possible scenario

301

suggest that the movement is not centred on an influential person (e.g., like Diotrephes in 3 John) but represents a broader movement. That might also be the reason why the Presbyter uses hypothetical statements, like, ‘any one’ (Πᾶς ὁ προάγων – v. 9) or ‘if any one’ (εἴ τις ἔρχεται – v. 10). 8.3.2.2 The nature of the threat The lady and her children are faced with two problems, one internal and the other external: a) internally, there are problems with mutual love, cooperation and ‘keeping the full reward’, and b) externally, there is a threat of deceivers with false doctrines. The internal threat relates to social bonding, that is the love for one another within the group of the lady and her children (vv. 4–6). Since love is the main ethical issue in this Letter as is the case in 1 John, it is discussed in more detail later on.77 The external threat relates to Christology. The confession acknowledging the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh separates those who know the truth, from the deceivers (v. 7).78 In vv. 9–10 another important phrase is used in this regard, namely, remaining in the doctrine of Christ (µένων ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ). Whether this is a subjective (doctrine by Christ) or objective genitive (doctrine about Christ) is not so important for our purposes,79 since the two aspects are interrelated. What is important is that a set of teachings that echoes the truth (vv. 1–4) is identified, referring to the Jesus tradition, determining the identity of the group. As is the case in 1 John, it is a matter of accepting the tradition about Christ as a whole and not just selective points of the teaching. Obviously, accepting Jesus as the one who came in the flesh also has ramifications for soteriology, eschatology and, not the least, ethics.80 The negative influence these deceivers could have on the ‘lady and her children’ (v. 8) was a real concern of the Presbyter81 and therefore he 77

Cf. subsection 9.2 below. Commentators often link this problem to the problem in 1 John (cf. Edwards 2001:31). 79 Cf. Brown (1986:674–75) and Smalley (2002:332) who opt for the subjective genitive; Ebrard (1860:392), Schnackenburg (1984:315) and Painter (2002:354) prefer the objective genitive. Cf. J 7:16–17 and 18:19. 80 Smalley (2002:332) points out that confession and a life in love and truth cannot be separated in 2 John. He therefore contends that ‘the “evil deeds” (v. 11) in which participation is anticipated may either be doctrinal (spreading a false Christology) or ethical (denying the importance of love)’ (ibid. 334). This is even too compartmentalized – both are most probably implied. 81 Smalley (2002:334) identifies the aim of the prohibitions in 2 John correctly, when remarking, ‘the presbyter is warning the members of his community against the dangers of entertaining heretics and their views in such a way as to strengthen and develop their erroneous position, and so compromise the truth (cf. v 4)’. 78

302

Section 2: The Second Letter of John

suggested measures that would curb the influence of the schismatics and prevent the lady from losing what they had worked for (v. 8). The author of the Letter now wants to guide them pastorally in dealing with this situation by encouraging co-operation in love according to the truth. Schnackenburg confirms this, ‘Die innere Geschlossenheit und brüderliche Verbundenheit sind ihm offenbar der stärkste Garant für die Festigkeit der christlichen Gemeinde gegenüber den gefährlichen Einflüssen, denen sie durch Irrlehrer ausgesetzt ist’.82 8.3.2.3 Who were the deceivers and antichrists (v. 7)? The main lines of argument that are offered when it comes to the identity of the deceivers are: a) that they were travelling missionaries (needing hospitality) or b) that they (or at least some of them) were local teachers who were known to the lady.83 The opponents are identified and vilified, but are not specifically mentioned by name, but rather by functional identity.84 They are called deceivers (πλάνοι) and antichrists (ἀντίχριστοι),85 as is explained in v. 7, because they did not acknowledge that Jesus came in the flesh,86 implying that they do not abide in or bring the authentic doctrine of Christ (vv. 9–10).87 The action lines describing these many (πολλοί88) deceivers reveal interesting information about them. Firstly, they ‘have gone out into the world’ (ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὸν κόσµον – v. 7). This phrase refers to movement from a specific space, which in this context seems to be the group of the lady, into another space that is called ‘the world’, that is the reality opposing God. Brown emphasizes these religious undertones, namely, that these false teachers joined 82

Schnackenburg (1984:304). Cf. also Rensberger (2001:114). Schnelle (2010:31) mentions the possibility that these false teachers might have been known to the congregation and could then immediately be identified. 84 It is common in ancient cultures that enemies were not identified by name. This is also evident in Pauline letters (like Philippians, Colossians) and 2 Peter or Jude, to name a few. 85 Haas et al. (1972:168) are of the opinion that these terms might even have served as titles. 86 Schnelle (2010:29) links this way of thinking to Docetism that separates the divine and the material realities, ‘wonach der Körper, das Fleisch als Vergängliches nicht heilsrelevant sein können’. Streett (2011:4, 173ff.) is of the opinion, however, that there is ‘no special anti-docetic thrust to the confession’. The use of these terms also suggests a thematic link with the opponents and antichrists mentioned in 1 John. 87 Strecker (1989:346) reminds us that this is an inner-Christian conflict, since the false teachers were also carrying a message of Christ. They are not called antichrists for nothing. 88 According to Brown (1986:668), ‘many’ could refer to the seriousness of the matter (cf. Schnackenburg 1984:312) or it could imply that the schismatics are more than those left within the fold of the lady. Cf. Johnson (1993:155). 83

Chapter 8: A possible scenario

303

‘the realm of darkness and deceit ruled by the devil, its Prince’,89 underlined by their wicked works (v. 11). Smalley is of the opinion that this ‘going out’ (ἐξῆλθον – an aorist) ‘marks a decisive stage in the breakup of John’s community’.90 As in 1J 2:19, those who went out have been ‘once part of the community’,91 but they have now separated themselves from the community of the lady and have gone into the world, most probably also ‘making an appearance in other areas of the Johannine Community’.92 By going out, they by implication have ‘gone ahead’ (προάγων – v. 9), suggesting a point from where these people moved out (from somewhere) and have gone ahead (of somebody or something), that is somehow went ahead of or progressing further than the point where they started (i.e. the – perhaps wider – Johannine circle). There is discussion about the exact reference of the word προάγων, for instance, how or in what way did these people ‘go further’ than the lady’s people. A plausible way of interpreting the sentence is that the person who ‘went forward’, went beyond the legitimate teaching of the lady’s group. Some commentators find echoes of Docetic or Gnostic vocabulary in these words,93 since the false teachers thought they were morally advanced or more enlightened than the others.94 But such an interpretation might be going too far on the basis of just one word. The context suggests that their (‘advanced’) teaching was erroneous and deceptive (vv. 7, 9). At least, it did not represent the doctrine of Christ (vv. 9–10).

89

Brown (1986:668). Smalley (2002:327). Cf. also the discussion by Streett (2011:340–47). 91 Probably travelling preachers of whom some were known, since they ‘went out’ from the group. Such travelling preachers were important in early Christian contexts: cf. Mt 10:11–14, 40; Mk 9:37; Rom 12:13; 1 Tim 5:10; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9. Cf. also Malherbe (1983:92–112), Watson (1989:105), Johnson (1993:156) and Painter (2002:352). 92 Painter (2002:352). Watson (1989:105–106) bases his argument for missionary activity in this context on the use of ἐξῆλθον. 93 Smalley (2002:331) opines, ‘The verb προάγων (“is advanced”; literally, “goes ahead”) is clearly borrowed from the terminology of the gnostically inclined heretics (cf. v 7), who claimed to have a superior knowledge which enabled them to “advance” beyond the ordinary Christian “teaching” of their fellows’. Schnackenburg (1984:314; cf. Akin 2001:231) also links this expression with the typical behaviour of all Gnostics, while Ebrard (1860:393) notes that Gnostics always tried to present their teachings ‘as a constant progression in knowledge’. On the other hand, scholars like Strecker (1989:346) and Painter (2002:350) deny that in 2 John the deceivers are perceived as Gnostics. 94 Haas et al. (1972:169) opine that the word is ‘used here in the unfavourable sense of “to go too far”, “to go farther than one should”’. Smalley (2002:331) also remarks, ‘The term προάγειν (“to go ahead”), used in a metaphorical and disparaging sense, appears only here in the NT. It is not progress in the faith which is being attacked, but progress beyond it’. Cf. also Bultmann (1973:113). 90

304

Section 2: The Second Letter of John

There is indeed a lot of speculation as to the meaning of προάγων (‘go forward’) and its contribution to the argument. Apart from scholars making connections to aspects like Gnostic ‘progressiveness’,95 Ebrard made the following remark already in the middle of the 19th century, ‘There is a progress … which forsakes the first principles which have been established; and such a progress is apostasy’.96 Brown likewise opines that it might refer to the schismatics’ ‘appropriation and distortion of what had been a good term in Johannine usage, namely, “being progressive”’.97 He continues, ‘the only “progressive” the Presbyter criticizes is one who does not remain rooted in the teaching of Christ’.98 This he says against Dodd’s opinion that the author is against any progressiveness and thus ‘condemn[s] Christian theology to lasting sterility’. Edwards also moves in Dodd’s direction by claiming that ‘his is not the spirit of intellectual enquiry or innovative theology, but rather of faithfulness to what he has received’.99 In comparing this attitude with the situation in 3 John, she remarks that the situation has either drastically changed or a different author is responsible for 3 John. On the other hand, Wendt (according to Brown100) thinks that the reference is to dictatorial behaviour like that of Diotrephes in 3 John, who does not accept tradition but ‘moved beyond it’. Rensberger101 throws another light on the issue by pointing out that in ancient times progression and change were not valued above stability – the latter was the ‘norm and ideal’. Nevertheless the author wants to keep the old but does not deny the newness of the Jesus movement (cf. also vv. 5–6).102

Now these deceivers ‘come to you’ (ἔρχεται πρὸς ὑµᾶς – ‘you’ is the lady’s group) and they obviously expect to be received. But the lady is warned that even greeting them, exposing herself and her ‘children’ to their deceiving doctrine, might mean sharing in their wicked works (including supporting this false message) and may even destroy what they have worked for (vv. 8, 10).103 More specifically, who were these opponents and where did they come from? Several suggestions have been made. – There are suggestions that the opponents were travelling missionaries at work in areas where the Johannine groups were located. – Others feel that this is a specific Johannine problem and that the deceivers are schismatics from the Johannine church in general and are now, as travelling missionaries, threatening the network of individual Johannine house churches.104 Smalley ventures a more precise description: these people 95

Cf., e.g., Schnackenburg (1984:314), Akin (2001:231) and Smalley (2002:331). Ebrard (1860:393). 97 Brown (1986:675). 98 Ibid. 687. 99 Edwards (2001:31). 100 Brown (1986:675). 101 Rensberger (2001:113–14). 102 Cf. also Kistemaker (2001:381) and Kruse (2000:212). 103 Strecker (1989:344) remarks that the ‘Gemeinde in ihrer Existenz auf dem Spiel steht’. 104 Strecker (1989:346) opines that the deceivers are (former) fellow Christians who lost their way according to the Presbyter. Cf. also 1J 2:18–26; 4:3. 96

Chapter 8: A possible scenario

305

were ‘self-appointed, itinerant teachers and preachers of heresy. These people, presumably, had seceded from the Johannine community; and they were now seeking to win over further adherents for their false views’.105 They were spreading their false message through the network of the Johannine churches. – Even more specifically, some suggest that the deceivers were originally part of the lady’s group but now represent another confessional view about Jesus.106 Now they are trying to convince the rest of the group to follow them as v. 4 might suggest. Since they had connections with the elect lady and her group, they wanted to join their meetings, implying that it was a local issue and did not necessarily involve travelling missionaries.107 If the deceivers were known, an immediate question would be why the lady should be forewarned by the Presbyter. Were they not able to judge for themselves or recognize the danger? Lieu108 argues that, within ancient house church situations, guidance in doctrine was much needed by smaller house churches. One should not automatically assume that everything was known and dogmas fixed in young congregations, which might also have been the case here.109 Even knowing these people might not imply that the lady had all the knowledge to discern the nuances of Christology. – Streett offers some kind of combination by identifying the visitors as two distinctive groups (largely by reading 1 and 2 John together): ‘Second John, like 1 John, addresses the issue, first, of apostates who turn their back on the basic confession of the community, and, second, of visiting Jewish prophets who do not accept Jesus as Messiah, and therefore should not be heeded’.110 – The reference in v. 7 in the singular (οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ πλάνος111 καὶ ὁ ἀντίχριστος112) to the person who is the deceiver and the antichrist, might suggest that it is just one single historical figure.113 However, this view is not widely accepted, since in the same verse the plural, deceivers, is also used.

105

Smalley (2002:333). Cf. Johnson (1993:158) and Menken (2010:128). Cf. Brown (1986:668) and Johnson (1993:155). 107 Ebrard (1860:348) favours this opinion, arguing that much of the rhetorical power and reasoning behind the Letter would be lost if the threat did not come from those children of the lady who now are not living in the truth. 108 Lieu (1986). 109 The author foresees a visit in which he will discuss some further matters, so that his joy may be complete. This suggests that there are still matters to be discussed. 110 Streett (2011:4). 111 This word is only used here (twice) in the Johannine Letters. Derivates are used in 1 John, however; e.g., 1J 2:26; 3:7; 4:6. The word is consistently used in the Letters in the context of the devil and/or the antichrist. 112 Cf. Schnackenburg (1984:313), Strecker (1989:337–43), Lietaert Peerbolte (1996:107–11), Kruse (2000:210–11) and Thatcher (2012) for more information about the antichrist. 113 Cf. Bultmann (1973:112). 106

306

Section 2: The Second Letter of John

– These terms ‘deceiver’ and ‘antichrist’ are also understood as a general, inclusive reference to a wider apocalyptic threat expected at the end time, thus representing a wider and more abstract expression of evil.114 Painter115 then notes that this evil is still visible in historical persons, present as travelling groups or even groups living nearby. This idea is supported by the plural ‘many deceivers’ (πολλοὶ πλάνοι – v. 7) as well as the indefinite, even hypothetical way the author further talks about the threat, that is ‘if any one comes’ (v. 10), or ‘any one who …’ (v. 9). This would imply that the imminent threat is there, but the lady did not experienced it first-hand yet. Considering these possibilities, it seems that the deceivers ‘have gone out into the world’, departing from the Johannine group, but have now expanded their presence ‘into the world’ regarding themselves as those who have ‘gone ahead’ (v. 9).116 They were associated with the Christian movement, since they seem to still confess Jesus in some way, although not as the one who came in the flesh, thus deviating from the doctrine of Christ – they are indeed antichrists (v. 7). They are therefore not regarded as abiding in the Father and Son (v. 9). They are or might be seeking contact with the lady (as they most probably did with other Johannine groups) to deceive them into losing what they have worked for, alienating them from their confession of Jesus Christ who came in the flesh by offering them a doctrine that ‘went ahead’. The author might have felt that it is necessary to warn the lady against this Christological threat that did not represent the truth (vv. 1–4). It might even be that the lady and her followers needed dogmatic advice (against a doctrine that ‘went ahead’ – v. 9) as ordinary Christian group from a more authoritative figure, as was common if we look at the Pauline and Petrine letters. It seems preferable to regard the visitors as a group of which some members were somehow known to the lady’s group, and therefore felt free to approach her. Brown argues that these visitors could not have been ‘haphazard’ or even ‘general missionaries’.117 They are part of a recent (Christological) development which the Johannine groups are somehow ‘related’ to and should now be warned against – previously the lady offered perhaps hospitality without restriction since there was no threat of such a problem. Now the situation has changed and care should be taken as to whom she allows into her house. 114 Cf. Brown (1986:670), Kistemaker (2001:380), Johnson (1993:156) and Schnelle (2010:27, 29). Lieu (1986:78) opines that it would be difficult to understand v. 7 without taking into account the eschatological framework that 1 John provides (esp. 1J 2:18 and further 4:1–2). Menken (2010:127) goes so far as to talk of mythological deceivers (‘mythologische “misleiders”’) representing ultimate evil. 115 Painter (2002:351). 116 This reminds of the opponents and antichrists in 1 John. 117 Brown (1986:689). Cf. also Ebrard (1860:393–95) and Schnackenburg (1984:315– 16).

Chapter 8: A possible scenario

307

8.4 Is 2 John about hospitality or not? 8.4.1 Who were these visitors? The question whether hospitality (as social convention) was involved should receive some more detailed attention. Keeping in mind that these deceivers ‘went out’ (most probably from the [larger] Johannine group) and have ‘gone ahead’ into the world, the question remains as to the identity of the group. Were they travelling missionaries, or visiting locals or a combination? This issue is not without significance, since if they are regarded as (unknown) travelling missionaries they could appeal for hospitality according to ancient custom. If they were not such unknown travellers, 2 John by definition deals with a local issue and hospitality does not come into play. This would obviously change the ethical nature of the Letter, since hospitality as ethical expectation would then not be an issue. Some of the arguments that have been forwarded that the deceivers could have been travellers (travelling missionaries)118 are as follows: – The Third Letter of John provides direct evidence of travelling missionaries within Johannine circles, apart from the fact that such practices were known in the early Christian and even wider context.119 This would confirm this practice as possibility for 2 John also. – In v. 12 this ‘travelling movement’ is referred to, since the Presbyter intends to later visit the lady to discuss some matters. Lieu120 envisages small communities being dependent on such travelling preachers for information and teaching. – Painter assumes that, according to v. 4, the Presbyter met some of the lady’s children during his travels. In light of v. 12, this might be the case, since the Presbyter has not yet visited the lady but is planning to do so: ‘This verse implies a Christian movement with people crossing each other’s paths as they travel around a network of churches’.121 – The remark in vv. 10–11 that a person ‘comes to the lady’ and she should refuse to receive him, implies that he is a traveller.122 The suggestion that they were travelling missionaries would mean that they could expect hospitable reception according to the conventions of the time. However, the brief remark about not greeting the visitor (v. 10 – χαίρειν 118

Cf. Watson (1989:106), Kruse (2000:215) and Menken (2010:129). Chester (2013:122–23) notes that Theodotus, a priest and leader of the synagogue, constructed the synagogue inter alia as accommodation for Jewish travellers and a place for ritual washing (cf. CIJ 2.1404). ‘Piety and generosity are combined in this display of devotion and service to the Jewish community’. 120 Lieu (2008:239–40). 121 Painter (2002:347). 122 Cf. Malherbe (1983:92–112). 119

308

Section 2: The Second Letter of John

αὐτῷ µὴ λέγετε) leaves many commentators uncomfortable, especially those who favour a scenario where these heretics are travelling missionaries who should be shown some hospitality. A question is whether this greeting refers to the initial greeting upon arrival (‘hello’), which implies that the lady knew the visitor(s), or the greeting when the person leaves (‘goodbye’), in case the lady did not know the visitor(s), or perhaps both. Greetings in ancient times were not just a neutral action, but signified social acknowledgement and willingness to interact socially. Once a person was greeted and accepted into the house, patronage was to be provided according to customary laws. This automatically indicated a bond between people. As Marshall states, ‘such a greeting would have been regarded as no mere formality but as a positive expression of encouragement’.123 Bultmann also stresses, ‘the greeting attests or establishes fellowship between the one greeting and the one greeted’,124 while Schnelle calls it a ‘soziale Grundkonvention, die den freundlichen Kontakt herstellt und deren Aufkündigung eine massive Ablehnung aussagt’.125

The refusal to even greet the visitor(s) (v. 10) would of course not only clash with the courtesy customs of ancient times,126 but would also be ill at ease with the situation in 3 John, where Diotrephes is strongly criticized and vilified for not receiving such travelling missionaries. Apart from that, how could the lady at the outset recognize a (deceiving) visiting missionary who was unknown to her before greeting him? 127 This leads Smalley128 to opine that a farewell greeting is referred to. This would imply that the heretic should be allowed to deliver his message but, as a sign of rejection, would not be greeted when he leaves. According to Schnelle129 another option is that the visitor was received but at the Eucharist the visitor could have been asked to make a confession that Jesus came in the flesh and was thus exposed as a false teacher. These suggestions are not convincing, since they militate against the author’s intention to protect the lady against deceivers (v. 8), would imply that the lady received him (v. 10) and thus participated in his wicked deeds (v. 11). Schnelle130 also considers the option that the person could have been questioned first, which does not solve the problem, since a greeting must have preceded such a questioning session. 123

Marshall (1978:74). Bultmann (1973:114). 125 Schnelle (2010:32). 126 Cf. Schnackenburg (1984:316). 127 Cf. Klauck (1992:66) for possibilities. Schnelle (2010:32) underlines the importance of greetings in antiquity. 128 Smalley (2002:333) remarks, ‘The final clause of the sentence brings the presbyter’s admonition to a climax. Χαίρειν (literally, “to greet”) is used elsewhere in the NT as a common (epistolary) form of opening address (see Acts 15:23; 23:26; Jas 1:1). Here the phrase χαίρειν αὐτῷ µὴ λέγετε (“do not even pass the time of day with him”) perhaps suggests the idea of a farewell salutation’. 129 Schnelle (2010:31). 130 Ibid. 124

Chapter 8: A possible scenario

309

On the other hand, these visitors (or this visitor) might just as well have been locals, who were known to the lady and therefore she knew not to receive or even greet (say ‘hello’ to) them (v. 10). Brown131 and others132 opt for this initial welcome greeting. The visitors might simply be people who lived in the area, who knew their ‘previous’ religious connections and who felt free to attend their meetings and to speak there. They might even have been travelling missionaries or teachers, but as local people with their base and origin close to the group of the lady and her acquaintances. Then at least some of the visitors must have been known.133 A problem with this solution is that if they were locals and their views were already known to the lady, why does the author warn against a hypothetical visit that could take place and could influence and rob them (v. 8)? An answer might be that as an ordinary Christian group they did not know everything about the finer confessional detail and needed some doctrinal advise from an authoritative figure (as Paul’s or Peter’s congregations also needed advice). Neither of the above suggestions is without problems, which makes a definite choice difficult. It seems possible that both travelling missionaries and locals are intended as the possible visitors who are warned against (v. 10). A plausible solution is the one argued above, namely, that these deceivers (who were associated with the Johannine Christian movement, but as ‘departed’ antichrists) have ‘gone out into the world’ (v. 7) and have ‘gone ahead’ (v. 9). They have thus separated from the Johannine group (at large) and are now moving around (in the world) as travelling but deceiving missionaries. Since they have separated from the Johannine group, they were known to this group and in their travels would also visit the Johannine groups as was the custom,134 of which the lady’s group was one. Apparently such a situation had not yet occurred, but is pending, since v. 10 is formulated as a possibility (‘if any one’: εἴ τις …). It still is a warning (v. 8). As far as the relation between the opponents and the lady in general is concerned, a confessional and doctrinal break exists. Brown is correct in stating that ‘the Presbyter does not think he is facing a problem created by well-meaning Christians who are in error. He sees his opponents as dedicated propagandists …’.135 However, the antichrist(s) still try to maintain contact with the lady’s group in a missionary spirit, trying to convince them to accept their deceiving views. Based on this perception, the author wrote the Letter, 131

Brown (1986:676). Cf. Haas et al. (1972:170), Schnackenburg (1984:316–17) and Menken (2010:129). 133 Cf. Schnackenburg (1984:311). The obvious problem with this interpretation is that it would imply that the deceivers (also called antichrist – v. 7) are also classified by the author as children of the lady, who do not live according to the truth. 134 Travellers usually made use of known networks, inter alia by using letters of recommendation. 135 Brown (1986:690). 132

310

Section 2: The Second Letter of John

not to change the minds of these deceivers, but to protect the unity of the orthodox group by preventing false teaching from negatively influencing the lady’s group (v. 11).136 As is the case with 1 John, the aim of the Letter is not polemical, but pastoral. The overlaps in description of the opponents between the Gospel and 1 John should be noted. In both cases the opponents are described as antichrists; in both cases they ‘went out’ from the Johannine circle; in both cases they have contact with the orthodox group and try to deceive them; in both cases it is a Christological issue. These overlaps are tempting a conclusion that these groups were related or might even have been directly associated. However, in 2 John no direct reference is made to such a possibility. The major issue in the Gospel is also not Christological as it is in 2 John. 8.4.2 Not welcoming visitors, a radical request (v. 10)? One important ethical issue is the role of hospitality in light of the grammar of ethics of John, especially since visitors are not welcomed, and not even greeted. More detailed consideration of this issue is needed. A crux interpretum for the issue of hospitality relates to the status of the ‘visitors’ in vv. 10–11. The relevant text reads: ‘If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching (ταύτην τὴν διδαχήν), do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting (µὴ λαµβάνετε αὐτὸν εἰς οἰκίαν καὶ χαίρειν αὐτῷ µὴ λέγετε), for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works (κοινωνεῖ τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ τοῖς πονηροῖς)’. This remark in vv. 10–11 is a direct imperative against (a hypothetical situation137 of) the lady receiving a visitor into her house or even greeting him if he brings a false teaching about Christ (v. 9). Receiving or greeting such a person, welcoming him into her house and thus opening herself and her children to his influence, would imply co-operation with such a person,138 including co-operation in his evil deeds,139 that might include sharing or endorsing his false doctrine (v. 10). The severity or even strangeness of the command not to receive or greet the visitors (vv. 10–11) is noted by many as an ethical problem.140 For 136 Bultmann (1973:114) is of the opinion that ‘fellowship with them [i.e. heretics] must be severed’. This is a clear social act. Cf. also Rensberger (2001:114). 137 Although the statement is seemingly hypothetical, one can assume that the threat was real, as is evident from the previous verses where the presence of such deceivers is mentioned. 138 Cf. Kruse (2000:214), Painter (2002:351) and Ogereau (2014). Cf. also Plautus, Trin. 2/2.281–284. 139 Ebrard (1860:395) argued that if a person is greeted and thus allowed into the group, the group will soon be involved in the same evils and drawn into the same course of action as the false teacher. 140 Cf. Plummer (1886:139), W Kelly (1905:404–405), Pfeiffer and Harrison (1962:ad loc.), Smalley (1984:333), Brown (1986:692–93) and Strecker (1989:346).

Chapter 8: A possible scenario

311

instance, it is ill at ease with other Christian commandments like love and care,141 it militates against the convention of ancient hospitality142 and it seems to be in opposition to the recommendation to show hospitality to travelling missionaries in 3 John.143 It also seems to propagate intolerance towards people with views that differ from one’s own. Because of these obvious tensions between the imperative in vv. 10–11 and some core Christian values like hospitality, love or co-operation, modern commentators reflect seriously on the implications of v. 10 for current day contacts with people of other mind than oneself. They grapple with the question of whether v. 10 suggests a ‘closed’ situation where people who differ are not to be welcomed or conversed with, or whether v. 10, for different reasons, should be interpreted as not applicable to the current day situation. Or is there perhaps a bigger principle behind the command that should be taken seriously? Such questions resulted in a wide variety of responses, covering opinions from a literal application to outright rejection of the prohibition. An interesting feature, that illustrates the partial influence of societal opinion on evaluating biblical content, is that in the latter part of the 19th and the earlier part of the 20th century the inclination (though not absolute) was more to accept a literal interpretation and application, while the opinion shifted in the middle of the 20th century to a more critical stance and even outright rejection of the prohibition (also not absolute). Indeed, at the end of the 19th and beginning of the previous century, it was mostly opined that these words should be taken literally and should therefore also (hermeneutically) apply to present-day believers. William Kelly, for instance, favoured such a literal application of the prohibition in more modern times: ‘To those who do not value Christ’s name and word it must seem outrageous, especially in these liberal days, where man is all and Christ is little or nothing, and even professing Christians are so ready to say nothing about it’.144 More recently, Hodges argued that the ‘modern inclination to be highly tolerant of religious differences’ creates a problem, since by doing so ‘this modern age … has lost its convictions about the truth’.145 According to him, false teachers who actively participate in disseminating error should not be encouraged or helped at all. Brown, for instance, also quotes Alford, saying that we are ‘not at liberty to set aside direct ethical injunctions of the Lord’s Apostles …’.146

141

Cf. J 13:34; 1J 3:11; 4:7–21. Acts 16:15; Rom 12:13; Heb 13:2, etc. 143 Cf. Lenski (1966:569) and Smalley (1984:334). 144 W Kelly (1905:405). Cf. also Cocke (1895:148). 145 Hodges (1985:2908–2909). 146 Brown (1986:693). 142

312

Section 2: The Second Letter of John

Many like C. H. Dodd, later in the previous century rejected the literal application of this prohibition in present-day contexts by saying, ‘We may similarly decline to accept the Presbyter’s ruling here as a sufficient guide to Christian conduct’,147 since, according to him, it is not in line with what the rest of the New Testament teaches. Brown sides with Dodd by saying, ‘Fierce exclusiveness, even in the name of truth, usually backfires on its practitioners’.148 In further response to these literal interpretations, Brown149 opined that such biblical injunctions cannot be left unchallenged since v. 10 was used ‘for slamming doors in the face of’ door to door missionaries like the Jehovah’s Witnesses. He further opines that the problem is that in almost every dispute in the church such claims are made and that drastic actions are usually justified by claiming that this is done for the sake of truth. He then concludes, ‘Dodd’s question touches a real issue: “Does truth prevail the more if we are not on speaking terms with those whose view of the truth differs from ours – however disastrous their error may be?”’150 Furthermore, according to David Smith, such behaviour could only lead to isolation and the inability to witness to others, apart from the fact that the prohibition is ‘unchristian counsel, contrary to the spirit and teaching of our Lord’.151 Between these poles there are other voices, trying to solve the problem, for instance, by pointing to the uniqueness of the situation. Spence-Jones remarked at the beginning of the previous century that, ‘the apostle is giving directions to a particular Christian household during a particular crisis in the history of the Christian faith’.152 In this way application in any other different situation is problematized. Although he does not want to negate the command, he emphasizes that the differences from current situations should be hermeneutically considered before applying the injunction today. Lücke 153 reflected on this in the first part of the 19th century and pointed out that John does not refuse hospitality to heathens or Jews, but to heretics, who as Christians claimed a hospitable reception, while Akin recently also opined that this verse is ‘open to abuse and misunderstanding if removed from its immediate context’ leading some to deem ‘it unloving and worthy of rejection’.154 In light of the above, several questions about hospitality arise, for instance: Although the remark is widely interpreted within the framework of ancient hospitality customs, it is a question whether hospitality is the main issue here. 147

Dodd (1946:152). Brown (1986:693). 149 Ibid. 692. 150 Ibid. 693. 151 D Smith (s.a.:5293–5304). 152 Spence-Jones (1909:3). Cf. also Lenski (1966:569–71). 153 Lücke (1837:332–33). 154 Akin (2001:233). 148

Chapter 8: A possible scenario

313

If the issue is indeed hospitality, the question is whether the issue here is private or public (group) hospitality. Is the rejection of these visitors an act that militates against love? What should the social response be to false doctrines? These issues will be argued from two angles, namely, what would be the situation if hospitality was indeed at stake, and what if it were not at stake? 8.4.3 Ancient hospitality and vv. 10–11? There is wide agreement that early Christians gathered in houses that were also ordinary family dwellings, that is house churches.155 There is also a large measure of consensus that in 2 John reference is to a house church meeting of the elect lady and her (spiritual) children, that is that the ‘house’ is a religious meeting place that includes a larger group of worshippers who could be exposed to false teaching. In Christian houses (groups), not the least the Johannine group, i) the ancient group-orientated practice of ‘friends of friends’ functioned, according to which related Christian groups were encouraged to welcome one another’s members (cf. 2 and 3 John),156 and ii) the hospitality customs of those days offered convenient bases for boarding, lodging and otherwise supporting travellers, especially those who were part of the ‘friends of friends’ circle.157 There the visitor enjoyed protection and certain rights from the head of the house. Receiving such a visitor into one’s house activated a series of social and economic expectations for the host.158 iii) In the case of travellers with longer term demands, hospitality meant that the person was allowed into the house, and if unknown to the host, would usually have a letter of recommendation from somebody known to the host (cf. 3 John; Philemon). iv) It was also normal for the host to assist his guest in further travels (cf. 3J 7–8).159 In this light Malina states, ‘While hospitality does not entail mutual reciprocity between individuals, it can nevertheless be viewed as a reciprocal relationship between communities. Such hospitality to travelling Christians is both urged (see Rom 12:13; 1 Pet 4:9) and much practised (e.g. Acts 17:7; 21:17; 28:7; Rom 16:23)’.160 Persons well enough off would serve as donors, making their dwellings available to the Christian gathering.161 155 Rom 14–16; 1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15; Phlm 2. Cf. Malherbe (1983:94–96), Kruse (2000:213–14), Smalley (2002:333), Gehring (2004), Banks (2012) and D Smith (s.a.:5203). 156 It is doubtful whether outsiders would make significant use of specifically Christian hospitality in early times. Judging from Pliny’s letter to Trajan (110–114 CE), Christian meetings were rather secretive. The other side of the coin is that there is some evidence that people were apparently invited to (some of?) the meetings (1 Cor 14:16–25). 157 Malherbe (1983:102–103) and Keener (1993:ad loc.). 158 Cf. Malina (1986:171–94). 159 Kampling and Schreiner (2000:61). 160 Malina (1986:185). Cf. also Malherbe (1983:92–103). 161 Cf. Diotrephes and Gaius in 3 John, or the elect lady in 2 John. Cf. also Acts 18:1–3; Rom 16:3–5, 23; 1 Cor 16:19; Phlm 2–7.

314

Section 2: The Second Letter of John

In light of the above Christian practices, a bird’s eye view of hospitality in Mediterranean antiquity is helpful.162 A broad system of hospitality was part of ancient conventions.163 Considering the nature and impact of ancient hospitality conventions, Malina makes an important point: ‘Hospitality might be defined as the process by means of which an outsider’s status is changed from stranger to guest’.164 This happens by receiving the person into one’s home and extending to the person certain rights and privileges linked to being part of that home and enjoying patronage from the host. Malina wants to restrict the practice of hospitality to outsiders who may be ‘friends of friends’, that is carry a letter of recommendation,165 which presumes some form of prior relationship with somebody attached to or known by a mutual friend.166 He therefore distinguishes hospitality from other social practises like welcoming your own family or friends or people associated with the close social community known to one another into your house.167 This is also Kampling’s view, who remarks that those visitors to whom hospitality was extended were mostly ‘Angehörige eines gleichen Familienverbandes, einer Zunft, einer Stadt oder einer bestimmten Region, so daß ein den potentiellen Gastgebern Bekannter oder Freund für sie gutsagen konnte’.168 In this regard letters of recommendation indeed played a central role,169 as we see in 3 John. Malina describes the implications of letters of recommendation by saying, ‘The person writing a recommendation attests to the stranger bearing it on the basis of the word of honor of the attester. To reject the recommended stranger is, of course, a challenge to the honor of the recommender. It spurns his honor, and requires an attempt at satisfaction on his part, under pain of being shamed.’170 This meant that in such house churches the social boundaries were relatively porous (cf. Acts 20:20), although letters of recommendation served as some form of control. Hospitality also had the function of creatively presupposing an interrelated social network of related and associated groups that are mutually obliged to assist one another. Malina further argues that once a person is allowed into the house, different ‘stages’ of the process of hospitality should be distinguished: ‘The process would have three stages to it: (1.) evaluating the stranger (usually with some test about whether guest status is possible); (2.) the stranger as guest – the liminal phase; (3.) from guest to transformed

162

Cf. also subsection 11.3 below for a discussion on hospitality in 3 John. Cf. the discussion between Malherbe (1977:92–112) and Malina (1986:171–94). Pilch and Malina (1993:104–107) and deSilva (2004:462–63). 164 Malina (1986:181). Cf. also Kruse (2000:213). 165 So Kampling and Schreiner (2000:60); cf. also Pilch and Malina (1993:104–107). 166 Ebrard (1860:393) makes a valid point that within the practice of hospitality some form of relationship or friendship is presupposed – either between the house and the traveller or between common acquaintances who would then usually be established through a letter of recommendation. Kruse (2000:215) also notes that hospitality ‘was reciprocated between communities’ and not individuals. 167 Cf. Pilch and Malina (1993:104). 168 Kampling and Schreiner (2000:60). 169 Brown (1986:690) speculates about the extent to which letters of recommendation were used in a close-knit group like the Johannine group. 170 Malina (1986:187). Cf. also Pilch and Malina (1993:104–107) and Kruse (2000:215– 16). 163

Chapter 8: A possible scenario

315

stranger (at times with another test).’171 At the basis of these stages lay certain social expectations, both of the host and the guest.172 A certain behaviour is expected, for instance, that the host protect the guest and that the guest does not dishonour or shame the host.173 The way these social expectations are fulfilled determines whether a guest leaves as a friend or even as an enemy, which would obviously determine future relations. Such a social process could therefore place a considerable burden on the family, as Kampling174 opines. The guest did not only imply costs but also intruded into the house and family. Kampling therefore argues that common ground between the guest and host was necessary. ‘Die gleiche Gesinnung hob in diesem Fall die Fremdheit, das Unbekannte des anderen auf’.175 In the case of vv. 10–11, this point might be of significance. Kampling,176 however, warns against idealizing the situation as if there were no exceptions, which there obviously were. There are, for instance, reports of Jews who refused to harbour fellow Jews who trespassed against Roman law. Obviously, there were also other differences between different Jewish groups that led to refusal of hospitality.

Painter, like many others,177 opines that the instruction given here ‘is to be understood against the background of hospitality given to strangers and travellers in the ancient world’.178 The question is whether this is indeed the case in 2 John. According to the evidence in v. 10, it might be that these possible visitors might qualify for hospitality, especially since the phrase (εἴ τις ἔρχεται πρὸς ὑµᾶς – εἴ plus the indicative179) suggests an ‘open situation’ with undetermined persons (τις) arriving. This seems to be a hypothetical 171 Malina (1986:182). Cf. also Pilch and Malina (1993:104–107) and Kampling and Schreiner (2000:61). 172 A host acts improperly a) if he insults his guest or treats him with some enmity or rivalry; b) if he does not protect the guest; or c) if the host does not give the required attention to his guest. Again, it is expected from the guest to honour the host’s practices, conventions and rules. A guest would break the rule and conventions a) if he insults or challenges the host, or b) if he takes over the role of the host by doing things before he is invited, giving commands or demanding things before they are offered or refusing what is offered, that is food, as Malina (1986:185) points out. 173 Malina (1986:182–83) further remarks, ‘To offend the protégé or client is to offend the protector/patron. Thus the stranger is incorporated only through a personal bond with an established community member’. 174 Kampling and Schreiner’s (2000:60–61) insightful description of the dynamics of hospitality in the case of synagogues in the Diaspora should be mentioned: ‘Die Basis der Begegnung war religiös begründet’. 175 Ibid. 61. 176 Ibid. 61–62. 177 Cf., e.g., Bultmann (1973:113–14), Brown (1986:650–51), Watson (1989:106) and Kruse (2000:213–16). 178 Painter (2002:354). 179 The use of εἰ plus the indicative implies that a visit from a person like this is a real possibility, hence a translation like “when” or “at the moment that” is appropriate, as Ebrard (1860:393) remarks: ‘It does not say, “in case one should come,” but “if (when, as oft as) one comes’. Cf. Haas et al. (1972:170), Brown (1986:676), Kistemaker (2001:383) and Smalley (2002:333).

316

Section 2: The Second Letter of John

remark of an anticipated situation. On the other hand, it is pointed out that the most plausible scenario is that the lady knew at least some of these visitors who approached her house church for congregational participation, which would imply that hospitality was not asked for.180 If these visitor(s) included local people who were short term visitors (who perhaps did not even need accommodation), acceptance into the house would activate conventions of social association and even co-operation (koinōnia), but would not necessarily imply further assistance as is required by the conventions of hospitality – this is, if Malina’s181 view is correct that hospitality should be restricted to strangers who might also be required to carry letters of recommendation. Rules for longer term hospitality would then not apply and if the visitor(s) were not welcomed, it would imply social disassociation on community level. That no letter of recommendation is mentioned in 2 John, strengthens the view that these visitors were indeed known to the lady and strictly did not need the gesture of hospitality. Could there have been other factors that should be taken into account? Refusal to welcome these visitors (known or unknown) would indeed be ethically problematic, unless there was a very good reason for doing so. This brings us to the question of whether social conventions of receiving others were really at stake or were perhaps overridden by something else. A key question therefore is whether there were other valid and accepted reasons in antiquity as to why a person or a group of people (like the lady and her children) might exclude (a) known person(s) or visitor(s) from their meeting. To exclude people from a meeting (for a shorter or longer term) when deviant behaviour was shown, was indeed practised among ancient groups, of which I will mention one as example. The second-century document IG 2.1368 (dated around 178 CE) contains the minutes of a meeting of the Society of Iobacchi in Attica with a copy of the revised statutes.182 Although the suggestion is by no means that there is a parallel or even some link between 2 John and these statutes, there are some interesting points made in the statutes about the way in which the organization and treatment of members were arranged, which reflect particular social conventions of the time. A few points will be highlighted: a) Membership was a community concern – they voted on possible candidature. b) If fees were not paid, a member would be ‘excluded from the gathering’ – they would not be allowed in. 180 The visitor could have been only one person (cf. the conditional singular) who nevertheless represented a group’s opinion. Malina (1986:185–86) indicates that visitors appealing for hospitality normally represented a group and not just an individual and would eventually have reported back to their own group. Cf. Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15; Phlm 2. Cf. also Smalley (1984:333), Elwell (1995:ad loc.) and Kruse (2000:213–15). 181 Malina (1986). 182 Ferguson (1990:108–10).

Chapter 8: A possible scenario

317

c) Order was important (even at a meeting of the Bacchic society) – members were not allowed to sing or create a disturbance, ‘but each shall say and act his allotted part with all good order and quietness under the direction of the priest …’. And further, ‘If anyone starts to fight or be found acting disorderly or occupying the seat of any other member or using insulting or abusive language …’ he will be fined. If anyone ‘comes to blows’ he will be excluded for a period. Even the officer who fails to eject the fighters will be punished. Making a speech without permission was a punishable offence. In the meetings an orderly officer also carried a thyrsus. He could place the thyrsus beside a person who acted in a disorderly manner or who created a disturbance, indicating that such a person should leave the room. If the person disobeyed or refused, he was ‘put outside the front door’ and punished.183 Several things should be noticed for our purposes. a) Discipline and order formed the basis of these meetings. Exclusion/expulsion from the meeting was the basic way of ensuring the orderly continuation of the meeting. b) In these statutes a major theme is the importance of the group over that of the individuals, requiring measures to protect the group and its activities against disorder or disruption. c) The group as such had power to decide who could be a member and who should be excluded. The social power of the group’s view(s) was dominant. In sum, the interests of the group were placed above any ‘individual rights’ and deviant behaviour that endangered any aspect of the group was punishable, not the least with expulsion, that is, not allowing this behaviour to affect the order and nature of the group. Kloppenborg and Ascough184 also suggest that the above was common practice, which might enlighten the situation described in vv. 10–11. Again, it should be noted that the suggestion is not that the Bacchic situation and that of 2 John are in any way related. There are interesting social parallels, however, for instance, the way in which they protect their group and what the group stands for by censoring individuals, inter alia by disallowing a deviating person contact with the group. Social separation communicates social distancing or even rejection. This behaviour of discouraging and breaking contact with deviating members is also confirmed in other Christian documents.185 In Mt 18:15–17, 183

The above is only one example. Cf. also IG 2.1275 (ca. early third century BCE) where the obligations of members of a thiasos are described. Accepting a law was done by mutual consent and after the law came into effect, the group had the right to punish trespassers of the law in different ways, inter alia by excluding them from the group (cf. the discussion by Kloppenborg and Ascough 2011:52–55). 184 Ibid. 55. They remark: ‘It is common to find the imposition of fines and sometimes even temporary or even permanent exclusion of members who violate the rules of an association’. Cf. also IG 2.1361. 185 Smalley (2002:333) remarks, ‘But elsewhere in the early Church such moves to resist error were made by Christian leaders, and regarded as essential. See Matt 10:14–15;

318

Section 2: The Second Letter of John

church discipline would involve exclusion of a person who does not align him- or herself with the group’s wishes. Paul makes the same suggestion in 1 Cor 5:4–5, where he recommends that a deviating person should be delivered to Satan (i.e. some form of exclusion). Tit 3:10 also calls for the exclusion of a divisive man. In Did. 11:1–2 or Ignatius’ Smyrn. 4:1, 7:1 or 9:1 similar situations are envisaged. In light of what seems to be a common way of protecting the integrity of a group, exclusion or refusal to receive such divisive people in 2 John is not exceptional, and could even be expected in some cases. In 2 John the teaching186 (διδαχή – v. 10) and behaviour (τὰ ἔργα – v. 11) of the visitors are specifically mentioned as a problem and judged negatively, apart from the fact that social intercourse with these visitor(s) would negatively influence the group and may endanger their mutual love and what they worked for (v. 8).187 In the Bacchic statutes, the response to such threatening behaviour that would endanger the group as such was expulsion (i.e. severing social contact). According to these statutes, the order within the group is of higher value than the obligation of social interaction with such a disrupting person. In the light of the above, the prohibition in v. 10 makes sense, as Smalley remarks: ‘John is not … forbidding private hospitality, but rather an official welcome into the congregation, with the widespread opportunities which would then be available for the heretics to promote their cause’,188 with Rensberger remarking that ‘the point was not to snub the opponents socially, nor to be hard-hearted toward them, but to prevent expansion of their teaching’.189 The focus is on the question of what should happen in a situation where the integrity of the teaching of a community is endangered. This is the real issue, as Johnson190 indicates. Smalley further enlightens the situation by saying that ‘the situation envisaged in this passage was crucial. It involved fundamentally a false Christology (cf. v 7); it was created by those who required an official and public audience for the propagation of their error (…); and the heretics, who were claiming to “approach” (ἔρχεται) the orthodox believers as genuine Jude 22–23; Ign. Eph. 8.1; 9.1; Smyrn. 4.1; 5:1; 7.2; note also Did. 11–12, where the writer warns his readers to be on the lookout for those who teach “different” doctrines, and thus pervert the truth’. D Smith (s.a.:5203) compares this situation to John’s behaviour towards Cerinthus. Cf. also Menken (2010:129) and Johnson (2011:158). Keener (1993:ad loc.) notes that in the Qumran society someone who provided for an apostate was expelled from that community as the apostate was himself. 186 Lieu (1991:94) identifies the content of the correct teaching as being ‘encapsulated in the love command (4–6) and the right understanding of Jesus (7)’. 187 Lücke (1837:332–33) is of the opinion that such integration would lead to a corruption of the truth and should therefore be discouraged. 188 Smalley (1984:333–34). 189 Rensberger (2001:115). 190 Johnson (1993:159).

Chapter 8: A possible scenario

319

Christians, were “standing by” (φέρει) heterodoxy, bringing to their hearers a basic error, rather than the truth (v 10a, cf. John 18:29; also Ign. Eph. 7.1, where the Bishop speaks of those who “hawk about” [περιφέρειν, literally, “carry around”] the name of God out of malicious guile)’.191 The correct choice is then to remain in the correct doctrine of Christ at all costs.192 Visitor(s) with a false doctrine should therefore be prevented from harming the doctrine of the community. The refusal to receive or even greet the visitors (v. 11) boils down to making a doctrinal statement, thereby confirming one’s own position, but also rejecting the teachings of the visitor(s) as well as refusing any assistance for continuation of such teaching.193 No form of co-operation (koinōnia) or association is offered. Brown puts it in these words, ‘The inhospitality urged by vv. 10–11 is part of the warfare between Christ and Antichrist, between the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Deceit …’.194 In this ‘war’, harbouring the enemy in your ‘camp’ is not an option. Even if was the case that such visitor(s) appealed to a Christian house church for hospitality, their right to hospitality should be overruled195 by the fact that the group is of the opinion that their presence will endanger the group.196 This allows for a legitimate refusal even for offering hospitality.197 So, hospitality as such (if it was indeed required) is not negated here, but the conventions surrounding social activities within groups do not make reception of these people within the group an option,198 due to proven negative teachings and behaviour. 191

Smalley (2002:333). Lieu (1991:94) draws attention to the fact that the person should remain in the teaching and not in Christ or God. This shows that in 2 John the exhortations are linked to the tradition of the group, which, of course, is about Jesus and God. 193 Schnackenburg (1984:317), Brown (1986:690) and Kruse (2000:213) – compare v. 11 with 3J 8. 194 Brown (1986:690–91). 195 Bultmann (1973:114) opines that ‘hospitality which was taken as obligatory elsewhere in primitive Christianity is not to be extended to itinerant heretics’. Cf. also D Smith (s.a.:5204). 196 Smalley (2002:334) notes that ‘In these vv John is not saying, “do not love others.” Nor is he forbidding all contact with the heterodox, since friendly association with them might well have resulted in a change of mind. After all, Jesus himself welcomed those with whom he disagreed, and ate with them (Matt 9:10–12). Rather, the presbyter is warning the members of his community against the dangers of entertaining heretics and their views in such a way as to strengthen and develop their erroneous position, and so compromise the truth (cf. v 4). At that point the line must be drawn; for love and truth cannot be separated (v 3)’. 197 Ebrard (1860:393–95) expressed this sentiment a century and a half ago when he argued that the lady should have neither religious nor social contact with the heretics. ‘The vain and aimless friendly intercourse with such liars must be broken off at once’ (ibid. 394). 198 Strecker (1989:346–47) asks the question as to whether excommunication is implied here. His problem with such a suggestion is that ‘eine die Gemeinden überspannende Ver192

320

Section 2: The Second Letter of John

This also explains the problem of greeting such people. The reference to not greeting the visitor(s) basically rejects the ‘cultivation of personal acquaintance and fraternal intercourse with the false teachers’.199 This interpretation is in line with the idea that the injunction here does not aim at being rude, but at discouraging dangerous social interaction.200 In this light Ebrard interprets the remark in v. 10 of not greeting the deceiver as that the lady’s group ‘is not only not to continue any such fellowship, she is not to enter into it’.201 And any further personal interaction is rejected. In v. 11 it is stated that greeting as well as accepting a visitor leads to sharing in that person’s (wicked) deeds. A third-century rabbinic document, t.Hullin 2:24,202 provides an interesting parallel. It narrates an episode where a prominent rabbi, Rabbi Eliezer, was arrested by the Romans for being a Christian. The judge found him not guilty, but it troubled the rabbi that he was regarded as a Christian. In response to a remark of Rabbi Akiba (i.e., ‘Perhaps one of the heretics/Christians spoke some heresy which pleased

fassungsstruktur nicht zu erkennen ist’. That means that disciplinary matters like these could not be enforced practically. This was possible in single cases like that of Diotrephes in 3 John, but ‘eine universalkirchliche Ausdehnung ist nicht zu belegen’. There is still a considerable measure of independence within the different congregations. The question of whether this injunction supposes ‘excommunication’ is therefore pre-mature, since there is no evidence of a universal church or church ruling. What happens here happens on the local level where the lady’s group seemingly has considerable freedom. 199 Schnackenburg (1984:316–17; like Bengel) notes that a Jewish or Christian greeting includes a ‘religiöser Segenswunsch’ and was understood as such. Lücke (1837:332–33) remarked, ‘salutation … [was] in the apostolic age, full of expression and signs of the Christian communion of faith and of brotherly-love’. However, the Greek greeting ‘ist an sich farblos’ (Schnackenburg 1984:316; cf. also Ebrard 1860:394), not intending a religious dimension. That is why, according to Schnackenburg, the author deems it necessary to explain that greeting a person would associate the one greeting to such an extent with the one greeted, that they would be regarded as sharing in the evil deeds. Cf. also Lange et al. (2008:192). 200 The opposite is true of 3 John. There the visitors are of high repute (at least from the Presbyter’s perspective – perhaps not from Diotrephes’ perspective – cf. Brown 1986:690), with Diotrephes not acting according to the truth – his deeds are evil by not extending hospitality to bona fide visitors. These visitors will not endanger his group as such, although it seems as if Diotrephes was of a different opinion. In contrast to 2 John, ‘a welcome of the orthodox [is] being refused by the heretics’ in 3J 10 (cf. Smalley 2002:334). On the other hand, Lieu (1991:94) sees the actions proposed in 2 and 3 John as linked more closely: ‘in 2 John refusal of welcome is enjoined against both those who “do not bear this teaching” (10) and, by implication, those who ignore this injunction (11, as has happened in 3 John 10) …’. She remarks that usually groups with the most relaxed hospitality approach often also have the ‘sharpest discipline against straying members’, that is, they have ‘high boundaries’. 201 Ebrard (1860:395). 202 For the text and discussion cf. Visotzky (2005:102–104).

Chapter 8: A possible scenario

321

you?’) he realised that he had transgressed by lending an ear to James of the village of Sikhnin who spoke about Christianity. By this he had transgressed the words of the Torah in Prov 5:8 and 7:26 which demand that one should keep away from harm and danger. ‘Rabbi Eliezer used to say, “A person must always flee from the hateful (ki’ur) and all that resembles the hateful’. The attitude and practice of disassociating oneself from the danger presented by the ‘hateful’ is thus clearly attested within Jewish contexts. Although this text post-dates 2 John, it seems to illustrate a similar social attitude. 8.4.4 The importance of protecting the confessing community The above explanation indeed focuses on the importance of keeping the Johannine group safe within the truth by protecting the doctrine of Christ and the authentic confession that he came in the flesh. This highlights a specific ethical emphasis in the Letter, focusing on what the reaction should be if a group is being threatened by deceivers who will not only disrupt the group that is apparently already under pressure regarding love among one another (v. 4), but also have the potential of destroying them (v. 8). As was argued above, there is ample evidence that in antiquity such situations did not only threaten the Christian gatherings, but also other social groups like guilds. The response across the board seems to be the same: protect the group by refusing social contact if the evil-doers do not want to conform, or at least until they are willing to conform and cease their destructive behaviour. This option is indeed recognized in the debate. Commentators – even those who propose a hospitality framework for interpreting this text – are virtually unanimous that the essence of what v. 10 communicates is that the church group should be protected against harm.203 For this reason, Schnackenburg 204 does not want to interpret this injunction contra the commands of love for enemies (Mt 5:44–48) or reconciliation (Mt 5:23–25). He rather links this situation with the command of Jesus to his disciples to break contact with people where the message of the Kingdom is not welcomed.205 Smalley206 argues along the same lines, claiming that the Presbyter does not prohibit love to others, and neither is he forbidding all contact with the heterodox. Contact with them is necessary to change their minds (cf. Mt 9:10–12).207 203 Plummer (1886:139) interprets it in an even wider sense, namely, that charity shown to one person should not harm others. 204 Schnackenburg (1984:316). Cf. also Carson et al. (1994:1412) and Johnson (2011:159). 205 Mt 10:14; Lk 10:10–11. 206 Smalley (1984:334). 207 Ebrard (1860:394) has a harsh opinion about this, remarking, ‘A Christian man should have to do with these deniers of Christ only for the one sole end of their conversion: as soon as he sees that his great object is spurned, he has nothing more to do with them’.

322

Section 2: The Second Letter of John

According to Smalley208 the Presbyter is warning against the dangers of receiving heretics and thus strengthening their erroneous position, compromising the truth. Akin209 also agrees that the point in question is not prohibiting conversations with the ‘spiritually confused’ or with people with whom the message of Christ should be shared by allowing them to visit your house in order to confront them with the claims of Christ – no rudeness is suggested. It is rather to prohibit support and aid to false teachers and thus disseminating error. This is essential for the health of the church. The prohibition in vv. 10– 11 is more an illustration that there should be a balance between healthy and destructive socio-religious contact. 8.4.5 Some concluding remarks In discussing the possible scenario, it has been pointed out that the most plausible situation might be that it was a mixed group of locals (they are known) and unknown deceivers who had links with the broader Johannine groups. If this was the case, the issue is a matter of the dangers of socioreligious association, and not hospitality. The situation seems to refer to the special circumstance where socio-religious interaction, that is, a visit for religious purposes, by specific people, who could be identified as representing a false doctrine (not the doctrine of Christ) as well as by their efforts to spread their false teachings. The focus is not personal,210 but doctrinal, which means that it is the influence and exposure to these false teachings and evil deeds that is forbidden and not hospitality or simply neutral social interaction. The main aim is to protect the group and its sound doctrine of Christ and not to lose what they worked for, but may win the full award (v. 8). Conscious apologetic discussions are not rejected, but one-sided influence is. In sum, the ethical focus of this prohibition is therefore the responsibility to care for the truth about Christ and thus to protect the group from the danger of being misled, causing them to lose what they have worked for. The group should remain in the truth and should love one another – in this way they will keep what they have worked for, and what they stand for (v. 8). This basic ethical requirement of protection of the group, also set in the Gospel of John211 is thus confirmed in a practical way in 2 John.

208

Smalley (1984:334). Akin (2001:233). Cf. Kelly (1905:404–405), Kistemaker (2001:383), Walls and Anders (1999:238) and Lange (2008:192). 210 Cf., e.g., the situation in 3 John. 211 Cf. Vol. 1, 520–21. 209

Chapter 9

Truth, love and commandments as ethical concepts in 2 John In the salutation, the Presbyter greets the lady and her children with the words that he loves them in truth (vv. 1–3), thus opening with two important Johannine ethical terms,1 namely, love (ἀγαπάω/ἀγάπη) and truth (ἀλήθεια).2

9.1 The use of the term truth (ἀλήθεια) in 2 John The term ἀλήθεια3 is used five times in 2 John, of which four of the occurrences are in the salutation: v. 1 v. 1 v. 2 v. 3 v. 4

οὓς ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, καὶ πάντες οἱ ἐγνωκότες τὴν ἀλήθειαν διὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν τὴν µένουσαν ἐν ἡµῖν ἔσται µεθʼ ἡµῶν χάρις ἔλεος εἰρήνη … ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἀγάπῃ ἐκ τῶν τέκνων σου περιπατοῦντας ἐν ἀληθείᾳ

love people in truth people know the truth truth abides in believers peace with you in truth and love believers live in truth

It was shown elsewhere4 that the term truth is a general overarching concept in John, used in different ways.5 For instance, truth qualitatively relates to 1

Cf. Vol. 1, 287–325 and 344–59. It might be argued that these references to love and truth at the beginning of 2 John have the same rhetorical power as the concept of koinōnia in 1 John. They serve as rhetorical expressions to bind the people together on the basis of certain presuppositions, that is, their relation with God, their bond with one another on the basis of belief, etc., as Johnson (1993:148) argues: the ‘letters call the remaining members closer together to ward off the threat to their spiritual well-being (2 John 8)’. Cf. Lieu (1991:95–96) and Schnelle (2010:21). 3 This concept is discussed in several other places, cf. Vol. 1, 344–59. Addendum 7 gives an overview of the different uses of the term in the Letters. The discussion here focuses only on 2 John, although the broader Johannine context is not ignored. 4 Cf. Vol. 1, 344–59. 5 The words ἀλήθεια, ἀληθινός, ἀληθής and ἀληθῶς have a wide lexicographical potential (the information comes from Arndt et al., Louw and Nida, and Liddell and Scott): i) ἀλήθεια: the quality of being in accord with what is true, truthfulness, dependability, uprightness; ii) ἀλήθεια: the content of what is true, truth; ἀληθινός: being in accord with what is true, true, trustworthy; ἀληθῶς: what is really so, truly, in truth, really, actually, 2

324

Section 2: The Second Letter of John

what is real and authentic, (indirectly) to the revelation of Jesus, to the commandment of God, to the fictitious sphere in which believers find themselves, to the quality of actions, and so on. There is a common denominator in the use of the term, however, that binds the different uses together. In an analysis of truth in the Gospel of John6 it has been shown that the concept of truth refers to what is divinely real, authentic or truthful and may be truly trusted,7 as Schnackenburg puts it: ‘“truth” … covers everything that belongs to God’.8 Lieu9 even opines that truth might be a slogan, without any particular or specific meaning, indicating the character or membership to the Johannine group, which implies that they were the representatives of what was true, that is what was truly related to and represented God. To be in the truth or to do the truth means to live according to God’s presence and reality.10 The four usages in the salutation (vv. 1–3) follow a chiastic-like pattern,11 with the term ἀλήθεια being mentioned in every phrase:

therefore something one can rely on; iii) ἀλήθεια: an actual event or state, reality; ἀληθής/ ἀληθινός: being real, real, authentic, genuine, not imaginary; iv) ἀληθής: being truthful and honest, truthful, righteous, honest. As such these groups of words may refer to the attribute of a person, that is, the faithfulness or truthfulness of a person; v) ἀληθής/ἀληθινός: being in accordance with fact, true, trustworthy. 6 Cf. Vol. 1, 344–59. 7 Cf. also Addendum 7 on the use of truth in the Letters. 8 Schnackenburg (1968:407). He (1980:225) is indeed correct in calling ‘truth’ a ‘highly concentrated theological concept’. Smalley (1984:109) describes truth ‘as the living (not abstract, or purely intellectual) reality of God, whose “true” nature has been supremely revealed in Jesus the Christ’. 9 Lieu (1991:95–96). 10 Bultmann (1973:108) notes that ‘truth’ could simply refer to ‘a genuine manner’ or ‘in reality’. However, in the context of the Letters and John in general, truth has a wider semantic reference, namely, ‘the divine reality or its revelation’. Lieu (1991:96), however, is of the opinion that one cannot really say what truth exactly refers to here, because of the lack of information. The only thing one can conclude is that truth implies ‘living according to the principles of Johannine Christianity’. Rensberger (2001:110) acknowledges that truth in the Gospel of John may refer to that which is related to God, but agrees with Lieu that here it most probably should be more closely related to the understanding of Jesus held by the author and the lady. On the other hand, if truth is considered within the Johannine writings it is evident that John uses it as an overarching term referring to what is divine and should be associated to God, often with contextually determined nuances within this broader semantic scope (cf. Van der Watt 2009; 2013:73–92). 11 A and A1 = love and truth; B and B1 know truth and remain in truth.

Chapter 9: Truth, love and commandments as ethical concepts in 2 John

325

A οὓς ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, whom I love in the truth B καὶ … πάντες οἱ ἐγνωκότες τὴν ἀλήθειαν, and … all who know the truth B1 διὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν τὴν µένουσαν ἐν ἡµῖν καὶ µεθʼ ἡµῶν ἔσται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα because of the truth that abides in us and will be with us forever A1 ἔσται µεθʼ ἡµῶν χάρις ἔλεος εἰρήνη … ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἀγάπῃ grace, mercy and peace will be with us … in truth and love

The focus in the centre of the chiasm (B and B1) falls on the identity of people that is determined by the truth: they know the truth (v. 2) and the truth resides in (and with) them for ever (v. 3), characterizing them as people whose identity is determined by their close relation to (knowing and remaining in) the truth that qualitatively represents the divine. They are further linked to and associated with the wider group, that is all who know the truth (v. 1), thus imbedding them into the wider circle of authentic Johannine Christians and strengthening their self-conception of being part of this wider group. Since the Presbyter also represents the truth, what is said in the Letter carries the weight of the larger Johannine group. This impacts on their behaviour, as v. 4 indicates – if a person knows the truth and the truth remains in a person, this person will live according to (in) truth and vice versa. Because a person knows and is in the truth, he or she acts truthfully. Living according to the truth is indeed an obedient response to the commandment of the Father (vv. 4–5). The doctrinal threat, described in vv. 7–11, also highlights aspects of the nature of this authentic truth. The rejection of the Christ’s coming in the flesh identifies people as ‘the deceiver and the antichrist’ (v. 7), people who do not adhere to the doctrine (διδαχή) of Jesus (vv. 9–10) and therefore do not have God (v. 9). In opposition to this deception, there are those who know and abide in the truth. To associate with ‘the deceiver and antichrist’ could lead to their losing what they worked for: they will lose their identity in the truth and will therefore share in the erroneous behaviour of the deceivers (v. 11). There are some ethical implications of this use of truth. It confirms the close synergy between identity and behaviour. If the truth abides in believers, they will live in the truth. Secondly, such behaviour is christologically determined – the correct confession will lead to correct behaviour. Thirdly, the truth as identity marker must be protected against false teachings, since loss of truth might lead to loss of the reward that awaits the believer. Truth is further closely linked to love (cf. A and A1 of the above chiasm), the concept that forms a focus in the argument following in vv. 5–6. In v. 1 the Presbyter remarks that he loves the lady and her children in truth (ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ). This characterizes love as corresponding to what is true, that is, divine love. In the Gospel and 1 John it is often repeated that believers should love reciprocally like God loves them. Not any love, but the love according to

326

Section 2: The Second Letter of John

the nature of God’s love is required, that is, love in truth. It might be said that the concepts of truth and love form an overarching space within which believers abide and which should influence and determine their identity and consequently guide their behaviour.

9.2 Love and related concepts in 2 John The term love is used four times in 2 John (vv. 1, 3, 5 and 6). In 2 John the issue of love is one of the two major foci – vv. 4–6 deal with love while vv. 7–11 warn against deceivers with false teachings. 2 John v. 1 ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ v. 3 ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἀγάπῃ v. 5 ἀγαπῶµεν ἀλλήλους

v. 6

αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγάπη, ἵνα περιπατῶµεν κατὰ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ

Verses in rest of John 1J 3:1 ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ J 13:34 J 13:35 1J 4:7 1J 3:5

ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους (2x) ἀγάπην ἔχητε ἐν ἀλλήλοις ἀγαπῶµεν ἀλλήλους αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶµεν

The love language in 2 John corresponds with Johannine love language as it is used in both the Gospel12 and other Letters as the preceding table illustrates. Because of the limited use of the term love in 2 John, there is not expanded evidence on how the concept as such should be understood. However, it is specified as love for one another13 (i.e. love for fellow Christians) linking it to the term truth (i.e. relating it to what is truly divine14), as well as to God’s commandments that they had from the beginning (i.e. it is part of their ethos). These expressions echo what is found elsewhere in the Gospel and Letters, supporting the fact that love in 2 John might be understood in terms of Johannine love in general.15 It involves active affection,16 loyalty,

12 It is often claimed that 2J 5–6 is a summary of what is found in the longer Letter of 1 John. It might also be that these ideas about love are expanded in 1 John. 13 The word ‘one another’ (ἀλλήλων) is usually reserved for family and friends – cf. Vol. 1, 315. 14 See the previous subsection. Cf. Vol. 1, 344–62. 15 Schnelle (2010:26) argues that love should be seen as part of the ‘gemeinsamen Glaubenstradition’ that the Johannine group shared. Cf. Vol. 1, 287–325. 16 Louw and Nida (1996:ad loc.) classify the term ἀγαπάω/ἀγάπη within the same semantic field as attitude. Nearly all dictionaries (like Arndt et al., Louw and Nida, Liddell and Scott) translate the term with affection, that is to show, regard or treat with affection or high regard somebody or something a person associates with. This basic idea is then ex-

Chapter 9: Truth, love and commandments as ethical concepts in 2 John

327

responsibility and care for one’s fellow Christian up to the point of laying down one’s life according to the Son’s example, designating the social and religious bond between the Presbyter and the addressees. As is the case elsewhere in the Letters,17 the concept of living (περιπατέω) according to the commandment of the Father (v. 4), which they had from the beginning (v. 5), is prominent. It is an expression of love to live according to his commandment (v. 6), that demands life in truth (v. 4). In a circular argument, it is stated that love is not only defined as living according to the commandment, but the commandment also requires love for one another. Both the connection between truth and love as well as the Father’s will that is expressed in the commandment to love, characterize this love as the love of God. The mention that God the Father gave the commandment to love, situates both the commandment and the love within the framework of the family of God.18 Obedience to the commandments is therefore not just an option but an expected requirement. This echoes what is required in the rest of the Johannine documents. The more general term περιπατέω (‘walking around’ or ‘living’) is used three times, twice with reference to walking according to the commandments (v. 6), and once walking according to the truth (v. 4). Being syntactically linked to the terms truth and commandment places the ‘walking around’ or ‘living’ of believers squarely within the framework of the will of God. That constitutes the space within which they should live their everyday lives, that is, it refers to a (general)19 style of living. This suggests a lifestyle determined by God. In a situation of possible conflict and deception, the solution remains to stay orientated towards the truth, commandments, love and correct doctrine of Jesus. The group of the lady seems to have experienced some internal and external tension. The remark in v. 4 that the Presbyter found ‘some’ (not all)20 of the children living according to the truth, combined with the warning against the false teachers that could cause the lady and her children to lose what they had worked for (v. 8), suggests a situation where the loving cohesion in the lady’s group was under pressure. If the encouragement or plea for mutual panded with expressions like to be fond of, cherish, desire, prize, be satisfied, contented or well pleased with ‘the other’. 17 Cf., e.g., 1J 3:5. 18 In v. 3 the familial phrases ‘God the Father’ and ‘Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father’ are used. 19 One of the lexicographical possibilities according to Arndt et al. (2000:803) is, ‘to conduct one’s life, comport oneself, and behave, live as habit of conduct’. 20 Cf. 8.3.2.1 c), pp. 298ff., for a discussion of this phrase. Some argue that this remark does not necessarily imply that some of the lady’s children did not act appropriately, since the remark might simply mean that only some were met by the Presbyter, while he cannot remark on the others. Even so, it implies that there might have been problems.

328

Section 2: The Second Letter of John

love in vv. 5–6 is read in this light, it seems that a real problem might have been that love was deteriorating within the group, a problem also attested to in 1 John. Although the threat is expressed in hypothetical terms in v. 10 (‘if somebody …’), it is not just a general warning about something that might happen in the future but is not imminent. In the context of the Letter as a whole the danger was both real and imminent and may even have been unfolding in the elect lady’s group. Within this situation love as cohesive force was essential especially in countering the dangers the group faces. The two focal points of the Letter, namely vv. 4–6 (loving behaviour according to the commandments of God) and vv. 7–11 (the threat of deceivers) are not separate or unrelated remarks, but are syntactically and semantically linked by way of the causal ‘for/because’ (ὅτι) in v. 7. Living in love and truth impacts on the presence and efforts of the deceivers, as Bultmann already noted when he claimed that the Letter is ‘carefully thought through and purposefully constructed … insofar as everything points to vss. 7–11, the warning against the heresy’.21 The logical implication is that mutual love (v. 5) is necessary to counter the deceivers and their deeds. The opposite is also true, namely, that the deceivers are endangering the cohesion (i.e. their unity and identity) of love and truth in the group.22 Therefore, the advances of the deceivers should be stopped for the sake of love and truth and indeed to protect the loving relationships within the group. A key emphasis (or even the major emphasis) in the Letter falls on protecting the loving unity of the group by keeping their relations intact, based on a sound confession and truthful, loving actions.23 Unity in truth and love is requested in order to keep the group intact, which implies showing deceivers with negative intentions the door and thus refusing to participate in their evil deeds (v. 11). Such defensive behaviour is motivated by mutual love in truth. In sum, a lifestyle of love and truth refers to the action of keeping the group intact. Love refers to inner-group relations which are determined by the truth, which includes protecting the correct doctrine of Jesus. In this sense, not receiving a visitor with a false message might be seen as love towards the group, since the group and its tradition should be kept intact.

21 Bultmann (1973:109). Cf. also Ebrard (1860:389), Schnackenburg (1984:304), Strecker (1989:332) and Menken (2010:126). 22 Schnelle (2010:26) also opines that the problems with the opponents should be seen as background to 2J 5–6. 23 Watson (1989:108–109) even argues that this Letter should be classified as a paraenesis in the form of deliberative rhetoric by a friendly superior.

Chapter 10

Some summarizing and concluding remarks The ethical remarks about love and truth in 2 John mainly correspond with those of 1 John.1 However, the direct prohibition against receiving deceivers is dealt with only in 2J 10–11 as a rather unique problem.2 In arguing for a plausible scenario, it has been pointed out that there were both internal and external threats endangering the lady and her group. A major external problem was the threat posed by deceivers. They do not confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh and also bring a doctrine that does not correspond to that of Jesus Christ. These deceivers, who went out into the world (v. 7), were initially associated with the larger Johannine group. They most probably consisted of people known as well as unknown to the lady and her group. Their potential of destroying the lady’s group through their false doctrines leads to the command not to accept these deceivers into her house or participate in their evil deeds. As was the case in the Gospel and 1 John, conserving and protecting the unity and identity of the group is a key ethical responsibility of the Johannine group. The rejection of deceivers who could harm the group and cause them to lose what they (and ‘we’) have worked for, serves to protect and preserve the ethos of the group. The major internal problem seems to be that love was a problem in this group. The lady and her group are politely beseeched to love one another in truth, since that is what the Father demands. The ethics in 2 John are bound to clear criteria, identified with terms like God’s commandment to love (vv. 4, 6–7), the doctrine of Jesus (v. 10) and the truth. These are clear points of departure that determine a person’s thoughts, confessions and deeds. On this basis a deceiving visitor should be shown the door (v. 10). Love for one another in the group is seen as the cohesive factor that might stem the efforts

1 The threat of the opponents in 2 John might be linked to the type of threat described in 1 John, while the problem in 3 John differs, although it also deals with visiting missionaries. Apart from that, the emphasis on love also overlaps. 2 It should be noted that the view expressed in vv. 10–11 is not found in 1 John, while all the other theological remarks occur in both Letters. Painter (2002:332) remarks, ‘1 John does not address the problem of how to treat false teachers in the community. 1 John addresses the question of how to recognize the false teaching’.

330

Section 2: The Second Letter of John

of the deceivers, since it unites the group in loyalty and responsibility that lead to co-operation in the truth. Strong unity between identity and behaviour is unnegotiable. You act according to who you are and who you are again determines how you act. The identity of the receiving group is defined in terms of being children of God, having the Father and Son (v. 9), confessing Jesus who came in the flesh (v. 7), remaining in the doctrine of Christ (v. 9) being expressed through love in truth that remains in and with them forever (v. 2). They are indeed part of those who know the truth, and who live and love in truth (vv. 1, 4). This is the context and space that determine the lifestyle of believers and determine the social ethos and well-being of the group. It should also be noted that 2 John, like 1 John, is a pastoral letter addressed to the lady and her children and not a letter written to their opponents. The problems with the opponents are clearly stated, both in respect to their confession about Jesus Christ and the doctrine they profess. The lady and her children are beseeched in a pastoral way not to heed the advances of the deceivers, but to focus on love for one another as God commanded. Some key aspects for the grammar of the Johannine ethics include: Concept

Functional focus

Love

* as concept corresponds with mutual love in the Gospel and Letters. It functions within familial imagery. It is not something new within the Johannine group. * is directly associated with truth that characterizes it as being of divine quality. * is expressed in obeying the Father’s commandments, living according to what is required according to the will of God. * is seen as necessary for protecting the group from deceivers. * is a unifying concept (with love) – the author describes the larger group as knowing the truth. * as qualitative reference to the divine reality should function as basis for the lifestyle of believers. * is given by the Father and thus suggests familial imagery as social background for the commandment. * involves mutual love in truth as divine qualities. * should be consistently obeyed as part of the lifestyle of believers. * Loving one another is not a new commandment, but a commandment believers had from the beginning. * Keeping the commandment of love in truth is a way to counter deception within the group, which might include showing deceiving visitors the door without greeting them. * Deciding to receive deceiving visitors may harm the group to the point of losing everything they worked for. * A clear choice for socio-religious distance is in order to prevent absorption in the evil deeds or lifestyle of the deceivers. Believers should not co-operate (have fellowship) with such evil deeds.

Truth

Commandment

Consequences of choices made (obedience)

Chapter 10: Some summarizing and concluding remarks Deception

331

* Sin as such is not in focus, but Christological deception is – to refuse to confess that Jesus Christ came in the flesh is such a deception promoted by the deceiver and antichrist. * Such deception does not reflect the teaching of Christ and is not of God. Negative influence in this regard is prohibited and is called evil works.

Certain choices determine the nature of the Johannine grammar of ethics. Some of the key aspects are as follows: Some relevant areas

The author’s choices

Source

* God the Father gives the commandments that include mutual love. * These commandments are not new, but qualitatively reflect the divine truth. * Love is encouraged as the cohesive force that protects the group against deception. * Love is also the way to counter the possible separation within the family of the lady. All her children and not only some should live in truth. * Confessional deception functions as a destructive force within a group that holds on to the doctrine of Jesus Christ. * The lady and her children are under both internal and external threat (separation and deception). * There seems to be some tension within the group as far as life in truth and consequently mutual love are concerned. * Deceivers try to make contact with the lady and her group in order to promote their false doctrine, which is not the doctrine of Jesus Christ. * Deceivers that could harm the Johannine group should not be given the chance to do so.

Function

Context

332

Section 2: The Second Letter of John

Within the process of action formation, the place of prescriptions and related issues are as follows: Worldview

Identity leads to

Organizing and relating the totality of objects in a person’s personal universe Letter: God is the qualitative source of commandments, which are directly linked to love and truth. These concepts form the space within which believers should keep themselves safe and hold on to what they worked for.

Values expressed in

Conscious and accepted relative position in worldview Letter: the identity of believers is assumed by associating them with all of those who know the truth. They are children of the Father who should obey his commandments.

Norms/principles concretized in

Prescription: action

prescribed in

Expressing what is valuable based on identity

Expressing how values can be concretely realized

Letter: They should hold on to what they have worked for, which refers to their life as Christians. They should do what pleases the Father and protect his family. Holding on to the correct doctrine is key, while deceiving teachings should be rejected.

Letter: authentic love in truth; protecting the group and its interests; rejecting deceivers who do not adhere to the doctrine of Jesus.

Prescribing actions based on norms or principles Letter: reject deceivers.

Section 3

The Third Letter of John

Chapter 11

Conflict in 3 John? What was it about? 11.1 Introduction The Third Letter of the Presbyter, addressed to Gaius, rhetorically serves different purposes.1 This letter recommends Demetrius (v. 12),2 but additionally reflects on a power conflict between the Presbyter and Diotrephes (vv. 9–10),3 aiming at increasing the authority and status of Gaius as the one who acts in truth and who does good, inter alia because he is willing to receive travelling preachers like Demetrius (vv. 5–6). It further vilifies the person and behaviour of the opponent, Diotrephes. This is mainly done on the ethical level, arguing that Gaius is and should be good, while Diotrephes is identified as being bad. The whole argument is presented on the basis of a particular value system that requires a certain behaviour that is linked to the truth. In order to evaluate the ethical contribution of this Letter, the situation should be analysed, especially since there are some diverse scholarly opinions on this issue. A problem, as with the other Johannine Letters, is that the Letter is short and offers only half of the picture4 – there is clearly a history behind the 1 Smalley (2002:342) remarks that, ‘The atmosphere is no longer, as in 1 and 2 John, general and fairly abstract. In the present letter we are confronted with an immediate and circumstantial account of church affairs, and an almost breathless description of characters which clash as well as harmonize’. Schnelle (2010:34) calls it a ‘Gemeindebrief in der Form eines Privatbriefes’ that was written to a member of the congregation. 2 Thyen (1976:195) uses the term ‘Empfehlungsbrief’, with Malina (1986:177) also stating, ‘… we know that III John is a Hellenistic letter, specifically a letter of recommendation for a person going to a situation where the letter writer has an inhospitable foe, named Diotrephes’. Cf. also Kim (1972), Funk (1976) and Lorencin (2008:165). Malina (1986:187) further describes the implications of letters of recommendation by saying, ‘The person writing a recommendation attests to the stranger bearing it on the basis of the world of honor of the attester. To reject the recommended stranger is, of course, a challenge to the honor of the recommender. It spurns his honor, and requires an attempt at satisfaction on his part, under pain of being shamed’. 3 Cf. Mitchell (1998:299), Malherbe (1977), Malina (1986). 4 Since it is the shortest letter in the New Testament, Brown’s (1986:728) remark about the brevity and lack of details is real, as Schnackenburg (1984:319) and Rensberger (1997:156–57) also point out. It plagues comprehensive scenarios. As was mentioned when discussing 2 John, the available data needs to be integrated in such a way that the most

336

Section 3: The Third Letter of John

Letter that is not available to the current reader.5 Malherbe,6 for instance, contends that the lack of clear evidence only allows for recognizing ‘possibilities’ and nothing more, while Schnelle7 also draws attention to the difficulties in describing the exact scenario with certainty. This necessitates hypothetical suggestions about the situation, in which case the goal should be to aim for the most plausible scenario based on the best possible view of the synergy of the available material, that is an interpretation that causes the least tension among the available data.8

11.2 Interpersonal tensions leading to a conflict 11.2.1 Interpersonal tensions: some suggestions 3 John centres around a conflict between the author, introducing himself as presbyter, and Diotrephes, who had authority over Christians gathering in his house. The background of the conflict was that Diotrephes refused to welcome travelling missionaries that were sent by the Presbyter. According to ancient hospitality conventions, this equalled rejection of the Presbyter and his group. Apart from that, Diotrephes said some unkind things about the Presbyter. This, of course, resulted in tension between these two leaders. The Presbyter consequently wrote 3 John to Gaius in order to establish him as his new champion in the area. This Letter also served as a letter of recommendation for another travelling missionary, namely, Demetrius.

plausible scenario results. Some broad outlines are evident from the Letter, however, namely, that there is a conflict, in which the author seeks to convince his addressees to act according to his requests, that the situation deals with travelling Christian missionaries, etc. All these different data must be interrelated to come to a plausible conclusion. Different scholars have indeed suggested different combinations of the data. 5 It may be assumed that the Letter is embedded in a whole world of relevant information that is not explicitly mentioned in the Letter, but which is common knowledge between the Presbyter and Gaius. Marshall (1978:81) opines that the carrier of the Letter (Demetrius) perhaps provided additional information orally, as was the case in ancient times. 6 Malherbe (1977). 7 Schnelle (2010:44). Cf. Price (1989:114–19). 8 Malherbe (1977), as well as others like Malina (1986) suggests a social approach to the Letter and its problems, trying to understand what is at stake, especially as far as the practice of hospitality is concerned, hoping to gain fresh insights through the social dynamics evident in the Letter. This should be combined with a close reading of the text.

Chapter 11: Conflict in 3 John? What was it about?

337

A key question is therefore, what was the nature of this interpersonal conflict? With Malherbe,9 others like Schnelle,10 Mitchell11 and Lorencin,12 note that different scenarios are proposed regarding the situation described in 3 John even though the Letter is short and the available material scarce and sketchy. Some of these suggestions are briefly mentioned here: – Zahn13 identifies the problem as Diotrephes using his authority negatively. – Harnack14 takes an ecclesiological approach to 3 John by opining that the Letter comments on a conflict between the comprehensive provincial missionary system in Asia Minor (that tried to exercise authority through travelling missionaries) and the establishment of authority in local congregations. This would make Diotrephes the first local monarchic bishop15 whose name we know. This would mean that 3 John marks the point in church history where offices replaced the guidance of the Spirit.16 The essence of the conflict was on the level of church discipline. Wengst17 also regards Diotrephes as the first monarchical bishop. – Schnackenburg18 argues that Diotrephes alone led the congregation, was indeed a powerful leader but not yet bishop, since the formation of the church was still in a transitionary phase. Brown also argues along these lines, pointing out that Diotrephes ‘is on his way to become a presbyter-bishop in the style of the Pastorals’.19 Authority in a preliminary phase that would lead to formal church leadership in the form of a bishop was the issue in 3 John.

9 Malherbe (1977) wrote this seminal article on the situation in 3 John, which was and still is widely consulted. As examples, see Painter in his commentary (2002:362), Von Wahlde (2010:268), Elliott (2000:753), Hock (1980:79), Mitchell (1998:299–320) and Rensberger (2006:278–91) to name but a few. Brown (1982:730–32, 738) in his commentary on the Letters of John, is in general agreement with the argument of Malherbe, with some minor differences, which Malherbe responded to in his addendum to the article in 1983. In 1986 Malina responded in an article in Semeia (pp. 171–94) entitled, ‘The received view and what it cannot do: III John and hospitality’, zooming in on some methodological issues – cf. Van der Watt (2014a). 10 Schnelle (2010:42–43). 11 Mitchell (1998:299–300). 12 Lorencin (2008). 13 Zahn (1953:375–78). 14 Harnack (1897:3). 15 Cf. ibid. 21 and Thyen (1976:196). 16 Harnack (1910:65). This view became popular and was followed, for instance, by Bornkamm in his article in TWNT (1959); Brown (1982); and others. 17 Wengst (1978:233). 18 Schnackenburg (1984:329). 19 Brown (1986:738).

338

Section 3: The Third Letter of John

– Wendt20 transferred his view that 1 and 2 John battle against Gnostic tendencies onto 3 John, concluding that in 3 John, Diotrephes represents Gnostic heresy. The battle between him and the Presbyter was consequently of a theological nature. Walter Bauer,21 also interpreting 3 John more in the light of early dogmatic struggles within the various streams of early Christianity, saw Diotrephes as representative of heresy against the orthodoxy represented by the Presbyter. The Presbyter’s position puts Diotrephes under pressure, to which he responded by trying to curb the influence of the Presbyter. The Letter is again a response to these efforts of Diotrephes, claiming terrain back from him. It suggests a power struggle for authority. – Käsemann22 turns the above view around and sees Diotrephes as the traditional Christian monarchic bishop who actually excommunicated the Presbyter. The Presbyter now tries to rehabilitate himself, by using Gaius’ influence.23 The Presbyter kept his title and waged the conflict on two fronts, that is, against Diotrephes’ ‘Frühkatholizismus’ as well as against some docetic tendencies.24 – Taeger25 also opines that Diotrephes was a conservative within the Johannine group who reacted against the non-Johannine behaviour of the Presbyter who wanted to place himself in a position of authority. In this sense Diotrephes is trying to preserve the genuine orthodox Johannine tradition, while the Presbyter was the deviant. This view assumes underlying dogmatic and religious reasons for the actions of Diotrephes. The variety of the above suggestions illustrates the difficulty of a precise understanding of the dynamics in 3 John. A good starting point is to consider the nature of the relationships between the major characters, namely, the Presbyter, Gaius and Diotrephes. 11.2.2 The relationship between the main characters in 3 John Since the tensions are related to interpersonal relations, these relations between the major characters (Presbyter, Diotrephes and Gaius) should first be explored.

20

Wendt (1925:23–27). Bauer (1971:93–94). 22 Käsemann (1951:292–311). 23 Bultmann (1973:101) criticizes this view as an over-interpretation. Cf. also Marshall (1978:12–13) and Schnackenburg (1984:299–300). 24 Cf. also Strecker (1989:365–68) and Thyen (1976:196). 25 Taeger (1987:286). 21

Chapter 11: Conflict in 3 John? What was it about?

339

11.2.2.1 The relationship between Gaius and Diotrephes Gaius26 might have been part of the house church that gathered in the house of Diotrephes and seemingly under his authority.27 Another option is that the house church of Gaius was not part of the Diotrephes group or under his authority. There are some arguments in favour of Gaius being a member of the house church of Diotrephes, but these are in no way conclusive. For instance, in v. 9, a letter to the church of which Diotrephes was part is mentioned, that might have been known also to Gaius. This leads many to the conclusion that Gaius was part of the receiving group. This view did not go unchallenged. Malherbe28 argued that knowing about the letter is not so significant, since letters were often addressed to a group with the assumption that it should be passed around for others to read (see also v. 15).29 Furthermore, in a semi-private, group-orientated society secrets were few. Gaius could have known about the Letter, without necessarily being part of the church mentioned. A further issue is that it would be unkind and risky to ask Gaius to receive the travelling missionaries if it could result in him being expelled by Diotrephes (vv. 5–9 and v. 10). There is no indication in the Letter that these threatening actions of Diotrephes affected Gaius or his group directly, since he was still in a position to receive travellers.30 Malherbe therefore concludes that there were at least two groups in the area, Gaius and his beloved, and Diotrephes and the group over which he exercised authority. It therefore seems plausible that Gaius was not a member of Diotrephes’ house church,31 as Malherbe32 concluded (cf. v. 15). Gaius found himself outside of Diotrephes’ sphere of influence and was not threatened by him. There is no further indication of the nature of the relation between these two people or their groups in the Letter. There must have been some contact if Gaius knew of the letter the Presbyter wrote to the church of which Diotrephes was part. This implies that there were multiple (at least two, or even a network of) house churches in that area, as is attested to in other areas like Corinth and 26

Cf. Van der Watt (2013a) for a detailed discussion on Gaius. Cf. Bultmann (1973:96) and Brown (1986:729). 28 Malherbe (1977). 29 Cf. Culpepper (1998:280). 30 Gaius is also informed or reminded of what Diotrephes is doing. It might be that Gaius was not well informed, or it might be that the Presbyter simply points out to Gaius what exactly he means by Diotrephes’ offending him. 31 Cf. Thyen (1976:198), Brown (1986:731), Rensberger (1997:159) and Schnelle (2010:35). 32 Malherbe (1977:226–39). 27

340

Section 3: The Third Letter of John

Colossae, and is of course also suggested by the situation in 2 John. The larger Johannine church therefore consisted of multiple smaller house churches, of which we know at least those of the elect lady, of Gaius and of course Diotrephes. Recently, Lorencin33 has suggested another scenario. He argued that Diotrephes was an important rich person who had power over his clients. He could basically do what he liked which links the issue not to hospitality, but to patronage. Gaius, on the other hand, is asked for hospitality based on the acceptance of visitors on equal basis. The Presbyter urges the church to ‘develop a relationship based upon hospitality’. The Letter is written to ‘bolster Gaius’s courage in the face of opposition from Diotrephes’, who apparently made Gaius feel insecure, putting Gaius in danger of following and supporting Diotrephes. Lorencin34 motivates the point of Gaius’ insecurity by pointing out that Gaius was already helping travelling missionaries; why was it then necessary to remind him again if he did not need some form of encouragement? Demetrius would then come to join forces so that they can continue doing good works.

11.2.2.2 The relationship between the Presbyter and Diotrephes A key question is what the relationship between the Presbyter35 and Diotrephes was. They most probably knew one another, since in the Letter reference is made to possible social interaction between them, even planned for the future (v. 10). Diotrephes apparently also had much to say about the Presbyter (v. 10). Their relationship was not a positive one.36 The Presbyter indicates what his problem with Diotrephes was (vv. 9–10). Diotrephes’ rejected the Presbyter because he wanted to be the first among them (ὁ φιλοπρωτεύων αὐτῶν).37 This attitude is described as the motivating factor for Diotrephes’ actions. Apparently, the Presbyter had a position of leadership among the Johannine believers,38 but Diotrephes aspired to such a position by opposing the Presbyter. Obviously, this is evaluated negatively by the Presbyter, suggesting self-interest and hubris on the part of Diotrephes. These attitudes were of course regarded as negative Christian values that militated against humility. This is also not what Jesus’ example of the footwashing is all about (J 13), implying that Diotrephes was acting against the ethos of the Johannine community. 33

Lorencin (2008). Ibid. 173. 35 Cf. Bonsack (2009) on the possible relation between the Presbyter and the Beloved Disciple. 36 For a discussion on this topic, cf. Schnelle (2010:44–47). 37 Lexicographically the word φιλοπρωτεύω means ‘to have a special interest in being in the leading position, wish to be first, like to be leader’ (Arndt et al. 2000:1028; so also Liddell and Scott 1996:1939). 38 That is why he could write this Letter with some authority and call the addressees ‘his children’ (v. 4), an endearing term implying the authority of a father. 34

Chapter 11: Conflict in 3 John? What was it about?

341

The Presbyter clearly pointed out how Diotrephes openly illustrated his bad attitude towards him. Firstly, there was the fact that Diotrephes does not receive ‘us’39 (v. 9 – οὐκ ἐπιδέχεται40 ἡµᾶς)41 and thus rejects the authority of the Presbyter and opposes the group that he represents (included in the ‘us’), since in antiquity hospitality was expected among groups or communities and not only among individuals.42 By not showing hospitality towards these travellers Diotrephes rejects not only the travellers, but the whole system of which the Elder is part, distancing himself from the Presbyter’s missionary efforts. As such this is a negative action. Being part of this missionary system is highly valued by the Presbyter, as he describes it in terms of ‘being fellow workers in the truth’ (v. 8), being loving and faithful (vv. 5–6), or ‘benefiting God’s service’ (v. 6). In light of this, the Presbyter paints a very negative view of what Diotrephes did. Mauss puts it even more strongly, ‘to fail to invite, is … the equivalent of a declaration of war; it is a refusal of friendship and intercourse’.43 Malherbe warns that the situation should not be overinterpreted. For him the weight of the evidence points to an individual, filled with hubris, who wanted to exercise his own power rather than acting within the established Johannine ethos of assisting travelling missionaries. Was Diotrephes then aspiring to become a bishop? Although the conflict was about leadership, Brown44 speaks ‘of dubious accuracy’ to associate the events in 3 John with a power struggle for the position of bishop, while 39

Brown (1986:717) interprets the ‘us’ as a ‘meaningless variant’ to ‘I’. He does mention other possibilities like, a) the ‘us’ would imply that Diotrephes is already part of the schismatics (Wendt); there is no other indication of this in the Letter, however. b) The ‘us’ might be parallel to the ‘we’ in 1J 1:1–4 that refers to the bearers of eye-witness tradition of the Gospel, but this is also unlikely, given the special context of 3 John. Brown (1986:718) prefers the scenario where ‘us’ refers to the Presbyter and the Johannine School ‘in being responsible for the tradition’. 40 Mitchell (1998:299–320) draws our attention to the difference in translation that is often found of the two phrases in vv. 9 and 10 respectively using the same verb, namely, οὐκ ἐπιδέχεται ἡµᾶς (normally translated as ‘does not acknowledge our authority’) and οὔτε αὐτὸς ἐπιδέχεται τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς (normally translated as ‘he does not welcome the friends’40). Arndt et al. (2000:ad loc.) list the following lexicographical possibilities for ἐπιδέχοµαι: to receive into one’s presence in a friendly manner, receive, welcome; to acknowledge receptively, accept = not reject. The idea of rejecting authority ‘is not lexically defensible’. In v. 9 it is often translated rejecting authority40 and in v. 10 as receiving/welcoming people. Both phrases should reflect the openness and acceptance as attitude in receiving somebody or something. 41 Evidence of refusing travelling missionaries is found during the times of early Christianity, for instance, Ignatius of Antioch (Phld. 11:1; Did. 11:13), which means that Diotrephes’ actions were not unique. But what could have been the reason(s) for his actions? 42 Malina (1986). 43 Mauss (1954:11). 44 Brown (1986:729). Cf. also Malherbe (1977).

342

Section 3: The Third Letter of John

Marshall45 points out that such formal leadership was not yet part of church organization at the time the Letter was written. Although that was not yet the case, matters were moving in that direction. Secondly, Diotrephes’ unwillingness to welcome ‘us’ is exacerbated by spreading false and malicious charges against the Elder. This vilification of the Presbyter seemingly illustrated Diotrephes’ power among those associated with him, resulting in a clear power challenge. In this light, Malherbe46 opines that no dogmatic clash is reflected, but that it is all about a power struggle.47 For him the weight of the textual evidence points to an individual who wanted to exercise his own power and authority as the owner of the house, rather than seeking ecclesial authority.48 Diotrephes’ negative remarks about the Presbyter wanting to put himself first (v. 9), rejecting the Presbyter’s authority and even vilifying him (v. 10), point to a personal conflict. Diotrephes spoke maliciously of the Presbyter and not being satisfied with that, he refused to receive visitors associated with the Presbyter – note the sequence in vv. 9–10: ‘He does not receive me … I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked/bad words against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers’. Personal problems are mentioned first as source of the conflict, leading to the rejection of the visitors. However, although there is no direct mention of dogmatic or Christological differences between the two, the Presbyter rhetorically uses ethical arguments against Diotrephes’ behaviour – it might be said that the conflict has definite ecclesiastic undertones. Diotrephes vilifies the Presbyter with evil words, he does not receive the Presbyter as a fellow Christian, his deeds are evil and somebody who acts evil has not seen God, implying that he does not follow the truth, etc. Apart from that, the author uses theological language to explain the nature of the conflict. He strongly associates himself with the truth,49 that is, that he is on the side of the true God. Those who assist the visitors he associates with, are in God’s service (v. 6) and are fellow workers in the truth (v. 8). In v. 11 he declares himself to be on the side of the good which shows that a person is of God. These remarks confirm a theological value system in which the Presbyter is on the side of God, the truth and the 45 Marshall (1978:11). Schnackenburg (1984:320) also opines that Gaius could not have been a ‘kirchliche Amtsperson’. 46 Malherbe (1977). 47 Due to the significant influence of Malherbe’s article, his view should be noted here. 48 Cf. also Thomas (1995:71). He sees the absence of references to false teaching as implying one of four things, a) that 3 John was written before the outbreak of false teachings; b) if the false teachings existed already, the community addressed by 3 John was not aware of it; c) the Presbyter did not want to refer directly to the false teachings, only in a subtle way; d) 3 John was written after the theological controversy. Thomas prefers the first opinion. Cf. also Edwards (1996:24–26) and Schnelle (2010:44–45). 49 3J 1, 3–4, 8, 12.

Chapter 11: Conflict in 3 John? What was it about?

343

good, while Diotrephes is siding with evil, is by implication not acting in truth and is therefore not really siding with the works of God. This is a theological judgment on the situation. It is not said or implied in 3 John that there has been discussion about these issues (yet), but the Presbyter is on his way to the church and Diotrephes to discuss what he is doing (vv. 10, 13–14). In light of the strong separation between the evil of Diotrephes not doing the work of God, and Gaius and the Presbyter living in truth and doing good, it may be assumed that a theological discussion would follow during a visit of the Presbyter. Personal and religious issues cannot be separated in 3 John. Smalley, for instance, notes that ‘although the situation presupposed in 3 John is chiefly practical and organizational (“a picture of real life in the primitive church,” as Williams, 13, calls it), doctrinal concerns (the central issues in the Christian faith) are never far away from the mind of the presbyter’.50 Although the conflict might be played out between two individuals, the Presbyter clearly identifies himself as representative of a larger Christian group (church). He calls Gaius and his group his ‘children’ (an ecclesiastical remark). The visiting missionaries also testified to the ‘church’ on their return about the way Gaius treated them and he calls those who helped them fellow workers in the truth, a phrase that includes a larger Christian community. In v. 9 he mentions a letter to the ‘church’ (ἐκκλησία), which also elevates his discussion from a personal to a public level. Apart from that, he mentions his testimony to Demetrius with the testimony of ‘everyone’, that is a larger group. In rejecting the Presbyter, Diotrephes also rejected this larger group, which makes it not only a personal, but also a broader ecclesiastical action. Considering these possibilities, it seems reasonable to assume that the conflict was personal in nature, but that the framework of this personal conflict included ecclesiastical and theological considerations. This more complex picture might cast light upon the reason(s) why Diotrephes acted as he did. In spite of the fact that the relationship between the Presbyter and Diotrephes was under severe pressure, it has not completely broken down. The Presbyter expresses his intention to come51 and discuss matters, most probably also, or perhaps specifically, with Diotrephes (v. 10).52 The phrase 50 Smalley (2002:343). Schnelle (2010:44) interprets this rhetoric of the Presbyter as evidence of a dogmatic conflict between the two, opining that it is all about ‘eine lehrmäßige Kontroverse’, since truth is involved, but that is an over-interpretation of the text. The Presbyter introduces this perspective to Gaius in his evaluation of the situation, but this does not yet reflect a direct or existing debate or conflict between him and Diotrephes. 51 ἐὰν ἔλθω (ἐάν with the subjunctive) usually implies a hypothetical situation, but taking v. 14 into account, it seems as if the Presbyter has firm plans to visit them. The hypothetical situation might perhaps only refer to the time of the visit, as Brown (1986:718) suggests. 52 The statement in v. 10 does not necessarily mean that the Presbyter envisages talking to Diotrephes in person. This statement might refer to the community which was in-

344

Section 3: The Third Letter of John

ὑποµνήσω αὐτοῦ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ποιεῖ may be translated as ‘I will bring up/call attention to his deeds which he does/is doing’53 or as ‘I will remind him of his deeds that he is doing’.54 The latter translation implies that the Presbyter plans to talk to Diotrephes, while the first one does not necessarily imply that the Presbyter envisages talking to Diotrephes in person. In any case, the phrase implies a standing relationship with those believers who are part of the ‘church’ that Diotrephes also represents (v. 10).55 In these planned discussions (vv. 10, 13–14), the Presbyter would most probably try to correct the damage Diotrephes has done and to re-establish things as they have been. Brown,56 who prefers this interpretation, notes that in analogy to v. 6 ‘reminding’ them would most probably happen in front of the group (church). The situation in 3 John also had an impact on the honour and shame of the characters, although these should not be seen as the major analytical categories in this Letter.57 Diotrephes dishonoured the Presbyter by not receiving him or his brothers, the travelling missionaries, as well as by vilifying him with evil words. The Presbyter now seeks satisfaction and restoration of his honour by praising Gaius and asking him through this letter of recommendation, to welcome Demetrius, in contrast to what Diotrephes did, thus imitating what is seen as good behaviour. Diotrephes is rhetorically dishonoured by evaluating him and his deeds as evil and not of God (v. 11). In this way the honour of the Presbyter should be restored. Although this is a private letter, the results will be a public matter, dealing with honour and shame in the group as a whole. By not responding to the challenge of Diotrephes, the Presbyter would have lost his honour and authority, and that of Diotrephes would have been strengthened. The Letter aims to correct the situation in favour of the Presbyter.

fluenced by Diotrephes’ negative behaviour, although discussions with Diotrephes are not excluded. Strecker (1989:346–47) therefore notes that excommunication is not (yet) intended here. 53 NASB; NIV; RSV; NRSV; ‘I will remember his deeds which he doeth’ (KJV); ‘I will call to mind his deeds which he does’ (NKJV); ‘I will bring up what he is doing’ (ESV); ‘I will report some of the things he is doing’ (NLT); LEB; NAB; NCV; ISV; GW; ASV; GNB; Einheitsübersetzung; Statenvertaling; NBG; NAV. 54 1933 Afrikaans translation; ‘I will remind him of the works he is doing’ (HCSB); ‘if I may come, I will cause him to remember his works’ (YLT); CEV; GNB (German). 55 The Letter does not seem to imply that Diotrephes is regarded as a heretic or no longer a brother (Johannine) Christian. The Presbyter still seems to regard him and his church as part of the (Johannine) group of Christians. The Presbyter still wants to intervene and talk to his people, though he is setting up Gaius as authoritative figure (cf. Brown 1986:718). 56 Ibid. 719. 57 Cf. Malina (1986:177ff.) and Lorencin (2008:167).

Chapter 11: Conflict in 3 John? What was it about?

345

11.2.2.3 The relationship between the Presbyter and Gaius According to Brown,58 it need not be assumed that the Presbyter and Gaius knew one another well. The Presbyter could have known Gaius only through what he heard of him. This would then imply that Gaius was not generally known as a prominent spiritual leader. The Presbyter did learn about him through the witness of the returned travelling missionaries (vv. 5–6). This view has its problems, since the Presbyter gives some indication of a closer relationship than simply one of hearsay. Gaius is, for instance, called the (spiritual) child of the Presbyter (v. 4), is addressed by the Presbyter as the beloved who is loved in truth (v. 1), indicating their close loving relationship within the space of divine truth. The Presbyter and Gaius are united in the truth, with Gaius living in the truth and people testifying to his truth (v. 3). The Presbyter also praises him for being spiritually well and shows concern that he should be in good health (v. 2). This is not final proof that the Presbyter previously met Gaius, but at least suggests more than a superficial relationship. Gaius (and his group) is especially recommended for his loving reception as well as further assistance of travelling missionaries, even though some of them were strangers (vv. 5–6). Although unsaid, this might have been the result of the letter of recommendation these travelling missionaries carried, which would mean that Gaius accepted the sender as friend. Gaius is encouraged to continue with this work in the truth that is worthy of God. This is the good example he should continue to be. In v. 12, Demetrius is introduced with testimony from everyone, including the truth itself, with the expectation that Gaius will welcome him. The motivation for welcoming visiting missionaries is ethically motivated: It is good to do that, it benefits God and corresponds to the truth (v. 3). Value judgments are passed on Gaius’ behaviour in vv. 5–6 and on Diotrephes’ in v. 10 by using the verb ποιέω. Gaius is commended for πιστὸν ποιεῖς (acting faithfully – v. 5) and encouraged to καλῶς ποιήσεις (you will do well – v. 6) in a manner worthy of God (ἀξίως τοῦ θεοῦ). This is how behaviour is described that is aimed at assisting the brothers, or travelling messengers. Doing this makes the person a co-worker for the truth (v. 8). Giving such people support is what ought to be done (ἡµεῖς οὖν ὀφείλοµεν ὑπολαµβάνειν τοὺς τοιούτους). It is an ethical requirement. What Diotrephes did is described in terms of his evil words against the Presbyter and efforts to oppose assistance to travelling missionaries (v. 10). This is exactly the opposite of what Gaius did and is not what pleases God.

58

Brown (1986:739).

346

Section 3: The Third Letter of John

This praise of Gaius in light of Diotrephes’ evil behaviour, rhetorically aims at heightening the status and honour of Gaius59 as the one who does what is right before God, with Diotrephes as the one who did not really see God (v. 11). By vilifying Diotrephes the Presbyter degrades him, and by praising Gaius the Presbyter gives him heightened status and honour, making him his new champion in that area. As fellow workers, they ensure that the mission is continued.

11.3 Hospitality and 3 John The main problem in 3 John is directly related to the issue of receiving visiting missionaries, that is, hospitality, that resulted in (or laid bare) the conflict between the Presbyter and Diotrephes.60 Malherbe61 points out that the practice of hospitality62 was common in antiquity among Jews,63 Greeks64 and Romans, and was indeed actively practised by Christians,65 who welcomed fellow travelling Christians into their households, normally based on the recommendation of a fellow Christian or even an acquaintance(s). It was indeed an important social value in ancient times.

59 Brown (1986:728) opines that the aim of the Presbyter with the Letter is to replace Diotrephes with Gaius as the authoritative person in that particular area. Cf. also Culpepper (1998:280). 60 Since hospitality was also a probable issue in 2 John, some overlaps are to be expected in this discussion of hospitality. 61 Malherbe (1977). 62 Cf. also the discussions on hospitality in 2 John – subsection 8.4 above. 63 Josephus (Bell. 2.8.3 §§ 124–126), for instance, describes the way the Essenes received fellow sect members. They put all their resources at the visitors’ disposal and treated them as intimate friends, even though they might not have met them before. These travellers did not need to carry anything with them, except weapons against brigands. Everything else was provided by the hosts. Cf. also Edwards (1996:24–26). Chester (2013:129) shows that the Jewish inscriptions indicate a practice of ‘provision for accommodating and sheltering strangers; Jewish charitable provision for the poor and needy, and for those visiting a city and with nowhere to stay, was renowned certainly by the first century CE’. 64 Lorencin (2008:168) notes that in Greek contexts hospitality was common and ‘based upon a fluid and reciprocal relationship’. 65 Cf. Acts 10:5–6; 16:14–15; 18:1–7; 20:20–21; 21:8, 16; 28:14; Rom 15:23–24; 16:1– 2; Tit 3:13. First Testament examples are Gen 18:1–14; 19:1–23. Brown (1986:730) further mentions the second century Martyrium S. Iustini 3 as an example of how Christians were welcomed in foreign cities. Cf. also Schnackenburg (1984:323–25) and Keener (1993:ad loc.).

Chapter 11: Conflict in 3 John? What was it about?

347

11.3.1 Conventions linked to hospitality66 Ancient hospitality involved much more than a simple (neutral) reception of a visitor into one’s house (i.e. like a bed and breakfast or hotel today), but was loaded with social expectations and implications.67 Malina68 defines hospitality ‘as the process by means of which an outsider’s status is changed from stranger to guest … the outsider is “received” and socially transformed from stranger to guest’. The process of hospitality unfolded in three stages: a) evaluating the stranger, b) the liminal phase where the stranger is a guest, c) movement from guest to transformed stranger. The first stage of evaluating the stranger ‘is undoubtedly to know where the stranger fits into the purity arrangements of the world’.69 Hospitality puts a person in an intermediary position on the inside with privileges attached to this position, but not as a ‘genuine’ insider since the person must return to the outside. Based on the practice of patronage, the ‘protégé/client’ is received as a guest, which activated certain expectations.70 Offending the protégé/client is to offend the patron. The host acted as the guest’s protector and patron. Obviously this would require that the guest should act according to the expectations the host has of a guest. Lorencin71 explains the practical aspects of receiving somebody by noting that a considerate host would provide ‘food, lodging, and protection’ for his guests. He refers to descriptions in Homer72 that illustrate several aspects of hospitality, namely, proper reception of the guest and seating the guest appropriately, then presenting a feast and afterwards a bath, some gifts and a place to sleep. Only after the guest was properly welcomed and fed, were enquiries made as to his name, identity and business. An escort might also have been provided to the next destination. This shows the level of involvement that accompanied hospitality customs. In the second phase, where the stranger is given the status of a guest, acting one’s role becomes important. Proper behaviour was not always adhered to; for instance, a guest may infringe upon the requirements of hospitality by insulting the host, or may show hostility towards the host by ‘usurping the 66 Although hospitality was discussed in some detail in 2 John (cf. subsection 8.4 above), some of the material needs to be repeated here for the sake of understanding the situation in 3 John in case the reader is interested in reading the section on 3 John on its own. 67 Cf. Malina (1986:181). 68 Ibid. 182. 69 Ibid. 70 Lorencin (2008) distinguishes between hospitality and patronage and argues that the Presbyter encourages Gaius to show hospitality (based on equality), while Diotrephes acts as a patron who dominates his clients. 71 Lorencin (2008:167–68). 72 Cf. Homer’s Odyssey 3.4–485; 15.193–214; 5.382–13.187.

348

Section 3: The Third Letter of John

role of the host’,73 or by refusing what is offered. The host may infringe by insulting the guest, or may show hostility towards him by not protecting the guest’s honour, or not properly attending to the guest’s needs. Behaving according to proper conventions was expected, however, especially since hospitality was ‘viewed as a reciprocal relationship between communities’,74 implying that conflict between host and guest affected not only these two individuals, but also the groups they represented. Malina75 therefore notes that, ‘such a society required a law of hospitality: do as you would be done by, receive the stranger so you be well received’. The third phase is when the guest leaves the host either as friend or as enemy, with accompanying praise or dissatisfaction, depending on what happened during the visit. This would impact on future relations between these groups. This is clear in the rhetoric of 3 John. Diotrephes is addressed in a vilifying way, even as blamed of evil words and deeds. Obviously, his behaviour resulted in tension between him and the Presbyter, which resulted in the Letter. Mentioning these three phases, illustrates the complex interpersonal relations and expectations that were associated with hospitality. It was indeed a central and significant social action in ancient societies, which is confirmed by 3 John that was written because of hospitality refused. 11.3.2 Hospitality and 3 John Letters of recommendation functioned within this framework. Rejecting such a recommendation letter implied a challenge to the recommender’s honour, including the group he represented. Such a challenge normally required a response. Malina argues that 3 John is an effort by the Elder to seek some satisfaction for the dishonour and indeed regain some honour by recommending Demetrius and any others that he might send to Gaius. In this way, Malina argues, not only understanding but also interpreting 3 John takes place, due to the fact that broader attention is given to the social system within which the Letter was written. In mentioning the testimonies in favour of Demetrius (vv. 11–12), emphasizing the truth and integrity that go with it, confirms how evil Diotrephes’ actions were by rejecting the travelling missionaries. He rejected the truth. In line with Malina, Rensberger76 further explains that ‘the people hosting the church in their house were not only showing hospitality, but helping to make the Christian mission possible’. Indeed, Christian hospitality had an additional advantage that served God. These houses ‘became centers not only 73

Malina (1986:185). Ibid. 75 Ibid. 186. 76 Rensberger (2001:114). 74

Chapter 11: Conflict in 3 John? What was it about?

349

for worship but for the work of evangelization’. Indeed, ‘to receive such travellers into one’s house meant furnishing a base for their work’ and thus becoming fellow workers in the truth (v. 8). The term προπέµψας (‘send them on’) in v. 6 implies an active participation in welcoming the visitors, but also caring and providing for them, not only during their stay, but also for their further trip, that is ‘Ausstattung und Weiterbeförderung’,77 as Strecker calls it. The brief remark in v. 7 that the travelling missionaries do not receive any help from pagans, that is non-believers, confirms the responsibility the group should take for itself, since others will not do that. Another relevant aspect for the understanding of 3 John is the role of the head of a household (like the lady in 2 John, and Diotrephes and Gaius in 3 John). Within the early Christian practice of meeting in houses, the head of the household where the meeting was held, remained head of his (or, in some instances, her) house, with the normal rights of a house owner involved. Obviously, when the Christian meeting takes place, the house technically changes from a private to public space. The leader of the religious group (church) then played his particular role in this respect. These two functions might but need not overlap, according to Malherbe.78 Being the head of the house or offering hospitality does not automatically qualify a person to be head of the church simply because they are meeting in his or her house. The authority of the leader of the church is grounded elsewhere than in house ownership. Malherbe also opts for the case that, in 3 John, these two positions should be separated, since he does not find concluding evidence in 3 John of the overlap of these functions.

77

Strecker (1989:362). Cf. also Brown (1986:710, 728), Schnackenburg (1984:325), Smalley (2002:350) and Schnelle (2010:38). 78 Malherbe (1977:226–29) considers the possibility that the head of the house where the church gathered could by default also have been the leader of the church. Although he regards this as a tempting possibility, he does not find sufficient evidence in the New Testament to come to this conclusion. Being the head of the house or offering hospitality does not automatically make a person the head of the church. The authority of the leader comes from somewhere else. Gillman (1992:869) also emphasizes that giving somebody abode does not make that person a leader of the church. R. Alastair Campbell (1994:126) differs from this view, however. He claims that ‘so long the local church was confined to one household, the household provided the leadership of the church. The church in the house came with its leadership so to speak “built-in”. The church that met in someone’s house met under that person’s presidency’. This is of course the case if a congregation only met in one house. It seems that there were more Christian houses involved according to 3 John (cf. Schnelle 2010:41), which makes it possible for Diotrephes to be head of his house, but not necessarily the leader of the church.

350

Section 3: The Third Letter of John

This information proves to be important to Malherbe, since it leads him to put forward the argument that Diotrephes need not have been the leader of the church to exercise his authority over his own house,79 that is, the issue need not be ecclesiological, but might be personal. The problem then relates to the authority and the power of an individual, namely, Diotrephes who challenged the Presbyter. However, Diotrephes is exercising significant power by refusing people entrance into his home and forcing others to comply (v. 10). Could this imply that Diotrephes was indeed the leader of a network of house churches that also met in his (perhaps larger) house? The fact that he forces others to comply might be interpreted as an ecclesiastical (bishop-like) move, since it seems that more than one house group were subjected to his authority. That more than one household were involved, is implied by the fact that others were also able to receive the visitors into their homes. On the other hand, it might equally be social in nature, that is with Diotrephes acting as head of a house and not as leader of the church, as Malherbe opines. Diotrephes’ house might have served as a central meeting place for several households.80 Those (smaller households) who refused to follow suit and indeed might have opened their houses to the visitors,81 signalled opposition to Diotrephes which could have resulted in being (counter) rejected by Diotrephes, making them unwelcome in his house. In a group-orientated situation, this would have had a significant negative impact on their society. This gives Diotrephes considerable power over the people gathering in his house. Lorencin82 notes that ‘as a wealthy patron in whose house the church of 3 John was meeting, Diotrephes could have had enough power to prevent access to the church by whomever he disliked. This is probably the simplest social explanation for his expulsion of members’. Malherbe therefore argues that Diotrephes, based on what is said about him, was at least the head of a house where a group of house churches met with proportionate authority, but doubts whether it may be concluded that he is the church leader (official) representing all these (smaller) house churches meeting in his house.83

79

Brown (1986:717) emphasizes that Diotrephes’ authority was real and not just an aspiration, as some would conclude from v. 9b, where it is stated that he wants to be first among them, that is, expressing a desire. The evidence that Diotrephes already exercised authority is evident from his actions in v. 10, refusing the Presbyter hospitality (v. 9) and obliging others to follow suit. 80 Like in the case of the Corinthians, several households, that also used their own homes for smaller meetings, might also have assembled in one house for larger gatherings. 81 Gaius might have represented such a household. 82 Lorencin (2008:167). 83 Malherbe (1977).

Chapter 11: Conflict in 3 John? What was it about?

351

11.3.3 Receiving or rejecting visitors: is there a contradiction between 2 and 3 John? Edwards contrasts 2 and 3 John, remarking, ‘It [= 2 John] is a far cry from the generous, condition free hospitality of 3 John. Either the situation has drastically changed, or we are dealing with a different author’.84 This indeed underlines the problem in comparing 2 and 3 John regarding the issue of receiving visitors. Is Diotrephes not following the prescription of the author of 2 John to reject unacceptable visitors? The situations described in 2 and 3 John differ significantly. In 2J 10, the Presbyter exhorts the lady not to receive deceivers, in order to preserve the group. Protecting the group that adheres to the truth and doctrine of Christ has priority over the responsibility of welcoming people into one’s house. In 2 John it is a doctrinal matter that required actions to protect the truth as it is presented in the doctrine of Christ. Konradt formulates it aptly, by saying that the priority of the Presbyter was to protect the congregation from influences ‘die sie [= the congregation] seines Erachtens gefährden würden. Liebe bedeutet für ihn also nicht, schwärmerisch alle Menschen umarmen zu wollen, sondern geht als Konsequenz der Sorge für und Solidarität mit der eigenen Gruppe im Konfliktfall mit Grenzziehungen einher’.85 In 3 John the situation is different. Diotrephes refuses travelling missionaries, but not for the reason that they are deceivers. They are indeed in God’s service, representing the truth (vv. 6, 8, 12) and sent by the Presbyter who apparently has some standing in that group. By doing this he ignores the conventions of early Christian hospitality. His reason for doing this is his aspiration to be first, that is, his hubris and not the truth. His actions are not in the first place doctrinal, but personal, although these cannot be separated. The difference between these two situations lies in the nature of the visitors. The common denominator is defending the interests of the Johannine group in their service of God and the truth. In the case of deceivers (2 John), association is discouraged, while in the case of authentic missionaries (3 John) they should be welcomed and assisted. In 2 John, bad teachers are rejected while in 3 John, good teachers are rejected. However, it is also suggested by some that Diotrephes actually executes literally the command given in 2J 10 – he does not receive teachers he does not know, that is, strangers (cf. v. 5); in other words, he takes a dogmatic stance as is suggested in 2 John. That makes the Presbyter the villan and not him, since it implies that he is actually protecting his group as was expected of a good leader. Culpepper remarks, ‘from these verses we can see that 3 John reflects the struggles of a community of churches attempting to work 84 85

Edwards (1996:31). Konradt (2022:404).

352

Section 3: The Third Letter of John

out co-operative relationships and yet defend themselves against unacceptable teachings’.86 This option is less probable, however, given the Presbyter’s network and authority within what seems to be an established wider group that represents the truth.87 As was the custom, the visitors to Diotrephes most probably carried letters of recommendation from this group (v. 12 and perhaps v. 9) that witnessed to their relations to other Christians which are described in the Letter as following the truth and working for God. Why would Diotrephes then be unsure of the credentials, unless he was unsure about or opposed the teachings of the Presbyter’s group whose recommendation these visitors enjoyed?

86 87

Culpepper (1998:281–82). Cf. also Malherbe (1977). 3J 4, 6, 8, 12–15.

Chapter 12

The ethical dynamics in 3 John In spite of its brevity, 3 John addresses important ethical issues, also using typical Johannine ethical terms, such as love and truth, or ethical mechanisms like mimesis and reciprocity.

12.1. Truth The terms for truth (ἀλήθεια/ἀληθής) are used in different ways in 3 John. Verses 1 3 3 4 8 12 12

Text οὓς ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ µαρτυρούντων σου τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, καθὼς σὺ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ περιπατεῖς2 ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ περιπατοῦντα συνεργοὶ γινώµεθα τῇ ἀληθείᾳ (µεµαρτύρηται) … ὑπὸ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας ἡ µαρτυρία ἡµῶν ἀληθής ἐστιν

Translation whom I love in truth1 testifying to your truth as indeed you are walking in the truth (my children) are walking in the truth we may be fellow workers for the truth (received a good testimony) … from the truth itself (you know that) our testimony is true

The variety as well as frequency3 of the use of the concept truth in 3 John is notable, so much so that Schnelle calls it the ‘eindeutige Schlüsselbegriff des 3 Joh’.4 It indeed expresses a key part of the ethos of this community, who

1

This phrase may also be translated as ‘whom I truly love’ (cf. Brown 1986:703, Kruse 2000:220 and Painter 2002:367). Schnelle (2010:35) thinks it refers here to more, namely, to love ‘die auf einem gemeinsamen Wahrheitsgrund und einem gemeinsamen Verständnis der Wahrheit beruht’. 2 The term περιπατέω is found in both Jewish (cf. Eccl 8:20; Isa 2:5 – Brown 1986:197, Klauck 1991:88 and Smalley 2002:23) and Greek literature (cf. Arndt et al. 2000:ad loc.). The reference could be simply to walking around, but in a more idiomatic way it refers to moving around in ordinary life or ‘living’. It is a common term in John as well as in the rest of the New Testament, though with a lower frequency in the latter (cf. Mk 7:5; Acts 21:21; Rom 14:15; Eph 5:2 as well as 1J 2:6, 7, 11; 2J 4, 6; 3J 3, 4). Cf. also Lieu (2008:52–54) and Rensberger (2001:20) for detailed discussions. 3 Seven times in fifteen verses. 4 Schnelle (2010:35). Cf. also Leutzsch (1994).

354

Section 3: The Third Letter of John

they are and how they behave according to their tradition. Different expressions related to truth are used: – Gaius has truth and lives in truth (v. 3). – The Presbyter and his children live and love in truth (vv. 1, 3). – The testimony of the Presbyter and his followers is true (v. 12). This remark actually validates the content of the Letter itself, underlining that what is said here is witnessed in truth. – The truth itself witnesses (v. 12). – The Presbyter with all his spiritual children including Gaius are all fellow workers in truth (v. 8). The Johannine concept of ‘truth’5 has already been discussed in detail, since it is a key term in Johannine literature.6 It is a concept that is semanticcally associated with the divine reality and this is no different in 3 John. What is in truth or is done in truth, qualitatively expresses what God wants and stands for. In this sense it refers to an overarching reality that influences all aspects of life and might even have ‘title-like’ qualities used as an identity marker. This is also evident from the diversity in the use of the concept in 3 John. Except for vv. 67 and 11,8 there is no further reference to Jesus or God in this Letter. It rather seems that references to the divine are expressed by the concept of ‘truth’. Rhetorically, the concept of truth is strongly associated with positive figures, like Gaius (vv. 1, 3, 8), Demetrius (v. 12), the Presbyter, and of course the community represented by the Presbyter, identifying them as being of the truth. Through his use of this concept, the author creates an ethical space where divine values qualitatively typify persons and behaviour. Their lives are encapsulated by truth. Living in truth9 also involves following the Presbyter’s good example and advice,10 and this is also true of the contents of the Letter – it represents the truth. Therefore, the Presbyter expresses his joy when hearing that his children ‘walk in the truth’ (v. 4), as he also mentions 5 The use of the term ‘truth/true’ in the Gospel and Letters of John is as follows: ἀλήθεια – J 1:14, 17; 3:21; 4:23, 24; 5:33; 8:32, 40, 44, 45, 46; 14:6, 17; 15:26; 16:7, 13; 17:17, 19; 18:37, 38; 1J 1:6, 8; 2:4, 21; 3:18, 19; 4:6; 5:6; 2J 1, 2, 3, 4; 3J 1, 3, 4, 8, 12; ἀληθινός – J 1:9; 4:23, 37; 6:32; 7:28; 8:16; 15:1; 17:3; 19:35; 1J 2:8; 5:20; ἀληθής – J 3:33; 4:18; 5:31, 32; 6:55; 7:18; 8:13, 14, 17, 26; 10:41; 19:35; 21:24; 1J 2:8, 27; 3J 12; ἀληθῶς – J 1:47; 4:42; 6:14; 7:26, 40; 8:31; 17:8; 1J 2:5. 6 Cf. Vol. 1, 344–59. Cf. also Van der Watt (2006:49–75; 2009:317–33). 7 This verse refers to helping missionaries in a manner worthy of God. 8 This verse says that he who does good is of God. 9 Cf. vv. 3 and 4. 10 Schnelle (2010:36) remarks that the Presbyter ‘ist vorbildhaft und soll als Norm gelten (vgl. V. 8)’. That the Presbyter uses the term ‘children’ does not necessarily imply that they are his converts, but it does signify a close relationship in which the Presbyter has some authority, cf. Schnackenburg (1984:323) and Menken (2010:134).

Chapter 12: The ethical dynamics in 3 John

355

to the lady in 2J 4. This is what the brothers also told him about Gaius (v. 3). The brothers also testified to Gaius’ truth (v. 3), which is evident from his life in truth. The concept of truth encapsulates the divine space in which believers live. On the other hand, the term truth is not used in relation to Diotrephes (vv. 9–10). Although Diotrephes is strongly opposed by the Presbyter, the author still seems to regard him as part of the church; for instance, he will come to discuss the behaviour of Diotrephes with the church (v. 10) and seemingly Diotrephes also informed himself of the Letter the Presbyter wrote to the church (v. 9). It does not seem that the Presbyter has cut him off. However, the Presbyter seems to deny that Diotrephes acts or lives in truth – according to v. 11 it seems that he regards Diotrephes’ actions as evil. This again touches on the issue of whether a person whose actions militate against the ethos of truth in the Johannine group can still belong to the worshipping community. The problem of group members deviating in their behaviour from the truth of the Johannine ethos is common to all three Johannine Letters. In 1 John we have the ‘you’ group (the addressees) who find themselves in flux between the eye-witness group and the antichrists due to their lack of love and fellowship with the eye-witness group. They should confess their sins and again live a life in the light (1:6–2:2). In 2 John there are apparently children of the lady that are not living according to the truth, but are nevertheless called children of the lady. The Letter calls for mutual love to remedy the problem. Here, in 3 John, we have Diotrephes – and those he dominates – whose behaviour is called evil, although they still seem to form part of the Johannine group. From the above, it becomes apparent that the theological narrative of the Letters is presented in typical Johannine dualistic or contrasting terms (i.e. light/darkness; good/evil; murder/life; truth/deception, etc.), that is, grey areas have no place. However, the everyday practice as it is reflected in the Letters was different, that is, people trespassed against the ethos, although that did not mean that they were no longer regarded as part of the Johannine group. The above examples illustrate, however, that there are also grey areas where admonition, asking, convincing, paraenesis, pleading, etc. are still ways to rectify this position, especially recommending mutual love (and fellowship) as remedy. Care should therefore be taken not to be too absolute in the description of the Johannine dualism. Practical examples communicate a more complex situation.

356

Section 3: The Third Letter of John

12.2 Love As is the case with the concept of ‘truth’, the concept of ‘love’ is also used frequently in 3 John,11 corresponding with the other two Letters of John.12 Verses 1 1 6 2, 5, 11

Text Γαΐῳ τῷ ἀγαπητῷ ὃν ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ οἳ ἐµαρτύρησάν σου τῇ ἀγάπῃ ἐνώπιον ἐκκλησίας Ἀγαπητέ

Translation To the beloved Gaius whom I love in truth who testified to your love before the church Beloved

The references to love are all brief, and except for the use in v. 6, little extra information might be gathered from the other usages. In v. 6, reference is made to Gaius’ love, referring to the service he offered to travelling missionaries, who belonged to the Presbyter’s group (church), even though he did not know some of them (who were most probably carrying letters of recommendation). This reflects a typical case of ancient hospitality. By receiving these visitors, Gaius showed that he cares for the Christian community and is a fellow worker in truth. This is described as doing good (v. 11). What he did was indeed an act of love, not the least because it shows loyalty and co-operation with the group’s ideals which should be associated with actions worthy of God (ἀξίως τοῦ θεοῦ – v. 6). Schnelle correctly remarks, ‘Insgesamt entwirft der Presbyter in V. 5–8 bewusst das Urbild einer johanneischen Liebesethik, von dem sich das negative Gegenbild in V. 9–10 scharf abhebt’.13 These actions echo some of the loving deeds in the other two Letters, like caring for fellow Christians in need or protecting the group through love. This implies that the nature of love in 3 John does not seem to differ from the nature of love mentioned in the other Letters of John.14 What was discussed there15 need not be repeated here. The Presbyter also mentions that he loves the beloved16 Gaius in the truth (v. 1), similar to what he said about the lady and her children in v. 1 of 11

Cf. the discussion by Konradt (2022:401–404). Love in truth determines actions and ‘vollziehen sich in der sozialen Realität der johanneischen Gemeinden’ (Schnelle 2010:48). 13 Schnelle (2010:40). 14 Konradt (2022:404) emphasizes that, ‘Das Liebesgebot ist der Kern der ethischen Tradition der Gemeinde und will als solcher stets vergegenwärtigt sein’. 15 Cf. subsections 3.3 and 9.2 above. 16 The repetition of the concept of love in v. 1 might seem tautological, but it might also identify Gaius as the one who is loved, followed by the explanation that this love is in the truth. 12

Chapter 12: The ethical dynamics in 3 John

357

2 John. By linking love to truth, the nature and space of love is identified as divine,17 serving as identity marker and ‘model’ for believers: they are people who love one another with authentic love that belongs to those who side with and are pleasing to God. Rhetorically it confirms the shared identity of the Presbyter and Gaius (with his associates). Gaius is, so to speak, on the right side, the side of God and the Presbyter and this may be seen in his behaviour in truth. By using the vocative, beloved (ἀγαπητέ), so often18 to describe the addressee(s), the author includes them in this divine space of love in the truth, thus ensuring social bonding based on shared identity and behaviour. This repetitive use serves as a constant reminder regarding who the addressee(s) are and it serves as motivation for them to do what the Presbyter says.

12.3 Brothers, children and friends – terms signifying identity The author of 3 John identifies the addressee(s) in several ways. Verses Text 3, 5, 10 ἐρχοµένων ἀδελφῶν/εἰς τοὺς ἀδελφούς/ἐπιδέχεται τοὺς ἀδελφούς 4 τὰ ἐµὰ τέκνα 15 οἱ φίλοι 2, 5, 11 Ἀγαπητέ 9 φιλοπρωτεύων

Translation Of the brothers came/for the brothers/ refuses to receive the brothers my children the friends Beloved (Diotrephes) who likes to put himself first

Apart from the vocative ‘beloved’, that has been mentioned above, the other terms used to address the intended receivers are all directly related to two of the most intimate social contexts in ancient times, namely, family (brothers and children) and friends. Although it might be argued that these terms were titles within the Johannine community, they nevertheless still recall the social contexts to which they belong. As was argued elsewhere,19 these references of course activate a framework of social expectations linked to family and friendship. For instance, in v. 5 even unknown people are called brothers,20 thus activating a spiritual social space within which social conventions of brotherhood are suggested. This, of course, is in line with the consistent use of the family

17

Cf. the discussion of truth above (12.1, pp. 353ff.). Cf. 3J 2, 5, 11. 19 Cf. subsection 2.2 above. 20 Malina (1986) points out that hospitality was aimed at such ‘unknown’ travellers who carried letters of recommendation. 18

358

Section 3: The Third Letter of John

metaphor in Johannine literature. The addressees, who are beloved, are also part of the family of God and should behave as kin of that family. The rhetorical effect of the use of the term ‘brothers’ serves as cohesive mechanism to identify Gaius with the Presbyter, his followers and the travelling missionaries – they are family, indeed the family of God and should be treated as such. This forms the conceptual framework for the ethical behaviour of the Johannine group, acting like loving family members towards one another. When the Presbyter changes the application of the metaphor a little and speaks about his ‘children’ (τὰ ἐµὰ τέκνα – v. 4), he suggests authority over them, like a father has over his children who should obey him.21 It therefore gives him joy that his children (Gaius’ group) are living in the truth, like a father observing his children living according to what is expected of them as children. This is why Gaius’ moral behaviour can be commended by the Presbyter and why he feels free to encourage Gaius to maintain a high level of ethical activity in truth. To refuse reception of the travelling missionaries, is thus likened to refusing a brother, a member of one’s family, something that is totally unacceptable. However, this is exactly what Diotrephes does – he refuses brothers like the Presbyter and those he sent (v. 9) and tries to prevent any aid to these brothers (v. 10). Within the context of brotherhood this is ethically very problematic and clearly against family protocol. This is also clearly against the nature of love that should assist fellow Christians, as it is explicitly required in 1J 3:16–17. Diotrephes’ anti-familial behaviour is explained – he is ὁ φιλοπρωτεύων (v. 9), someone who likes to put himself first or have pre-eminence among the group. This is likened to hubris,22 which was a major sin in ancient societies, often negatively reflected on in Greek tragedies.23 Diotrephes does not comply with the requirements of the family, does not support the family and is therefore negatively portrayed in terms of what is expected by a family member; the reason: his hubris. He is not acting like a brother or friend. In v. 15, the term ‘friends’ (φίλοι)24 is used, referring to the two relevant groups (related to senders and receivers of the Letter), perhaps used as some form of self-identification. The social expectations of friendship,25 being those of one soul, sharing, protecting, being open and so on, are thus activated by 21 ‘Child/ren’ is also a common term in 1 John, where it is often used as vocative. Cf. 2:1, 12, 28; 3:1, 2, 7, 10, 18; 4:4; 5:2, 21. It might imply that Gaius has been converted or baptized by the Presbyter (Schnelle 2010:37), but this is not sure. 22 Cf. 1J 2:15–17. 23 Cf. Bolyki (2003). Seeking human honour is also mentioned as one of the negative characteristics of the Jewish opponents in the Gospel (J 5:44; 12:43). 24 For the dynamics of friendship, also in Johannine literature, cf. Addendum 3 in Vol. 1 for detailed discussion. 25 Cf. Vol. 1, 567–88.

Chapter 12: The ethical dynamics in 3 John

359

these references. The sender and addressees are not only spiritual kin, but also friends that should be greeted by name (κατʼ ὄνοµα). This description is also in synchronization with what is asked in the Letter. A mutual relationship involving mutual sharing of possessions is requested in assisting in God’s service (vv. 6, 8). Friends do not hesitate in fellowship, assistance or co-operation. Being of one soul is what typifies friendship. Friends hold everything in common, while enemies do not. The acts of Diotrephes as well as Gaius should be measured against these requirements of friendship. By using these intimate social concepts, the borders of the group as well as the expectations are aptly described. Within the contexts of family and friendship there may be no question as to assistance, responsibility, receiving fellow brothers, loyalty or love. This obviously highlights the close relationship between identity and consequent behaviour as members of the family of God, as Schnelle confirms, ‘Gemeinsam ist allerdings der Grundgedanke, dass aus dem Handeln auf das Sein zurückgeschlossen werden kann’.26 Diotrephes has shown himself not being worthy of being a respectable brother or friend.

12.4 Vilification as part of the conflict The way the boundaries are drawn by both the Presbyter and Diotrephes should be noted. Diotrephes excludes some travelling missionaries from his circle of influence and in this way strengthens the boundaries of his group. This is typical of forming and preserving group identity. On the other hand, the Presbyter implicitly disciplines Diotrephes and will also continue to do so when he visits, thus drawing clear border lines for his group, identifying them with the truth and what is good. Ethically it shows that border lines are drawn on the basis of the assumption of truth, which lies within the convictions of the group. Within this conflict, the Letter represents a power manoeuvre by the Presbyter to curb the influence of Diotrephes. This is done by praising Gaius and thus increasing his status and honour, while degrading and vilifying Diotrephes. Ethically, this confronts us with the question of what is allowed in dealing with a conflict. Is it ethically acceptable to vilify or degrade others in the process? Ancient vilification should not be confused with present-day vilification. In antiquity, vilification was a much more acceptable argumentative tool, used to draw social lines and to claim positions in an argument. In 3 John vilification is used differently by Diotrephes and the Presbyter.

26

Schnelle (2010:47).

360

Section 3: The Third Letter of John

In 3 John clear borderlines are drawn by identifying ‘spaces’, that is, of the family of the Presbyter’s friends, who are of God and thus live and act in truth and love. In the case of the Presbyter, vilification stands in the service of living in truth, thus protecting it by indicating deviations from the truth and thus defining the borders of the Johannine group. In this context vilification for the sake of the truth is a good work that should be imitated (v. 11). In this way the Presbyter protects the group as well as the truth. The outcome is noble, according to the Presbyter. In the case of Diotrephes, the destructive vilification is against the family of God and the truth. It is therefore classified as an evil deed that shows that the person does not know God. It does not serve the authentic family of God (i.e. the broader group associated with the Presbyter), nor the truth, but rather aims to destroy both. Apart from that, the vilification of Diotrephes is motivated by an evil attitude, namely, hubris. This evil way of vilification should not be followed. It seems that the basis of ethical judgment in this case is formed by measuring the advantage of the deeds in terms of service to the Johannine group and the truth. This may be likened to teleological ethics. Both the Presbyter and Diotrephes vilify, but the one (the Presbyter) is doing good, because he defends the people of God and the truth, while the other (Diotrephes) is doing evil, since he acts against the family of God and shows that he does not know God. Motivation as well as end result are taken into account when considering the ethical quality of these deeds.

12.5 Mimesis in 3 John In v. 11, a maxim-like ethical phrase (‘eine allgemeine ethische Maxime’27) encourages Gaius to imitate what is good. This is the only place in the Johannine Gospel and Letters where the term µιµέοµαι (to use as a model, imitate)28 is used, although it is argued throughout that the concept of mimesis is key to understanding John’s ethics.29 As was discussed elsewhere,30 mimesis is not ‘photocopying’, but following the spirit and character of a particular example, that is, not doing exactly the same, but expressing an equivalent ‘attitude’ and ‘spirit’ in the imitated action.

27

Schnelle (2010:47). Cf. Arndt et al. (2000:ad loc.). 29 Cf. Vol. 1, 257–62; Addendum 2. 30 Cf. subsection 2.4 above and Addendum 2. 28

Chapter 12: The ethical dynamics in 3 John

361

In the Letter two options are given, that is, not imitating evil, but imitating good (v. 11). Imitating evil results from a life apart from God – such a person has not seen God (οὐχ ἑώρακεν τὸν θεόν). However, imitating good indicates that a person is of God (ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ). The associative implication is that if a person does what is good, he or she is imitating God, and if the person does what is evil, he or she is imitating the devil. This is a damning judgment on Diotrephes and what he is doing, and believers are warned not to imitate his behaviour. Imitating the Presbyter, who loves and lives in truth, who supports activities worthy of God, who cares for his brothers, friends and children, being glad to hear that they are well, is encouraged through the Letter as positive ethical behaviour should be mimed. The prayer in v. 2 for Gaius’ well-being is often interpreted as simply showing interest or as creating the right ‘atmosphere’ as was expected from the exordium at the beginning of the Letter.31 However, in the context of the Letter, it serves to illustrate the general concern the Presbyter has, not only for the issues with the travelling missionaries, but also with the particular issues regarding his beloved brother and friend Gaius. This illustrates the general concern that is part and parcel of loving somebody. At the basis of the conflict lie the missionary activities of the group. According to the Gospel, an important part of the ethos of the Johannine group was their focus on mission.32 The Letter, in spite of its brevity, expresses a similar open attitude towards missionary activity and expects believers to willingly participate in these missionary efforts (vv. 5–8). Missionaries serve God and the truth for the sake of God’s name (vv. 7–8), expanding the truth of God. This activity should be supported since it supports what is good.

12.6 Concluding remarks 3 John is indeed an ethical document in the fullest sense of the word,33 not only in its contents but also in its performative nature, trying to influence the

31

Cf. Marshall (1978:83), Schnackenburg (1984:321), Brown (1986:704), Strecker (1989:360) and Menken (2010:133) who discuss this matter. 32 Cf. Vol. 1, 451–55. 33 Apart from the general structure of ethics, several individual ethical issues are addressed, for instance, the role of vilification (including gossip); the mimetic aspect of Johannine ethics; truth as basis for identity and actions; expectations to help others that are co-workers in truth sharing responsibility; the way fictive relations, like being brothers, friends, children, beloved, determine behaviour by creating fictive groups that should love one another and therefore act in unity, oneness of soul; accepting authority based on truth; practising hospitality within this group.

362

Section 3: The Third Letter of John

crisis situation addressed by vilifying Diotrephes and raising the stature, honour and status of Gaius. The importance of care for the group within the framework of truth and love is emphasized in 3 John. This involves active and positive actions, benefitting service to God and thus acting in a way worthy of him (v. 6). By receiving and supporting authentic travelling missionaries, for instance, and carrying the message of truth, believers become fellow workers in the truth. By not doing this, people (like Diotrephes) illustrate that they are not of God and do not know God. Their deeds are evil. As performative document, 3 John aims at propagating correct behaviour in truth, involving assisting the spread of the truth through missionary means, and vilifying behaviour that aims at preventing the spread of the truth, especially through evil words and deeds. Of the three Letters, 3 John has the most open attitude towards the outside world that is clearly evident through its emphasis on the importance of the travelling missionaries. Doing and supporting these actions are linked to doing good or doing truth (vv. 8, 11). Although we have concrete examples of good and bad behaviour in 3 John, the ethical dynamics are also presented on another level – the level of identity and the loyal expression of that identity. Good behaviour is measured against this loyalty towards God, what is worthy and beneficial to Him. This is what truth is all about and this defines the ethos of the group. Individual examples are not necessary, but knowledge of the ethos, the truth, will guide the believer ‘to do good’. Both the results of their deeds and their motivation for acting in such a way are part of their ethical attitude. In 3 John the basis and motivation for the Presbyter’s request to Gaius is ethical. Receiving the travelling missionaries is to walk in the truth, to act in a manner worthy of God, to do what is good and right. Indeed, the Presbyter has no greater joy than hearing that his children follow the truth (v. 4). In this way they behave according to who they are. The inseparable relation between identity and behaviour, with behaviour based on identity, is reaffirmed in 3 John. The believer is not described as a puppet moving to the strings of certain rules, but is a responsible member of the family of God, who must discern what would be worthy of God, of course guided by the ethos, or tradition of the group. Diotrephes has decided wrongly, while Gaius seems to be on the right track. Discernment is necessarily informed by the context of what is believed and traditionally treasured as the truth. This is the reason why tradition and truth receive such emphasis in the Johannine Letters. It is part of their ethos that should be preserved.

363

Chapter 12: The ethical dynamics in 3 John Worldview

Identity leads to

Organizing and relating the totality of objects in a person’s personal universe Letter: God is the source of ethics, the truth.

Values expressed in

Norms/principles concretized in

Prescription: action prescribed in

Conscious and accepted relative position in worldview

Expressing what is valuable based on identity

Expressing how values can be concretely realized

Prescribing actions based on norms or principles

Letter: the identity of believers is described in familial terms as being spiritual children, brothers, and even friends. They find themselves in the space of love and the truth.

Letter: Caring for the truth within the Johannine group as well as for the well-being of the group itself; protecting the honour of what is right.

Letter: Loving actions in service of God and the truth. Imitating the good with the Presbyter as model; loving one’s brother. Discerning what love and truth involve; deviating behaviour should be rejected; pursuing the good and the truth.

Letter: receiving and assisting fellow Christians, especially travelling missionaries. Protecting truth even through vilification.

The Presbyter developed his ethics from a general fixed foundation, namely, the protection of and loyalty to the truth, that is, that which pleases God. This includes the tradition and loving actions, but also assists in practical matters, supporting and building on this foundation. It represents a hierarchical structure with the interest of God at the top, overarching and determining all ethical behaviour – being in the truth naturally leads to walking in the truth. In this ‘chain’ the one aspect is inseparably linked to and directly determined and influenced by the other, starting with a shared worldview, resulting in acting in such a way that what is worthy of God is encouraged and indeed actively done, for instance by receiving travelling missionaries. What opposes this is ethically negative and shows no knowledge of God.

Section 4

The Letters and the Gospel of John

Chapter 13

Comparison between the Letters and the Gospel 13.1 Introduction The aim of this section is to compare the ethical material as it is presented in the Gospel (Vol. 1) and the Letters. 13.1.1 Different theories A major and evergreen point of discussion deals with the relationship between the Gospel and the Letters. Views on the nature of the relationship differ strongly, ranging from independence to strong dependence, with numerous nuances in between.1 This obviously impacts on the way the grammar of John’s ethics is construed. Similarities (on linguistic and conceptual level) between the Letters and the Gospel are enough to convince numerous scholars of the close relationship between the Gospel and the Letters, some even going as far as claiming that the Letters are just a commentary on the Gospel, an effort to correct misunderstandings of the Gospel message, or even a summary of the Gospel. Scholars like Brown defend a close relationship between the Gospel and the Letters, by arguing that it is ‘quite logical to assume that the Johannine tradition was the common heritage’.2 What is argued in the Letters ‘can be plausibly explained as derivative from the Johannine tradition as preserved for us in [the Gospel]’.3 The Letters are drawing upon the Gospel or the Johannine tradition, which obviously implies a very direct conceptual relationship, which means that the ethics of the Letters may legitimately be developed in line with, and expanded upon, the basis of the ethics of the Gospel. On the other hand, the differences (both linguistically and conceptually) equally convince others that different authors with different lines of thought that might even belong to different (even independent) traditions4 were responsible for the various documents. Marxsen, for instance, remarks that 1 Each respectable commentary has a discussion on this and other issues. Cf. the detailed discussions in, e.g., Brown (1986:3–35). 2 Ibid.:71–72. Cf. Brown’s thorough analysis of the relationship (as well as different theories about the relationship) in his introduction to his commentary (ibid. 1–68). 3 Ibid. 73. 4 Cf., e.g., Hakola (2010:17–35).

368

Section 4: The Letters and the Gospel of John

the language and style point to two different authors and then adds, ‘that we should not be too quick to assert the unity of the ethic of John and that of his school’.5 He further states, ‘Naturally, we might expect them [the various Johannine documents] essentially to agree in their ethics, but exactly the opposite is the case. For it can be shown that the ethic of “John” is fundamentally different from that of his school’.6 Several other scholars, like Hakola,7 argue along the same lines and think that the similarities and differences in the theology of the Gospel and the Letters suggest two different lines of tradition. This means that the ethics of the different documents should be treated independently on their own, without emphasizing mutual influence. Between the above two views a variety of nuances are formulated, for instance, that the Letters are independent, but are nevertheless part of the general Johannine tradition,8 also leading to nuances in the understanding of some aspects of the ethics of the Letters. In light of the analyses of the ethical material in the Gospel and Letters a comparison follows, based not only on literary but also on conceptual similarities and differences. The aim is to compare the similarities and differences in such a way as to determine their extent and functional nature. 13.1.2 Approach What follows is not a general analysis of the differences and similarities between the Gospel and the Letters,9 but the focus is on material contributing to the grammar of ethics of these four Johannine documents. Neither is what follows an effort to go into detailed discussions – this was done in the previous sections as well as in Volume 1. The results of those analyses will be summarized and compared in this section.10 The Letters will serve as point of orientation, adding the relevant Gospel material.11 In comparing these documents methodological care should be taken.12 Caution is sounded against an approach that simply lists the similarities and 5

Marxsen (1993:286). Ibid. 285. This view will be disputed by the material presented in the following comparison. 7 Hakola (2010:17–35). 8 Cf. Lieu (1991; 1993; 2014). 9 Cf. Brown (1973:ad loc.) and Culpepper (2014:95–122). 10 Frequent references will be made to the relevant detailed sections in Vols. 1 and 2. 11 Gospel material that is absent from the Letters will not be discussed, except where it impacts on the ethics of the Letters. 12 Cf. Kloppenborg (2017:390–414; 2019:5ff.) for a theoretical discussion of what comparisons involve. He (2019:5) calls comparison ‘a very particular type of scholarly enterprise’. He approaches it from a heuristic point of view and does not favour an approach that focuses on the influence or genealogy between the things that are compared. However, his focus is on comparing, for instance, Christian practices with guilds. This is 6

Chapter 13: Comparison between the Letters and the Gospels

369

differences, as is often done, then weighing the two sides13 in order to vote for the one or the other side, whether the documents belong to the same tradition or not, or whether the same author was responsible for these documents or not. Theoretically, a holistic approach is followed: not only are the differences or similarities noted, but they are also theologically and conceptually compared, determining their interrelatedness and relative positions within the larger theological structure of John. Attention is given to the networking of the relevant concepts, the role one concept plays in relation to the others,14 thus determining their unique contributions within the larger whole. Attention should not be given to similarities alone, but the unique nature or character of two things compared really becomes apparent when differences are duly considered.15 Although it remains difficult to determine influence and genealogy, as Kloppenborg16 noted, the literary as well as conceptual similarities between the Johannine documents, especially the Gospel and 1 John, are so evident, that it is difficult to deny influence or genealogy. However, in a process of comparison, differences are of crucial heuristic importance. A more difficult task is determining the extent of the influence, especially when the differences come into play. The analysis of the documents revealed two levels in the development of ethical material. On a basic foundational level, both the Gospel and Letters share a ‘core’ of theological and ethical material that serves as framework for the more detailed development of the ethical material. The application of the diverse ethical material is rooted in this basic ‘core’ of material (traditional material).17 This shared ‘core’ includes the ‘basic narrative’, namely, that God sent his Son to reveal God and to bring salvation. Salvation involves being born of God and having eternal life within the family of God. This change of identity to a child of God requires corresponding behaviour, and so theoretically different from comparing the Gospel with the Letters of John. In this case there are indeed direct and clear literary and conceptual signs of influence that suggest genealogical development. In what follows, both literary and conceptual aspects form part of the analytical process in comparing the Gospel and Letters of John. 13 This is often done by zooming in on one or two aspects like eschatological or soteriological material, using this material to argue and ‘prove’ particular conclusions. In the end these results are often one-sided. 14 This is needed within the spiral or pictorial development of the theology of John. Concepts are constantly repeated by relating them to one another. This necessitates a paradigmatic as well as syntagmatic approach to the material. 15 For instance, a Rolls Royce and a Volkswagen Beetle may be compared – similarities include four wheels, an engine, body with doors, etc. However, it is when the differences are considered that the comparison reveals the individual character of each car. 16 Cf. Kloppenborg (2019:5). 17 The purpose of writing the Gospel and 1 John is even stated in similar terms (J 20:31/1J 5:13).

370

Section 4: The Letters and the Gospel of John

on. Based on this ‘core’ material, diverse ethical remarks are made and a variety of concepts are applied (e.g., light, possessions or truth). It is indeed a matter of being the same but also of being different in their sameness.18 13.1.3 Some preliminary remarks Obviously, comparison between narrative and letter material proves to be challenging, since the nature of the genres differs considerably. There are clear differences in key areas, like the aim of the documents, presentation of material or dictum, to name but a few. The Gospel, for instance, is a bionarrative about Jesus who was sent to the world and who must be believed in so that a person may receive eternal life (J 20:31). Although 1 John has a similar aim (1J 5:10–12), the Letters are more situationally orientated, each focusing on a particular social challenge and crisis. Even among themselves the Johannine Letters differ in their approach and content,19 due to differences in the situations they address. Easing the problem is the theological nature of the documents, sharing similar theological challenges. In the Gospel the dialogues reflect some theological views similar to what is argued in the Letters. This makes the comparison possible and realistic. All four documents do not equally contribute to the comparison, due to the difference in length and material. Because of their length, the Gospel and 1 John will feature more extensively in the comparisons. 1 and 2 John overlap as far as their reference to love is concerned (cf. 2J 4–6),20 but the latter part of 2 John, where visiting preachers are dealt with, show more overlap with 3 John. Where relevant, this information will be added to the comparison. For instance, concepts like ‘truth’ are more complex in 2 and 3 John than in the other two documents, while the concept of love is developed extensively in 1 John. 3 John, again, focuses more on a personal crisis between the Presbyter and Diotrephes than on theological or dogmatic material. In the comparison these differences are taken into account. If a particular document is not referred to directly (e.g., 1 John or the Gospel), the term ‘documents’ will be used as a convenient way of referring to the Gospel and whichever Letter is relevant to that particular comparison, even though only 1 John (and not 2 or 3 John) might be in question.21 18

For a comparison between the theological ideas developed in the Gospel and those of 1 John, cf. Feuillet (1973:194–216), Brown (1986:755–59), Hakola (2010:17–48) and Culpepper (2014:95–122). 19 This means that in the comparisons material might overlap with 1 John and not with the others, or 2 and 3 John might show some overlap on certain issues, but not with the others, and all the other possible combinations. 20 Obviously not all of the themes of 1 John are repeated in 2 John, which is much shorter and therefore more specific. 21 It is assumed that the reader is aware that except for one or two issues (such as truth or love) the major comparison is between the Gospel and 1 John.

Chapter 13: Comparison between the Letters and the Gospels

371

13.2 Literary similarities in the Gospel and the Letters related to the grammar of ethics Similarities between the Gospel and the Letters of John are undeniable,22 as are the differences, of course. A table23 of the similarities that on surface level concern the grammar of ethics (and not in general) illustrates the literal overlaps in ethical expressions between 1 John and the Gospel.24 Gospel of John25

Letters of John 1J 1:6 1J 1:6 1J 2:11 1J 1:8 1J 2:4 1J 1:8

οὐ ποιοῦµεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατῶµεν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ περιπατεῖ ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡµῖν ἐν τούτῳ ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν ἁµαρτίαν οὐκ ἔχοµεν

1J 2:3/4; 3:22; 5:3 1J 3:24 1J 1:7

ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶµεν ὁ τηρῶν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ ἐὰν δὲ ἐν τῷ φωτὶ περιπατῶµεν ἐν τῷ σκότει περιπατῶµεν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ περιπατεῖ

1J 1:6 1J 2:11 1J 2:21 1J 3:19 1J 2:24 1J 3:3 1J 3:4 1J 3:8 1J 3:9 1J 3:5 1J 3:22

22

ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἔστιν ὅτι ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐσµέν ὑµεῖς ὃ ἠκούσατε ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς, ἐν ὑµῖν µενέτω ἁγνίζει ἑαυτόν Πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁµαρτίαν ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁµαρτίαν Πᾶς ὁ γεγεννηµένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁµαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ ἵνα τὰς ἁµαρτίας ἄρῃ τὰ ἀρεστὰ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ ποιοῦµεν

3:11 12:35

ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν περιπατῶν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ

8:44

οὐκ ἔστιν ἀλήθεια ἐν αὐτῷ

9:41 15:22/24 14:15 14:21 11:9 12:35 8:12 11:10 12:35 18:37

οὐκ ἂν εἴχετε ἁµαρτίαν ἁµαρτίαν οὐκ εἴχοσαν τὰς ἐντολὰς τὰς ἐµὰς τηρήσετε ὁ ἔχων τὰς ἐντολάς µου καὶ τηρῶν αὐτάς ἐάν τις περιπατῇ ἐν τῇ ἡµέρᾳ περιπατεῖτε ὡς τὸ φῶς ἔχετε οὐ µὴ περιπατήσῃ ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ τις περιπατῇ ἐν τῇ νυκτί ὁ περιπατῶν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ πᾶς ὁ ὢν ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας

15:7

τὰ ῥήµατά µου ἐν ὑµῖν µείνῃ

11:55 8:34

ἁγνίσωσιν ἑαυτούς πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁµαρτίαν

1:29 8:29

ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁµαρτίαν ἐγὼ τὰ ἀρεστὰ αὐτῷ ποιῶ πάντοτε

For detail descriptions, see Brown (1986), Culpepper (2014) and Painter (2002). Painter (2002:68) refers to Holtzmann’s opinion that in 1 John ‘there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel’. 23 Greek is used in order to identify more clearly the nature of the similarities. 24 The aim is to be illustrative and not comprehensive. 25 Phrases including birth, being children of God, being from God or the devil, might have been added, since they are also relevant, but due to the numerous parallels, they are not reflected in this table.

372

Section 4: The Letters and the Gospel of John

1J 3:23

καθὼς ἔδωκεν ἐντολὴν ἡµῖν

1J 4:6

ἡµεῖς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐσµεν· ὁ γινώσκων τὸν θεὸν ἀκούει ἡµῶν· ὃς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, οὐκ ἀκούει ἡµῶν καὶ ἡµεῖς ἐγνώκαµεν καὶ πεπιστεύκαµεν

1J 4:16

12:49 13:34 14:31 8:47

µοι ἐντολὴν δέδωκεν ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωµι ὑµῖν καθὼς ἐνετείλατο µοι ὁ πατήρ ὁ ὢν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τὰ ῥήµατα τοῦ θεοῦ ἀκούει

6:69

καὶ ἡµεῖς πεπιστεύκαµεν καὶ ἐγνώκαµεν

The above table shows the considerable literal overlap between the Gospel and especially 1 John. These literal similarities cover a wide variety of key theological themes that reflect most of the ‘core’ of the Johannine tradition, including being born of God, believing and knowing God, having truth in you, living (doing/walking) in truth and light, not having sin, keeping commandments, obeying God’s words or will and thus pleasing him. It will therefore be problematic to claim that there is no or little connection between the Gospel and 1 John (as well as the first part of 2 John).

13.3 God the Father and Jesus the Son (similarities and differences) 13.3.1 Similarities in theological thought structure when it comes to the roles of the Father and the Son In both the Gospel and the Letters, God the Father forms the central point of orientation for all Johannine ethics.26 This is basic to the theological structure of these documents. As moral agent, he is the source of all positive ethics and determines the qualitative nature of true ethical behaviour. Key positive ethical concepts like life, love and truth are qualitatively determined by him and what is true should be measured against who he is and what he does. In this light, the evil world (kosmos) and people living under the power of the evil one in this world (1J 5:19) do not know God,27 implying that their deeds are also not of God. They are spiritually dead, in darkness, murderers and liars – all the things that oppose God. Since nobody has ever seen God (physically) and the world without God is in darkness and is spiritually dead, revelation of God in the world is necessary to make him and his will known,28 and this happens through the incarnation and mission of his unique Son, Jesus Christ. God is ever present 26

Vol. 1, 232–38, 504–505 and cf. subsections 3.3.2, 4.2.3 and 7.4 above. Cf. J 17:25/1J 3:1. 28 Cf. J 1:18; 6:46/1J 4:12. 27

Chapter 13: Comparison between the Letters and the Gospels

373

and functionally active through the presence of his Son in this world. This basic theological structure of God giving salvation (life) through the mission of his Son who makes the unseen God known and serves as example of what true ethics is, forms a solid theological, structural base for both the theology and ethics of the Gospel and 1 John. In this regard, there is clear similarity. 13.3.2 A shift in the roles of God the Father and Jesus the Son A key difference between the Gospel and 1 John that has direct impact on the grammar of ethics is the (well-known) shift from the focus on Christ-ology in the Gospel to Theo-logy in the Letters. For instance, important features that are attributed to Jesus in the Gospel are attributed to God in 1 John. Divine attributes, like love, light or truth remain conceptually the same, but in the Letter they are more closely linked to the Father than to the Son, compared to the Gospel. The following qualities illustrate this shift between Christ-ology and Theo-logy. 13.3.2.1 Love In the Gospel, 1 and 2 John, love is the central ethical quality. In many respects the essential nature of love is similar in both the Gospel and the Letters; no wonder that there are close or even literal parallels, as the following table shows. J 13:34 J 15:1230 1J 3:2332 1J 4:2134 2J 5

ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωµι ὑµῖν, ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους, καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑµᾶς ἵνα καὶ ὑµεῖς ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους29 αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ ἐµή, ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑµᾶς31 καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐντολὴ αὐτοῦ, ἵνα πιστεύσωµεν τῷ ὀνόµατι τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἀγαπῶµεν ἀλλήλους, καθὼς ἔδωκεν ἐντολὴν ἡµῖν33 καὶ ταύτην τὴν ἐντολὴν ἔχοµεν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, ἵνα ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν θεὸν ἀγαπᾷ καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ35 οὐχ ὡς ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφων σοι ἀλλὰ ἣν εἴχοµεν ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς, ἵνα ἀγαπῶµεν ἀλλήλους36

29 ‘A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another’.. 30 Cf. also J 15:10, 17. 31 ‘This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you’. 32 Cf. also 1J 3:11. 33 ‘And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has given us the commandment’. 34 Cf. also 1J 4:7, 11, 16. 35 ‘And this is the commandment we have from him that he who loves God must love his brother also’. 36 ‘(and now I ask you), not as though I were writing you a new commandment, but one we have had from the beginning, let us love one another’.

374

Section 4: The Letters and the Gospel of John

Analyses37 have shown that the qualitative use of the concept of love as such is consistent and indeed similar in all the documents (Gospel, 1 and 2 John), namely holding God and fellow believers in high regard and actively illustrating this loyalty and responsibility towards others through serving and caring behaviour for one another, up to the point of laying down one’s life. It serves as an identity marker that forms the social glue, binding the family of God together. The documents emphasize that God is the initial source of love. He so loved the world that he sent his Son,38 obliging those who belong to him to reciprocate by loving one another. To reciprocate and imitate his love expresses his will39 and is a basic commandment (of God the Father and Jesus the Son) that should be obeyed.40 In both documents the commandment is called new (and old),41 referring to the commandment to love that is still the same as it always was, but that the motivation for loving one another changed in the light of the presence and activity of Jesus. There are also notable differences in the use of the concept of love between the Gospel and the Letters. A major difference is the way mutual love is structurally and relationally described in these documents. In the Gospel all the relational directions of love,42 except for the relation ‘believers – God’ are mentioned. This relation of believers to God in the Gospel is expressed in terms of obedience and not of love.43 In contrast to the emphasis on Jesus’ love in the Gospel,44 references to his love in the Letters are far less prominent, with God’s love coming into focus. In the Letters it is said that God is love, something that is not stated directly in the Gospel, although initial love also comes from him in the Gospel (J 3:16). The phrase ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ in the Letters should inter alia also be understood as an objective genitive,45 that is love for God. This is another difference between 1 John and the Gospel where love for God is attributed only to Jesus (14:31), and the disciples’ love is directed towards Jesus.46 The author of 1 John, by contrast, teaches both love for God and the love of God.47

37

Cf. Vol. 1, 287–325, and cf. subsections 3.3, 9.2 and 12.2 above. J 3:16/1J 4:9. 39 Cf. J 13:34; 15:12/1J 3:23; 4:21/2J 5. 40 J 15:9–10/1J 3:23. 41 J 13:34/1J 2:7–8/2J 5. 42 God – Jesus, Jesus – God, Jesus – believers, believers – Jesus, believers – believers, God – believers, but not believers – God. Vol. 1, 311–19. Cf. also J 13:1, 34–35; 15:9–13. 43 Cf. Vol. 1, 311–12. 44 Cf. Vol. 1, 312–14. 45 1J 4:20–21; 5:1–3. 46 J 14:15, 21, 23; 21:15–16. 47 Strecker et al. (1996:41–43). 38

Chapter 13: Comparison between the Letters and the Gospels

375

Of all the possible relational directions mentioned in the Gospel, only God’s love for believers and the mutual love between believers are mentioned in the Letters,48 with the only relation not mentioned in the Gospel (i.e. believers – God) coming into focus in the Letters. Only three relations are thus mentioned when it comes to mutual love: God – believers; believers – God; believers – believers. Jesus’ love and the believers’ love for him are excluded in the Letters except perhaps in the indirect reference in 1J 3:16, that Jesus illustrates what love is. This is an indication that the author of 1 and 2 John wants to focus on God’s love (and that of believers) alone, not on that of Jesus, although the love of Jesus is not completely ignored.49 This is in line with the shift from Christ-ology to Theo-logy. Although both documents focus on the mutual love of believers, there is also another difference in nuance, based on the shift from Christ-ology to Theo-logy. In the Gospel, Jesus sets an example for believers to follow, namely to love one another as he loved them. They should imitate his love as the expression of their identity as his disciples (J 13:34–35). Although a similar obligation is mentioned in 1J 3:16–17, the Letters additionally require believers to love one another as the Father loves them. This represents a rhetorical change in the undertones of the Letters: the reasons for loving one another are expanded considerably, for instance, if you do not love you are like Cain who does not have life (1J 3:11–12); if you do not love the brothers you see, how can you love the unseen God? (4:20); if you love God you should love your fellow Christian (4:21); children of the father are loved (5:1); God is love and whoever loves, abides in God (4:16); there is not fear in love (4:18); God loves ‘us’ first and therefore his love should be reciprocated (4:10, 19).50 In the Letters there is not just a simple commandment to love, but a thorough explanation is given as to why one should love. This obviously reflects the situational difference between the Gospel and the Letters – they dealt with different crises, needing different nuances when it comes to love. Another difference in nuance is the measure of clustering love with other key concepts.51 In the Gospel, love is networked mainly with the mission of Jesus and related issues,52 as well as the commandments53 or keeping the words of Jesus.54 However, in the Letters the networking of love is much more complex. It is linked to many of the key concepts, such as birth,55 48 It is, for instance, not said that God loves his Son, as in the Gospel, for example, in J 3:35; 5:20. 49 1J 3:16. 50 These are just some of the examples. 51 Mutual love for (P)persons is not considered. Cf. Schnelle (2010:163–64). 52 J 3:16; 5:20; 15:13. 53 J 14:21, 31; 15:10, 12, 19. 54 J 14:23–24. It is also linked once to loving one’s life (12:25). 55 1J 4:7; 5:1.

376

Section 4: The Letters and the Gospel of John

life,56 truth,57 faith,58 knowledge of God,59 Immanenz,60 light,61 obedience (commandments, keeping God’s word),62 deeds done in truth,63 poverty,64 confidence for the day of judgment,65 sin,66 the things of the world,67 and the mission of Jesus.68 Compared to the limited networking of love in the Gospel, the extensive networking in the Letters is significant. Networking implies that all of these concepts are related to and in some or other way interact with love, making love a key concept for binding the message together, that is, without love the ‘building’ falls apart; indeed, without love the theological thought ‘system’ of 1 John collapses. In the Gospel, life forms the key concept that is networked with other main concepts.69 There is therefore a clear shift from life to love as a key theme, although both concepts still play their respective roles in the core theological structure in both documents. The difference has to do with the change in situation between the Gospel and the Letters. It should also be noted that in the Gospel judgment is linked to faith70 and obedience,71 that is hearing and keeping the words of Jesus. In the Letters it is love that protects the person against future judgment.72 The difference is not absolute, however. In the Letters it is said that love within the family of God is the result of faith in Jesus.73 Faith and love are inseparably bound together.74 Although the Gospel may focus more on faith and 1 John more on love, when it comes to judgment the theological argument in both the Gospel and 1 John is comparable – through faith a person becomes a member of the family of God where love is the basic criterion for ethical behaviour.75 This will be a basis for the final judgment. 56

1J 3:14. 2J 1; 3J 1. 58 1J 3:23. 59 1J 4:7–8. 60 1J 4:12, 16. 61 1J 2:10. 62 1J 2:5; 3:23; 4:21; 5:2–3; 2J 6. 63 1J 3:18. 64 1J 3:17. 65 1J 4:17. 66 1J 3:9–10; 4:20. 67 1J 2:15. In J 15:19 love and not belonging to the world are linked. 68 1J 3:16; 4:9–10. 69 Cf. Van der Watt (2000:ad loc.). 70 J 5:24; 9:39; 12:48. 71 J 3:19–21; 12:47–48. 72 1J 4:17. 73 1J 5:10–12. 74 1J 3:23. 75 There are also smaller differences between the Gospel and 1 John when it comes to love. According to Schnelle (2010:163–64) the close relation between the concepts of love and light, the theological clustering of concepts like love, life, truth and light, which 57

Chapter 13: Comparison between the Letters and the Gospels

377

Emphasis on love for outsiders also differs as far as the focus is concerned. In the Gospel there are clear signs that believers should love outsiders, especially because they have a mission in this world and they should imitate the love of their Father for the world.76 This emphasis on love for the world is not in focus in the Letters, since there the focus is on the mutual love of believers. There is perhaps a hint in 1J 2:2 that outsiders might be in focus, but that is only indirect. 13.3.2.2 Light The term light is similarly used in the Gospel77 and in 1 John,78 namely, as metaphor for being ethically able to act correctly and not to stumble. In both documents it is said that people walk/live in the light or darkness.79 The metaphorical use of the concepts of light and darkness suggests qualitatively contrasting ‘spaces’ where contrasting ethical behaviour takes place. By contrast, walking in darkness causes loss of clarity and direction in one’s actions, leading to the person’s stumbling,80 while living in the light enables a purposeful life in the presence and under the influence of God. The concepts of light and darkness are also networked in both documents, overlapping to some extent. In the Gospel, light is networked with judgment:81 in light of the judgment those who do evil deeds want to hide them in darkness and those with good deeds want to expose them as being done in truth and in God. In 1 John such networking also includes walking in the light as God is in the light, loving their fellow believers, thus illustrating the fellowship with God, which would lead to forgiveness of sin through the blood of Christ. Both the Gospel’s focus on judgment and 1 John’s focus on forgiveness of sin have salvific undertones, reminiscent of their unity with God. In the Gospel people want to show that they belong to God through their good deeds, while in 1 John good deeds (love) done in the light are the sign of fellowship with God. The metaphors differ structurally, however. In the Gospel, Jesus is the light of the world,82 while God the Father is the light in 1 John,83 signifying the movement from Christ-ology to Theo-logy. In 1 John, light is metaphorically identified with God (1J 1:5) and believers should live in the light as God embeds the concept of love within a greater whole, indicates some differences. Cf. also Beutler (1986:235). 76 Vol. 1, 319–25. 77 J 1:5; 3:19–21; 11:9–10; 12:35–36. Cf. Vol. 1, 331–44. 78 1J 1:5–7; 2:8–11. Cf. subsection 2.4.2.5 above. 79 J 1:5; 3:19–21; 11:9–10; 12:35–36/1J 1:6–7; 2:10–11. 80 1J 2:10–11. 81 J 3:19–21. 82 J 8:12. 83 1J 1:5, 7.

378

Section 4: The Letters and the Gospel of John

is in the light.84 In the Gospel there is some conceptual overlap in this regard, saying that the people who act correctly are not afraid to expose their deeds and come to the light, thus showing that their deeds are done in God. However, in J 8:12, Jesus is metaphorically described as the light of the world. Believers are encouraged to live in the light as long as the light (the Son) is with them. By believing in the light they will be children of the light (J 12:34–36). The latter is not claimed in 1 John, but living (περιπατέω) in the light is encouraged in both the Gospel and in 1 John. As is evident from the above, the only critical difference between the documents is in the movement from Christ-ology to Theo-logy, which impacts on the use of the metaphors that are not similar, but are alike in their use. 13.3.2.3 Commandments Another illustration of the shift from Christ-ology to Theo-logy is evident in the use of the concept ‘commandments’.85 Commandments in the Gospel are given according to a pattern, where God gives commandments to Jesus and Jesus gives commandments to believers. The commandments God gives to Jesus mainly focus on his mission,86 while the commandments Jesus gives to believers are mainly related to love.87 In 1 John this changes. Here it is God, not Jesus, who gives the commandment to love one another,88 basically giving the same commandment to love that Jesus gives in the Gospel. In 1J 3:23 God’s commandment to love is combined with faith, a combination that is not so directly found in the Gospel. However, in J 6:28–29, faith in Jesus is described as the required ‘work’ for believers, thus implying a requirement (commandment) of God. Obviously, obedience to the commandments is expected in both documents. A further difference is the absence of the term ‘law’ (νόµος) in 1 John. The Greek word νόµος is often used in the Gospel, but not at all in the Letters. The reason is most probably because the word νόµος is an identity marker (of the Jewish opponents) in the Gospel, referring to the law of the Jews.89 In their movement away from the Jewish opponents, the Johannine group was apparently careful about using words like νόµος that might still identify them 84

1J 1:7. This refers to ‘commandments’of God and not to indirect references where the author gives commandments to the addressees. 86 In the Gospel God gives commandments to Jesus. Cf. J 10:18 – laying down his life to take it up again; 12:49–50 – giving life through his mission; J 15:10 – through his love for the Father, Jesus obeys God’s commandments to him. 87 Cf. 1J 3:22; 4:21; 5:3; 2J 6. 88 Vol. 1, 375–79. Cf. J 13:34; 15:12. Similarly, emphasis in the Gospel is laid on believers who should keep Jesus’ commandments by loving Jesus and their fellow believers (J 13:34; 14:15; 15:10, 12). 89 Cf. Vol. 1, 365–73, 414–16. 85

Chapter 13: Comparison between the Letters and the Gospels

379

with their Jewish opponents. The word ‘commandment’ (ἐντολή) is preferred and consistently used. However, this did not prevent them from still adhering to the values expressed in the Decalogue90 (both in the Gospel and in the Letters).91 Ordinary behaviour in these documents seems to be determined by a Jewish attitude to life as it is expressed in the Decalogue.92 One should not kill or deceive (lie). God must still be honoured and family values like obedience were regarded as important. In this sense the Gospel and the Letters drink from the same stream. The basic theological structure is maintained in both the Gospel and 1 John, that is, God’s commandment (mediated by Jesus in the Gospel) is given to the children of God to obey, while love (with some references to faith) forms the essence of the commandments. Obedient behaviour is based on a loving relationship within the family of God. 13.3.2.4 Knowledge of God The term ‘to know’ (γινώσκω) is used in a variety of ways in both the Gospel and the Letters, for instance, to refer to people knowing particular information,93 especially the content of what and who Jesus is or what the truth is, or knowing (C)characters, specifically God the Father,94 the Son95 and the Spirit.96 Knowledge of God functions as a clear identity marker for members of God’s people in contrast to those who do not know God and are not part of his family. In this sense the semantic content of knowledge is similar in both documents, although the terms are networked in different ways in these documents. The main similarity between the Gospel and 1 John is to be found in the relations that are characterized by knowledge: believers are the subjects who know, while God the Father, as well as the Son and Spirit are the Objects that are known.97 The relational direction is from God to believers and consequently determines the identity of people as being of God. Knowledge exists in synergy with an active (living) relationship. Claims of knowing God must be substantiated by active evidence of such a relationship,98 as is suggested 90

The Decalogue as such is not mentioned. Vol. 1, 385–97; cf. subsection 4.4 above. 92 There are nuances like the reference to coveting in 1J 2:15–17, while the Sabbath debate or the different feasts play an important role in the Gospel, but are not mentioned in the Letters. 93 Cf. 1J 2:18, 21; 3:2; 5:2. 94 Cf. J 7:28; 8:19, 54–55; 15:21; 17:3/1J 2:3–4, 13–14; 3:1. 95 Cf. J 1:10; 4:42; 17:3/1J 2:13–14; 5:20. 96 Cf. J 14:17/1J 4:6. 97 Lieu (1991:28–29) remarks about knowledge in the Gospel that ‘knowledge denotes relationship rather than factual knowledge or a perception of reality …’. 98 Cf. J 8:49–51/1J 2:3–4; 4:7. 91

380

Section 4: The Letters and the Gospel of John

by the networking of knowledge with two central ethical terms, namely, life and love.99 A difference exists in the focus of knowledge in these documents. In the Gospel knowledge of God is mainly christologically determined, focusing on the mission and work of Christ. Jesus knows the Father100 as is expressed in his awareness of his mission. Jesus also states that the people of this world do not know the true God, as is evident in their rejection of him,101 thus remaining in spiritual death and darkness (J 17:3). Indeed, rejecting the Son equals rejecting the Father and vice versa, as it is also stated in the Letters.102 While knowledge in the Gospel is mainly christologically determined, the focus of knowledge in the Letters is on ethical matters and is not so directly linked to the mission of Jesus. In 1 John there is also no reference to Jesus knowing the Father, although his mission is mentioned and obedience to the will of the Father is assumed. Knowledge is networked with several other key theological expressions, making its applications wider than is the case in the Gospel.103 For instance, mutual love for believers shows that the person knows God, obeys his commandments,104 lives in unity with God (1J 4:7–9), is God’s child and behaves like God’s child (1J 3:9–10) and will not sin (1J 3:6). The emphasis on ethical matters is clear. Because the world does not know the Father, they also do not know or recognize his children (1J 3:1), neither do they listen to the message of believers, thus proving that they are not of God and do not know God (1J 4:6). In sum, knowledge is an essential part of the core message of both the Gospel and 1 John, although the concept is used in different ways in the Gospel and the Letters. The difference is not to be found in the semantics of the word knowledge, but how the term is used and networked in the various documents. The Christological focus of the Gospel falls on knowledge related to the mission and work of Jesus as well as the acceptance of this message. In 1 John the emphasis shifts to ethical issues and falls on accepting and obeying God’s commandments through mutual love and true confession as evidence of knowing him. However, in both documents knowing the Father and knowing the Son overlap as expressions of a true relationship – if you know the Father you know the Son. Without true knowledge no one can claim to be of God or part of his family. 99

1J 4:7–8. J 7:29; 17:25. 101 Cf. J 7:28; 8:19, 50ff.; 15:21; 17:25. 102 J 8:19; 14:7, 9; 17:3/1J 2:13–14, 22–23. 103 Cf. Lieu (1991:28–29). She opines that knowledge in 1 John is less influenced by Jewish thought than is the case in the Gospel. Rather, it is integrated into the complex of ideas in the Letter itself. Neither is it valid to argue that knowledge should be understood within a Gnostic framework. 104 1J 2:3–4; 4:7–8. 100

Chapter 13: Comparison between the Letters and the Gospels

381

13.3.2.5 Truth and lie Truth (ἀλήθεια and related words) is a key Johannine concept that is used in all the documents,105 characterizing the nature of positive ethics. The term is consistently used to refer to what is qualitatively determined as of God, what is trustworthy or genuine in terms of the divine.106 There is little difference in the qualitative nature of truth in these documents, although, as is the case with the above qualities, there are also clear differences in the use of the term in different contexts. The emphasis of the true God107 who qualitatively determines what is true is basic to all the documents. God is directly described as true in the Gospel, although not in the Letters108 where this seems to be assumed, since God is identified with qualities that are associated with the truth, like love and light109 and his service is connected to the truth.110 What is true should correspond with what is divinely genuine and according to the will of God. Jesus is called the truth or true in both documents,111 identifying himself as representing the divine truth. According to the Gospel (not the Letters112) he bears witness to the truth113 and what he says is the truth, since what he says comes from the Father,114 whose words are true.115 Since the Letters are not narratives about the life of Jesus, truth seems to function more independently in the Letters, where the relative frequency of the term is higher than in the Gospel. Perhaps it even functions as identity marker that shows the general impact of the concept on the Johannine group. The Spirit of truth also plays a similar role related to knowledge in both the Gospel and Letters. In both documents the Spirit is identified as the Spirit of truth,116 in contrast with the spirit of error.117 This is of course in line with

105

Cf. J 8:32/1J 2:21/2J 1 (οἱ ἐγνωκότες τὴν ἀλήθειαν), J 3:21/1J 1:6 (ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν/ποιοῦµεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν) and J 8:44/1J 1:8; 2:4 (ἔστιν ἀλήθεια ἐν αὐτῷ/ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡµῖν). 106 Cf. Vol. 1, 344–59. 107 J 3:33; 17:3. 108 1J 5:20 most probably refers to the Son. 109 1J 1:5; 4:8, 16; 3J 11–12. 110 2J 6–8. Cf. also J 4:24. 111 J 14:6/1J 5:20. 112 God is the major witness in 1 John (cf. 5:9–12 – cf. J 5:37, however). 113 J 18:37. 114 J 8:40, 45, 46; 16:7. 115 J 17:17. Other witnesses to the truth according to the Gospel are of course John the Baptist (5:33) and the soldier at the cross (19:35). 116 J 14:17; 15:26; 16:13/1J 4:6. 117 1J 4:6.

382

Section 4: The Letters and the Gospel of John

the fact that truth relates to the divine. The role of the Spirit will receive attention later.118 Truth is also used in various other ways in these documents. It is said to be part of or in a (P)person (Immanenz). In J 1:14 Jesus is described as being full of truth (πλήρης … ἀληθείας), while the truth is said to abide in believers in 2J 2.119 This indicates that these (P)persons are influenced by the truth. Truth is even personified as setting people free,120 abiding in (influencing) believers (2J 2) or testifying to someone’s authenticity (3J 12). This also explains why, according to these documents, believers act under the influence of truth, by doing and saying what is true.121 In contrast, lies and false witness (e.g., not being in the truth) characterize the opponents in both the Gospel and the Letters. In the Gospel, the question of Pilate, namely, ‘What is truth?’ (J 18:38), cryptically highlights the contrast between truth and error, since he is standing in front of Jesus, the truth, who came to bear witness to the truth, and yet he does not recognize the truth. Perhaps he did recognize the truth, since he went out to the crowd and proclaimed the truth that Jesus is innocent, but this time the crowd preferred to believe their own lie, identifying themselves as children of the devil, the father of lies, in whom there is no truth (8:44). In the Letters, this contrast between truth and lies is just as pertinent, but is expressed differently due to the different situation and genre used. The truth is consistently contrasted with claims that are false, for instance, that a person claims to be in the light, but walks in darkness,122 or claims to know God, but does not obey God’s commandments.123 The author emphasizes that no lie can have its origin in the truth.124 On the other hand, believers know the truth125 and therefore their testimony is also true.126 Those who are of God listen to them (1J 4:6). The use of truth in 2 and 3 John is very similar and is relatively more frequent in its use than in the Gospel and in 1 John. It is used especially (but not exclusively) in the introductions, where the identities of the different characters are described. Therefore some regard the use of truth in these two documents as more developed, to the point where it simply serves as an identity marker, not identifying any particular nuances in the use of the term,

118

Cf. subsection 13.4 below. Cf. also 1J 3:19. 120 J 8:31. 121 J 3:21; 8:32, 47/1J 3:18; 4:6; 2J 3–4 and 3J 3–4. 122 1J 1:6; cf. also 1:8. 123 1J 2:4. 124 1J 2:21. 125 2J 1. 126 3J 12; e.g., testifying to the truth, or supporting visiting missionaries of good standing. 119

Chapter 13: Comparison between the Letters and the Gospels

383

but simply identifying people as being part of the divine family.127 It might even be used as an alternative for the term God. The uses of the concept of truth in the documents show notable overlaps, as well as some nuances. However, the similarities show that it is an essential part of John’s core narrative. It roots the nuances in the reality of the true God. If, for instance, truth is not reflecting what is divine, the nuances that people testify to the truth will make no sense. This confirms the pattern that the basic conceptual use of key terms overlaps between these documents, but that there are also nuances, being rooted in these basic concepts. It is the same, but also different. 13.3.2.6 Strict dualism? The Johannine literature is known for its dualistic structure, that is life/death, light/darkness, truth/lie, and so on. This dualism forms a basic structural framework for the development of John’s theology. However, it is questionable whether this dualism is maintained in an absolute way in these documents. The theology of both the Gospel and the Letters is embedded in the Johannine dualism, namely, using contrasting concepts like life/death, light/darkness, love/hate or truth/lie. When it comes to their treatment of the different conflicts, tension within this dualistic framework becomes apparent. In the Gospel, the conflict is mainly presented in a dualistic manner between those believing in Jesus and those who do not accept him. Either you believe in Jesus and receive life, or you do not and perish. Nevertheless, movement between these contrasting groups is possible, that is, to move from darkness to light or from death to love.128 This confirms the dualism in the sense that one moves from one to the other with no ‘in between’. However, implicitly, there seems to be grey areas. Peter denies Jesus and is later restored,129 or the other way round, there are believers who actually leave Jesus and go home, that is, people in flux between light and darkness.130 In the Gospel these ‘grey’ areas are not explicitly mentioned or developed. In the Letters the reality of ‘grey’ areas is much more explicit; in fact, it is part of the nature of inner-Christian conflict. Not everybody can be on the side of the truth if there are differences of opinion. On the one hand, there are overlaps with the Gospel, that is, the dualism between believers and nonbelievers is maintained, as well as the possibility of faith in Jesus that changes lives.131 However, in the Letters the emphasis mainly falls on the 127

2J 1 and 3J 1. Cf. J 1:9–13. 129 J 21:15–19. 130 J 6:66. 131 This aspect is not as thoroughly developed in 1 John as it is in the Gospel. 128

384

Section 4: The Letters and the Gospel of John

inner-Christian conflicts that include dualism between the eye-witness group (‘I/us’), the schismatics (‘they’), with the ‘you’ group in flux in between, or some of the lady’s children who do not walk in the truth,132 or Diotrephes who challenges the Presbyter,133 that is, people in flux, implying ‘grey’ areas. In the Letters this movement between groups is a (if not the) rhetorical focus. Though also conceptualized within the Johannine dualism, the Letters deal directly with the actual problem of people who in reality are moving between the two contrasting groups with the possibility of changing sides, where people are in flux and are still indecisive about their alliances. Due to the differences in aim and situation, the Letters focus much more on the grey areas than the Gospel does. 13.3.3 The invisible God is made known God, in maxim-like statements in the Gospel and in 1 John, is described as the unseen God.134 The fact that he is not physically visible to the eye is dealt with through the revealing functional presence of (O)others, that is, his presence is to be experienced through the conduct of (P)people, that means, functionally. The Gospel and 1 John explain this in different ways, that is, the basic fact is the same, but the practical explanation of how it works differs somewhat. In the Gospel, Jesus explains that where he speaks and acts according to the will of God, there God is functionally present in this world.135 The Son speaks and does what the Father would have said and done.136 Therefore, looking at the Son’s deeds and listening to his words equals looking at the works of the Father and listening to his words. In this way God the Father is ‘present’ in this world. In the same way believers are saying and doing what Jesus would have said and done, and therefore Jesus may be ‘seen’ in them, experiencing God’s presence through them.137 A similar argument is used by the author of 1 John in explaining how God’s love is perfected, or is reaching its goal. He argues that people experience God’s love in the authentic love shown by believers to others (1J 4:11–16). Through this mutual love of the believers, God who is love, is present and may be experienced in this world. The same basic structure, namely, that the unseen God is functionally present in this world through people imitating his words and deeds, is used in

132

2J 4. 3J 9–11. 134 J 1:18/1J 4:12. 135 J 14:6ff. 136 J 12:49; 14:10–11. 137 Vol. 1, 211–16. 133

Chapter 13: Comparison between the Letters and the Gospels

385

both documents. There is a nuance in the sense that in the Gospel138 God’s words and deeds as they are heard through Jesus are more general, while in 1 John the focus is more specifically on the love of God. 13.3.4 God the Father and Jesus the Son: distinction and overlap A typical Johannine feature, both in the Gospel and 1 John, is that the term ‘God’ (θεός) is used to refer to both the Father and his Son.139 Although the Son and the Father are described as being one in the Gospel (J 10:30), this is a functional and not an ontological unity140 – they functionally do and say the same things.141 The difference between them is clearly maintained, however, not the least by describing them as Father and Son: the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. Each has his own function and role. Jesus remains the one who is sent and the Father the one who sent him. This is equally true of 1 John: although both are called ‘God’, the Father remains the Father and the Son the Son. However, the unity (Immanenz) between Father and Son is not expressed with the same directness in the Letters as in the Gospel, where their unity and closeness are emphasized.142 In this regard, it should be noted that in 1 John pronouns are used to describe the functional unity between the Father and the Son. In several places in 1 John it is not clear whether the pronoun refers to the Father or to the Son, since reference to both seems contextually possible.143 What is said is true of both. This suggests their functional Immanenz (acting the same way as one – cf. the Gospel), but does not negate the fact that the Father remains the Father and the Son the Son. Although it is not specifically said in the Letters that the Father and the Son are one (like in J 10:30), 1 John makes a similar statement through its use of pronouns. Functionally, they work in tandem, which means that some of the things Jesus does in the Gospel are effortlessly applied to the Father in the Letters,144 which supports the intimate connection between the Father and the Son. The shift from Christ-ology to Theo-logy should therefore not create the impression that Jesus completely moves into the background in the Letters. In both documents he still plays a decisive role. He is still the Son who was sent, 138

J 14:6ff. J 1:1, 18/1J 5:20. 140 Vol. 1, 238–40. 141 Cf. Van der Watt (2019a:103–22). 142 Cf. J 1:18; 10:29–30; 14:6ff.; 17:6ff. 143 Cf., e.g., 1J 2:5–6 where abiding in ‘him’ might refer to the Father or the Son. Cf. also 1J 2:7–8. In 1J 2:28–29 it seems as if the subject is Jesus, but then a reference is made to the person ‘born of him’, which seems to refer to God who is associated with ‘birth’. (Cf. also 1J 3:2–3.) 144 Aspects like giving commandments, being light, the use of the concept of love, etc. 139

386

Section 4: The Letters and the Gospel of John

who brought eternal life to this world, who illustrated what love is by dying on the cross. As in the Gospel, God the Father also witnesses to him in 1 John145 and the Son is called ‘God’ in both documents.146 There can be no doubt that the Jesus of the Gospel is also the Jesus described in the Letters. In the Letters, he is even ‘more’ than in the Gospel. He is Paraclete, the one whose blood cleanses believers of sin. He is also the expiation for their sins, the one with whom believers ought to have koinōnia. He is also described as righteous and pure, taking away the sins of believers. The shift from Christ-ology to Theo-logy cannot be denied, but it should not totally devaluate the Christology of the Letters although the move in the Letters to a ‘lower Christology’ is an established view in research of the Letters.147 There is indeed a shift in emphasis, but it has more to do with rhetorical strategy than dogmatic change in conviction about Christ.

13.4 Ethics and the Spirit The Spirit is called the Spirit of truth (τὸ πνεῦµα τῆς ἀληθείας),148 in both the Gospel and 1 John, but is only called the truth in 1J 5:7, something that is not mentioned in the Gospel. In both documents the work of the Spirit of truth has a clear Christological focus and is directly involved with true knowledge. The Spirit of truth who is given by God149 and abides in believers,150 guides and teaches believers151 in what they should know, especially in relation to Jesus.152 In the Gospel the ‘Spirit of truth’ (only used in chs. 14–16)153 mainly bears witness about Jesus154 and guides believers in the truth that focuses on Jesus. This corresponds with the function of the Spirit of truth in 1 John, where the Spirit ensures the correct confession of Christ,155 also witnessing to him and what he did.156 As far as the Spirit of truth is involved in ensuring correct knowledge, the Gospel and the Letters overlap without significant differences.

145

Cf. J 5:37/1J 5:9–12. J 1:1, 18; 20:28/1J 5:20. 147 Cf. e.g., Brown (1986). 148 Cf. J 14:17; 15:26; 16:13/1J 4:6. 149 Cf. J 3:34/1J 4:13. 150 Cf. J 14:17/1J 3:24. 151 Cf. J 15:26/1J 5:6–8. 152 Cf. J 16:13/1J 2:27; (4:1–2). 153 J 14:17; 15:26; 16:13. 154 J 15:26. 155 1J 4:1–6, esp. v. 6. 156 1J 5:7. 146

Chapter 13: Comparison between the Letters and the Gospels

387

By contrast, the opponents are under the influence of the spirit of the antichrist, also known as the spirit of error (1J 4:3–6), which is evident from their false confessions and teaching. However, a clear difference between the Gospel and the Letters is that the pneumatology of the Gospel157 is much more developed than that of the Letters.158 In the Gospel, the Spirit gives birth,159 is identified as the Paraclete (Special Helper),160 descends on Jesus,161 the disciples receive the Spirit162 and the Paraclete also witnesses to what is to come, for instance in relation to Jesus’ returning presence.163 In the Letters, the Spirit is basically exclusively involved with knowledge and the confession.164 Although the doctrine of Jesus as well as the antichrist’s false teachings are mentioned in 2 John, the Spirit is not specifically mentioned. Guiding believers in correct knowledge plays an important role in novel applications of the Johannine tradition, as Frey remarks, ‘Through the Spirit, they [Jesus’ followers] can understand and believe in a new manner’.165

13.5 Ethics and salvation 13.5.1 People are spiritually dead, in darkness and in need of salvation The point of departure in the Gospel and in 1 John regarding their view of the human condition is similar: humans are of this world,166 are spiritually dead and in darkness, and are consequently in need of spiritual birth that leads to eternal life.167 Jesus’ coming in the flesh (i.e. incarnation as human) ensures the needed salvation. He brings salvation by dealing with the sin of the world,168 conquering evil169 and bringing light into the darkness and 157

Vol. 1, 251–56. Cf. Brown (1986). Cf. subsections 3.3.3 and 5.8 above. If the reference to the anointing in 1J 2:20–27 is not considered, there is the limited reference to the Spirit in 1J 3:24; 4:1–4 and references in 4:13 and 5:6, 8. 159 J 3:3, 5, 8; 6:63. 160 J 14:26; 15:26. 161 J 1:32–33. 162 J 20:22. 163 J 16:13. 164 1J 3:24–4:6. Cf. also 1J 2:20–27 where the anointment most probably refers to the Spirit and word of God. 165 Frey (2018:283). The Spirit and not necessarily a group or individual is responsible for the authentic continuation of the Johannine tradition, according to ibid. 284. 166 Cf. J 3:31/1J 4:5. 167 Cf. J 8:23; 15:19; 17:16/1J 2:16; 4:5. 168 Cf. J 1:29/1J 2:2. 169 Cf. J 16:11/1J 2:13–14; 3:8. J 12:31; 14:30; 16:33/1J 2:14; 5:4–5, 18. 158

388

Section 4: The Letters and the Gospel of John

life170 to the spiritually dead who are willing to believe in him.171 It is then expected that the reborn person should behave as a child of God. This is part of the core theological narrative in the Gospel and 1 John.172 In this sense Johannine ethics in general is ‘life ethics’, changing the identity and nature of believers from being spiritually dead to having eternal life. In both the Gospel and 1 John the salvific process starts with the love of God who sends his Son to bring eternal life to this world.173 With his incarnated presence the salvific process becomes possible in this world with birth and faith leading to eternal life.174 13.5.2 Faith and ethical behaviour In both documents faith in Jesus (in tandem with birth)175 is a basic requirement for receiving life.176 Faith is described as an action, that is, as ethical behaviour.177 In J 6:28 it is described as the ‘work’ God requires178 and in 1J 3:23 it is a commandment of God.179 In both cases it refers to the unconditional acceptance of Jesus, who he is and what he stands for, consequently following him and doing what he requires. Not believing in the Son is regarded as sin (even mortal sin) and is described as an action that leads to exclusion from the family of God. Such a person is not of God,180 since he or she does not do what God requires and remains in darkness. There are smaller differences between the two documents in the use of the concept of faith. Faith is not as developed in 1 John as in the Gospel.181 In the Gospel ‘faith in’ Jesus is in focus, while ‘faith that’ is of more importance in 1 and 2 John. Thyen correctly points out that for the Gospel ‘sei der Gegensatz von Glaube und Unglaube bestimmend, in den Briefen dagegen stehe “wahrer” gegen “falschen” Glauben’.182

170

Cf. J 6:40/1J 5:12. Cf. J 5:24/1J 3:14. 172 Cf. J 1:14/1J 4:2/2J 7. 173 Cf. J 3:16–17/1J 4:9, 10, 14. 174 Vol. 1, 512–17. J 20:31/1J 5:10–12. 175 Cf. Vol. 1, 151–60. 176 Cf. J 20:31/1J 5:1, 10. Cf. also J 3:15, 36/1J 5:12–13. 177 Cf. J 6:28; 1J 3:23. 178 Vol. 1, 117–34. 179 Cf. J 3:18. 180 Cf. J 8:47/1J 4:6. 181 Cf. Vol. 1, 109–35 and subsections 2.2.2.3 and 4.2.3.1 above. Faith is also not such a key issue in the Letter as love indeed is, which suggests that in the Letter the problem with the addressees was more about love than about faith. 182 Thyen (1976:191). 171

Chapter 13: Comparison between the Letters and the Gospels

389

13.5.3 The cross and ethical behaviour Jesus’ death (the cross) serves as ethical example that should be imitated in both the Gospel183 and in 1 John and is indeed part of the core theological structure of John. In the Gospel believers are said to ‘lose’ their lives like a dying seed in order to bear fruit, just as Jesus did.184 In 1 John185 Jesus, by laying down his life for others, serves as model for believers to be imitated in deed and truth.186 In both cases this act of Jesus serves (though differently expressed) as ethical example for believers. However, in the Letters cross and resurrection187 are not specifically mentioned by name, neither is God’s commandment for Jesus to lay down his life. Dying on the cross is implied, for instance, in Jesus laying down his life for others (1J 3:16), in 1J 1:7 where there is reference to the cleansing power of Jesus’ blood or in 1J 2:2 and 4:10 where Jesus is described as expiation for sin.188 The latter two remarks are more theological in nature, that is, reflecting on the consequences of Jesus’ death rather than mentioning it. 13.5.4 Ethics and the family of God 13.5.4.1 The family of God The dominant metaphorical framework for the grammar of ethics in John is the imagery of an ancient family (extended household) that is developed along similar lines in the Gospel and the first two Letters.189 As members of a family (= their identity) people had to live accordingly (= their behaviour) – this synergy between identity and behaviour is an essential building block of the grammar of John’s ethics. The basic application of the complex family metaphor is similar in both the Gospel and the Letters and forms part of the core theological structure of John. It serves as framework within which much of the ethics are developed and forms part of the basic theological structure of John. As was mentioned above, basic to the structure of salvation in both documents is the need for eternal life – people are described as being spiritually dead and in darkness.190 183

Cf. Vol. 1, 224–48. J 12:24–26. 185 1J 3:16–18. 186 Cf. also 1J 3:14. 187 Cf. Vol. 1, 245–8. J 10:17–18 and 11:25–26. Cf. 1J 3:16. As in the Gospel, Jesus has eternal life in the Letters (1J 1:1–2; 5:11, 20) that does not necessitate reference to his resurrection (cf., however, 1J 5:10). In the Gospel it is part of the narrative of the coming messiah who has power over life and death and returns to his Father. 188 1J 2:2; 4:10. 189 Cf. Van der Watt (2000) and Vol. 1, 151–94. Other imageries are, for instance, kingship and the temple. 190 Cf. J 8:34/1J 3:4. 184

390

Section 4: The Letters and the Gospel of John

By sending his Son to bring life191 and destroying the works of the devil,192 eternal life becomes a concrete possibility for those who believe in Jesus193 and are born of God.194 They now live eternally within the family of God195 as his children196 and therefore ought to live their lives according to the confines of this family. Family ethics expects children to act according to the conventions and ethos of the family – God as the Father and Jesus as the unique Son provide the examples (models) for the behaviour within the family.197 Believers ought to imitate their divine models by ‘walking’ as Jesus walked,198 or loving like the Father and the Son loved.199 Within a family of love, behaviour is not based on (contractual) rules, but on behaviour that originates from and is motivated by the loving relationship within the family. Identity and behaviour form an unbreakable synergy. Basic to this expectation is obedience to the divine will and the commandments of the Father, that is, the family conventions and ethos.200 For instance, a child behaves like its father, family members love one another as they love the father, or they care for one another.201 They ought to serve others to the point of laying down their lives for one another.202 The interests of fellow believers, that is, the family of God, are therefore a key aspect that ought to dominate the behaviour of believers. In 2 and 3 John the situations described impact directly on the interests of the group, placing the responsibility on believers to make sure that the group is not negatively influenced. Similarly, Jesus’ last discussion with Peter in the Gospel also focuses on the care and well-being of the group.203 Wengst formulates it aptly, ‘Die Bruderliebe ist ein Lieben und Geliebtwerden, das 191 1 John describes God’s activity in relation to salvation in different terms. God sent his Son to bring eternal life (1J 4:9; 5:11–12), to give his blood to cleanse believers from sin (1J 1:7) and to serve as expiation for their sins (1J 2:2; 4:10) as well as to be their Paraclete (1J 2:1). God also begets them to become part of the family of God. 192 Cf. 1J 3:8. Vol. 1, 141–45, 267–69. 193 Cf. J 8:28–29/1J 3:22–23. 194 Cf. Vol. 1, 118–29, 151–63 and subsection 2.2.2.1 above. Cf. J 1:13/1J 2:29; 3:9; 5:1, 4, 18. 195 Cf. Van der Watt (2000). 196 Cf. J 1:12/1J 3:1, 2, 10. 197 J 13:15/1J 3:16–17; 4:11. 198 Cf. J 13:15/1J 2:6. Cf. the sections on mimesis and reciprocity in both Volumes (Vol. 1, 257–61; cf. subsections 2.4 above and 13.5.4.3 below). 199 J 15:9–10/1J 4:11. 200 Cf. J 8:51, 52, 55; 14:23–24; 15:20; 17:6/1J 2:5 and J 5:38/1J 2:14. 201 J 13:1ff./1J 3:17. 202 Cf. J 13:15; 15:13–17/1J 3:16–17. Washing one another’s feet as expression of love implies serving one another, that is, caring for the family (J 13:1–17). 203 J 21:15–17.

Chapter 13: Comparison between the Letters and the Gospels

391

Gemeinschaft stiftet und bewahrt, das Gemeinde hervorruft und erhält, die in der alten Welt schon die neue darstellt’.204 Ultimately, God guarantees the safety of his family, confirming that nobody will snatch believers from the hands of the Father or the Son.205 The contrasting, disrupting side of the family’s well-being is also evident in both documents, describing the negative impact of the opponents’ behaviour. In the Gospel, believers are warned that they will be hated by the world206 and that the world will even kill them, thinking that they thus serve God.207 The passion narrative208 illustrates the hateful and murderous behaviour of Jesus’ opponents. Believers are equally hated, since if the world hates Jesus, they will also hate his followers.209 In 1 John such destructive behaviour by opponents is highlighted by the behaviour of the stereotypical Cain210 – the family of the devil211 hates, deceives and murders,212 while in 2 John the lady is warned not to allow deceivers and antichrists into her home, because they can destroy the group to the extent that they lose everything they have worked for.213 The Presbyter in 3 John likewise fights for the truth and integrity of the Johannine group. It is indeed the task of believers to care for the family of God. Care for the poor is indeed valued as a practical action in both the Gospel and 1 John, with 1 John describing it as an essential way to express the true character of authentic love.214 That is what love in deeds and in truth looks like, and actually contrasts the love the world has for earthly things and their own interests. There are also nuances in the use of the family imagery in these documents. Both the Gospel and 1 John apply the family concepts of birth and life. However, the emphases in these documents differ. In the Gospel the concept of eternal life forms the core of the family metaphor,215 while references

204

Wengst (1976:68). J 10:28–30. 206 Cf. J 15:32/1J 2:23. Cf. also the blind man who was excommunicated in John 9. 207 J 15:18–16:4/1J 3:11–13. 208 Chs. 18–20. 209 Cf. J 15:18/1J 3:13. 210 In the Gospel Jesus is the focus of hatred in the passion narrative that leads to his death, and believers are warned that they will be treated in the same way (15:18–16:4). In 1J 3:11–18 Cain’s hateful behaviour likewise leads to hate and murder of members of the family of God, and this is then contrasted with the love of Jesus who laid down his life for others, implying that he also died like Abel at the hands of the murderous opponents. 211 J 8:44/1J 3:10. 212 1J 3:11–13. 213 2J 8–11. 214 1J 3:16–18. 215 Cf. Van der Watt (2000) and Vol. 1, 151–60. 205

392

Section 4: The Letters and the Gospel of John

to spiritual birth are used sparingly.216 Eternal life is networked with ethically related issues. In 1 John the spiritual birth is used with high frequency while less emphasis is placed on eternal life, which is opposite to what is found in the Gospel. Being born of God changes the identity of believers that again impacts on their behaviour. As people who have God’s ‘seed’ in them, they ‘cannot sin’ and do not live in sin,217 practice righteousness,218 love fellow believers,219 overcome the world220 and believe in Jesus as the Christ.221 The concept of life, on the other hand, is used in a limited way in the Letters and is not strongly integrated into the argument of 1 John, as is the case with the concept of birth. The family imagery is obviously more developed in the much longer Gospel narrative222 than in the Letters,223 but the basic structural use of the family imagery is similar in spite of the nuances. 13.5.4.2 Koinōnia and Immanenz (unity) Unity224 (Immanenz) in the Johannine group is of crucial importance in both the Gospel and 1 John as the means of expressing the close relational bond between the different (C)characters.225 Although descriptions of the unity differ in these documents,226 the basic focus remains similar. The idea of unity is expressed in different terms in the Gospel and 1 John. Typically, the emphasis in the Gospel falls on believers abiding in Jesus in honour of the Father, as is evident in the imagery of the vine and branches (J 15:1–8), where unity serves as prerequisite and motivation for bearing positive ‘fruit’ (i.e. being obedient by loving one another as God loved believers) – the believers should remain in Jesus as he remains in them.227

216 In J 1:13 those who believe are described as being born of God, the expression common to 1 John. In J 3:5–8 birth is ‘of the Spirit’, which of course differs from 1 John, where the Spirit is not performing the function of birth. See the arguments about the meaning of ‘seed’ in 1J 3:9, however, where some interpret the ‘seed’ as the Spirit. 217 1J 3:9, 5:18. 218 1J 2:29. 219 1J 4:7; 5:1. 220 1J 5:4. 221 1J 5:1. 222 Van der Watt (2000). Vol. 1, 151–63. 223 Cf. subsection 2.2 above. 224 This unity is also expressed in terms of ‘to be from’. Cf. J 8:47/1J 3:10; 4:1, 2, 3, 4, 6; 5:19. Cf. also J 6:56; 15:5/1J 3:24; 4:12–13, 15–16. 225 Cf. J 15:4, 6, 7/1J 2:6, 27, 28; 3:6. Unity is also suggested in a more practical way in 2 and 3 John. The integrity and unity of the group must be protected. 226 Not the least because of the difference in genre. 227 J 15:1–8.

Chapter 13: Comparison between the Letters and the Gospels

393

In 1 John, however, believers predominantly abide in God the Father, while the Father and divine qualities abide in believers.228 Indeed, both God the Father and the Spirit are said to abide in believers, for instance, through God’s words and commandments. However, no reference is made to Jesus who abides in believers, as the Gospel maintains, which signifies a clear shift from Christ-ology to Theo-logy. A key term that is not typical of John, namely, koinōnia (often translated as ‘fellowship’) is introduced in the first few verses of 1 John (1:3–7), emphasizing that within the family of God the relation between God and believers ought to lead to co-operation in love and service (i.e. koinōnia). This term serves as overarching concept, branding the discussions about the conflict and problems in the rest of 1 John.229 It is not used in the Gospel, which prompts scholars to speculate unnecessarily about outside sources used in 1 John, since it fits the argument in 1 John ideally. The conflict that 1 John addresses relates to the lack of love and co-operation between the addressees (the ‘you’ group that the author still regards as part of the orthodox group) and the author (the orthodox ‘us’ group), implying that the necessity of cooperation will be addressed, something the use of the term koinōnia does. Although it is used only at the beginning of 1 John, it is expressed in terms of concepts like love and service in the rest of the Letter, which echoes the ethos of the Johannine group described in the Gospel.230 In this unity between God and believers, relational events like prayer, as means of communication, also play an important role in both the Gospel and 1 John. In J 14:13–15 the commandment is linked to asking according to the will of God and receiving, that inter alia corresponds with 1J 3:22.231 In the relationship with Christ, the believer is not left alone or on his or her own, but is encouraged to ask according to the will of God with the promise that he or she will receive accordingly. 13.5.4.3 Mimesis and reciprocity In motivating ethical behaviour, mimesis and reciprocity play a key role in both the Gospel232 and 1 John233 with a variety of uses. In the Gospel the disciples are given an example of the loving service Jesus rendered through his cross (J 13:15), that they should reciprocate by imitating it, while in J 12:24–26 the disciples are expected to imitate Jesus, whose death and resurrection are metaphorically expressed in terms of a seed that must first 228

Cf. 1J 4:13, 15. Cf. subsection 3.2 above. 230 Vol. 1, 298–311, 438–46. Cf. subsection 3.2 above. 231 Cf. J 14:13, 14; 15:7; 16:23/1J 3:22; 5:14. 232 Cf. Vol. 1, 257–61. 233 Cf. subsection 2.4 above. 229

394

Section 4: The Letters and the Gospel of John

die in order to produce fruit. In 1J 3:16, Jesus illustrates what love is by laying down his life for ‘us’, expecting believers to reciprocally imitate him by laying down their lives in the service of others, thus echoing the expectations of the seed dying to bear much fruit in J 12:24–26. This confirms that the Gospel and the Letters are influenced by the ordinary ethical mechanisms of the day when it comes to motivating their ethics. In both documents authentic love should be imitated reciprocally. However, a difference between the Gospel and 1 John is what should be imitated apart from laying down their lives in service. In the Gospel, imitating Jesus also includes saying what he said (abiding in his words – J 8:31) and continuing his mission.234 In 1 John other qualities, like righteousness,235 not sinning,236 or being pure237 are expected to be imitated or reciprocated.238 In these documents mimesis and reciprocity of course require discernment239 in order to apply the characteristics of what is to be imitated to new situations. This ensures active application of the examples that God the Father and Jesus the Son set.

13.6 Ethics, ethos and tradition 13.6.1 Ethics and tradition The Gospel of John is a performative text,240 aiming at introducing the reader to the resurrected Son of God, and by believing this message that is described in the Gospel, a person may then have eternal life, thus formulating the traditional basis for the faith of the Johannine group.241 In the Gospel there are also several references to the First Testament tradition that is continued in Jesus’ person and activities. A First Testament figure like Moses wrote about him,242 while Abraham was delighted that he would see Jesus’ day.243 As performative text, the Gospel offers the essential narrative of what the Johannine group believed about Jesus. Although he was no longer present in person, as was the case with Thomas,244 he is still present through the written 234

J 17:18; 20:21. 1J 3:7. 236 1J 3:6. 237 1J 3:3. 238 Cf. subsection 2.4.2 above. 239 Cf. Vol. 1, 425–30. 240 J 20:28–31. Cf. Vol. 1, 39–50. 241 Cf. J 8:31/2J 9. Vol. 1, 276–81, 455–56. 242 J 5:46–47. 243 J 8:56. 244 J 20:27–29. 235

Chapter 13: Comparison between the Letters and the Gospels

395

Gospel. In this sense the Gospel contains the essence of the tradition of the Johannine group, not the least that of the Letters. In 1J 1:1–3 the author of the Letters identifies himself with the eye-witnesses who saw and experienced the incarnated Christ, to whom the Gospel bears of course witness and who is therefore an authentic carrier of the tradition. In the Letters, tradition plays a key role. There is consistent reference to what the addressees heard from the beginning and what they know to be true, of course referring to the tradition in which they stand. These references cover a wide spectrum of what the Johannine group believed to be true.245 This reliance on the tradition suggests that this tradition was no longer in the initial stages of development but had become a fixed entity.246 It consequently also plays a role in the paraenetical approach the author follows in his effort to convince the addressees to mend their ways.247 Rhetorically, the author of 1 John also ‘hides’ himself behind the authority of the tradition, without much focus on his own authority,248 something that also confirms the idea that the tradition could ‘stand on its own’ as an authoritative entity within the group. This traditional knowledge is authenticated and kept alive in the community by the Spirit of truth, who is the authoritative guarantee for true knowledge. However, there is less emphasis on the First Testament in the Letters than in the Gospel. Although the First Testament tradition (also referred to as ‘Scriptures’) forms an important part of Jesus’ tradition in the Gospel, this emphasis fades in the Letters, with no direct references to the First Testament, except for the stereotyped reference to Cain and his brother. An important difference is found in the genre and consequent approach to the tradition. The Gospel offers the essence of the tradition, that is, what the tradition is, where it comes from and why it should be accepted. The Letters,249 on the other hand, apply the tradition in addressing their particular situations. They refer to this tradition as the basis for coping with the crises in their midst, that is with a decisive ethical emphasis.250 The Gospel mainly describes the tradition while the Letters apply this tradition.251 This suggests 245

Ch. 5. Cf. also 2J 9–10 where the doctrine of Christ is mentioned, suggesting that it is known. 247 Cf. subsection 4.6 above. 248 Cf. subsections 1.1.1 and 1.1.6 above. 249 Although only implicitly, tradition is also implied in 2 John. 250 Painter (2002:71) also suggests the dependence of 1 John on the Gospel material based on the strong connections between the two documents, but notes the differences in situation and genre, which makes a 100% overlap unrealistic. 251 That is why Marxsen (1993:286) remarks, the Letters ‘looked back on the work of its teacher, felt obligated to him, and wanted to preserve his legacy, but in a later time and in a new situation. Such was also the aim of the three letters.’ 246

396

Section 4: The Letters and the Gospel of John

that the Johannine documents are part of a lively, but solid tradition:252 there is a conservative (not deviating from Jesus’ teachings) as well as an innovative and creative side (applying it to new situations) to it.253 In all of the above mentioned cases, as well as in all the documents, there is an unbreakable synergy in the identity of the person, which is inter alia described by a shared tradition and ethos, and by behaviour. Persons are what they do and do what they are. This is a solid basis for the grammar of Johannine ethics, which contradicts any effort to ‘separate’ dogmatics and ethics. In Johannine terms they form a unity. 13.6.2 Ethics and ethos in everyday life An interesting question for the grammar of ethics in John is how believers are supposed to act in everyday life. The ethics in these documents are not inclusive of all situations, but are determined by and therefore thematically restricted to the crises they address. In the Gospel, practical behaviour is determined in a concentric way. In the centre, Jesus and his commandments (especially of love) are found. No action should militate against the values associated with that. Then there are the values expressed in the Jewish tradition (the Decalogue), but of course interpreted in the light of Jesus and his judgment. Then there was ordinary behaviour (like buying, eating, etc.) that was followed by believers, but only in so far as it did not militate against the first two parts of the concentric circles.254 The pattern in 1 John seems similar, although not developed to the same extent and in the same detail as is the case in the Gospel.255 The Decalogue is also not mentioned, but certain values are described positively, and when it comes to everyday behaviour in terms of hospitality, protecting one’s own group, providing meals and so on, common values are accepted, except if they militate against what God stands for and some values favoured by the Decalogue. In light of the above, both the Gospel and the Letters have the same approach to practical life.

252

It is emphasized that there is a relation between the old and new commandment (J 13:34/1J 2:7–8) that suggests a continuation in tradition. 253 Cf. as examples the dealings with the visitors in 2 and 3 John. 254 Cf. Vol. 1, 416–25. 255 Cf. subsection 4.4 above.

Chapter 13: Comparison between the Letters and the Gospels

397

13.6.3 Ethics and vilification Vilification is part of the arguments of all of these documents.256 Vilification was a common ancient rhetorical strategy to negatively address one’s opponents. It was part of the ancient rhetorical power play. In 1 and 2 John the names of the opponents are not mentioned, as a way of dishonouring them by not acknowledging their names. They are however clearly identified through degrading terms like antichrists, deceivers or children of the devil. In 3 John, Diotrephes is named, but vilified in different ways. It is notable that the language used for the Jewish opponents in the Gospel overlaps with the language used for the opponents (schismatics) in the Letters, for instance, children of the devil. This corresponds with the dualistic worldview of the Johannine documents in which the world is divided into the family of God and the family of the devil. Again the basic pattern of thinking is the same, with the difference that in the Gospel the application is to the Jewish opponents, while in the Letters it is to the schismatics, who were formerly part of the Johannine group.

13.7 Sin, forgiveness, eschatology and judgment 13.7.1 Sin Sin, as the basic ethical action in the Gospel, is expressed in terms of unbelief in Jesus.257 Obviously, there are references to wrong deeds, but these are a result of not believing in Jesus, and following the devil.258 In 1 John not believing in Jesus or not confessing him as the incarnated messiah is called a mortal sin,259 echoing the consequences of a lack of faith. In both documents, sin is associated with an apocalyptic framework, related to the events before Jesus’ final return and the eschatological judgment on the last day.260 In the Gospel, Jesus’ presence has caused the ‘ruler of this world’ to be cast out and to lose his power over him,261 while the Letter confirms that Jesus destroyed the works of the devil.262 There is a significant difference between the Gospel and 1 John in their basic approach to the concept of sin. The references to this concept are more complex in 1 John than in the Gospel. In the Gospel, sin is predominantly 256

Cf. Vol. 1, 48, 465–66. Cf. subsection 12.4 above. J 6:28–29. Cf. Vol. 1, 141–45. 508–509, 537–38. 258 J 8:44. 259 1J 5:16–17. 260 Cf. Vol. 1, 204–206. In 1J 2:18ff. the appearance of the antichrist heralds the last days. 261 J 12:31; 14:30. 262 1J 3:8. 257

398

Section 4: The Letters and the Gospel of John

linked to a lack of faith in Jesus, while references to sinful behaviour are present, but not as a central theme.263 In 1 John a variety of references to sin is found, each with a different nuance. There are several references to sin as wrong deeds that must be forgiven; for instance, in 1J 1:7 there is direct reference to Jesus’ blood that will cleanse from all sin those who walk in the light. Believers should not commit sin,264 but if they do their sins must be confessed and will be forgiven.265 They have a Paraclete (Special Helper), that is, the expiation for their sins.266 These references to sin are to concrete actions, like deteriorating love for fellow Christians, or not caring for fellow believers. Sinful behaviour that is directly addressed is the love of this world and of the things of this world that excludes the love of God.267 Wrong desire for the things of this world, pride for these things and hubris characterize such behaviour. It has to do with a lifestyle orientated towards this world, which excludes the focus on the loving God. In 1J 3:6, 9 and 5:18, the statement is made that those born of God and abiding in him do not commit sin: a reference to the attitude of believers, not to a lifestyle characterized by sin, but by love and righteous deeds (1J 3:10). This includes faith in Jesus, but also corresponding behaviour. This reference is not (only) to individual trespasses of God’s will, but refers to a lifestyle,268 as Cain’s evil deeds referred to a lifestyle.269 Then there is mortal sin,270 that is sin leading to death, which seemingly refers to not believing in Jesus, with the corresponding consequences and evil behaviour. This is stated in contrast to sin that is not mortal, that most probably refers to the trespasses mentioned in 1J 1:7–2:2. In sum, in light of the above, it may be concluded that the treatment of the concept of ἁµαρτία (sin) in the Gospel and 1 John do not overlap, except for the reference to faith in Jesus. The treatment in the Letters is much broader, due to the crisis situation addressed in the Letter. 13.7.2 Forgiveness In the Gospel there is little or no reference to atonement (though this point is debated) or to blood-theology. Sin is basically remedied through faith in Jesus. Those who believe will receive eternal life and become part of the loving circle of the family of God. 263

Cf. Vol. 1, 141–44, 267–73. 1J 2:1. 265 1J 1:9; 2:12. 266 1J 2:1–2. 267 1J 2:15–17. 268 Cf. also the context of 1J 3:9–16. 269 1J 3:11–13. 270 1J 5:16–17. 264

Chapter 13: Comparison between the Letters and the Gospels

399

In 1 John the picture is different. The group was dealing with a conflict where some members broke away (the ‘they’ of the schism) while others (the ‘you’ group) were still regarded as part of the orthodox group (the ‘us’ group), but were lacking authentic love for their fellow believers that damaged their koinōnia (relationship and co-operation) with God and the believers (1J 1:3– 7). In this context the ‘you’ group is assured of forgiveness if they are willing to correct their ways through confession of their sins. A typical Christian means of cleansing sins, namely, through the blood of Jesus (1:7–10), is mentioned, since he is the expiation of their sins.271 In this regard 1 John echoes traditional Christian views. It illustrates that if the Johannine group was confronted with specific problems they did not hesitate to express their ideas in terms of traditional Christian views. This difference between the Gospel and 1 John is not a difference in basic theology, but due to adaptability in different situations. 13.7.3 Eschatology and judgment In the Gospel, judgment is mainly the response of the Father and Son to unbelief in Jesus.272 The Father gave the right to judge to Jesus and his judgment is true, since his judgment is also the Father’s judgment.273 Judgment is part of John’s realizing eschatology,274 that is, the judgment on those who believe is that they already have eternal life that excludes them from the final judgment.275 For this salvific reason Jesus also came, not to judge but to save the world.276 Final, eschatological judgment takes place on the basis of the true words of Jesus that invite people to join the family of God through faith in Jesus.277 Rejection of this invitation leads to condemnation in the final judgment. Whoever believes in Jesus has eternal life, but those who do not believe will experience the wrath of God. In spite of the strong emphasis in the Gospel on realizing eschatology, the Gospel is aware of the final judgment on the last day.278 The influence of the realizing eschatology on ethics is similar in both documents. Believers having life and living it according to the will of God form an essential part of the grammar of John’s ethics (both in the Gospel and the Letters). However, in the Letters the concept of judgment is treated differently. The typical word for judging, namely, κρίνω, is not used, although the 271

1J 2:1–2; 4:10. Vol. 1, 430–32. 273 J 8:16; 12:47–48. 274 J 5:22, 26–27; 8:15–16. 275 J 5:24. 276 J 12:47. 277 J 3:19–21, 36; 5:21–22; 12:47–48. 278 Cf. J 6:39–40, 44; 12:48. 272

400

Section 4: The Letters and the Gospel of John

concept is indirectly mentioned in a few texts. It is not thematized as in the Gospel. There are a few references in 1 and 2 John to the final day, which shows awareness of the final judgment. Believers will have confidence and will not shrink from Jesus in shame when he appears,279 with the implication that unbelievers will. The hearts of believers will also not condemn those who are of the truth280 and their loving behaviour will ensure that they have confidence and do not have fear on the Day of Judgment.281 Instead, believers will be like Jesus when he appears (1J 3:2). Mention is also made of the apocalyptic ‘last hour’.282 The evil actions of the antichrist(s) that echo the actions of Cain,283 indicate the arrival of the events before the last hour passes that will lead to the final judgment. Actions, like the lack of love, hatred and murder will determine the outcome for people. Ironically, these references in the Letters are more detailed than the few references to the last day in the Gospel.284 In 1J 5:16 there is also a possible reference to sin that is mortal, implying judgment that leads to spiritual death (although this remark also makes sense within the context of John’s realizing eschatology), while the reference to the ‘Paraclete’ in 1J 2:1 perhaps suggests a final judgment in ‘court’.285

Much is made of the difference in eschatology between the Gospel and 1 John, mainly based on the realizing eschatology of the Gospel286 compared to the stronger emphasis on futuristic eschatological events in the Letters, as is described in 1J 3:1–3.287 However, this should not be seen as an absolute difference that separates the views of the various documents, since both documents refer to the concepts of realizing eschatology288 as well as futuristic eschatology,289 even though the emphases differ. Again we have the pattern of agreement on the basic theological structural level, with the nuances rooted in this shared theological structure.

279

1J 2:28; cf. also 1J 5:4–5. 1J 3:19–20. 281 1J 4:17–18. 282 1J 2:18. 283 1J 3:12ff.; 4:3. 284 Cf., e.g., J 6:39–40, 44. 285 Cf. subsection 4.11.3 above. 286 Cf. Van der Watt (2000:ad loc.), cf. subsection 5.10 above. 287 Cf. Brown (1982:ad loc.). 288 E.g., 1J 2:18; 4:3. 289 E.g., J 6:39–40 and perhaps 14:1–3. 280

Chapter 13: Comparison between the Letters and the Gospels

401

13.8 Concluding remarks: reasons for similarities and differences? As was mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, a more holistic approach is followed,290 considering the differences and similarities of each concept, to determine how and why they differ or are the same. A clear pattern emerged. The arguments in these documents are based on a basic theological ‘plot’ that serves as a ‘core’ that combines the transcendent narrative of God with the earthly narrative of Jesus being sent to this world to bring eternal life. For instance, God is the source of what is true and good, his incarnated Son, Jesus, is sent by and reveals the Father; he brings eternal life to those who believe in him and they are made children of God by being born of God. They are God’s family who ought to behave according to their status as his children even in the face of the hatred, deception and murder of this world. This basic theological structure underlies all these documents,291 and based on this structure the messages of the different documents are further developed. If any of these core aspects of this plot are ignored, the rest of the plot does not make proper sense. Within this framework, different concepts are developed that lead to differences. This leads to clear similarities as well as clear differences. As was noted (in some cases) above, differences between the Gospel and the Letters may be explained especially in two ways, namely, difference in genre and difference in situation: the Gospel tells the story of Jesus and thus establishes the tradition, while the Letters are situational documents that respond to different situations in light of, inter alia, the Johannine tradition. 13.8.1 The impact of genre The difference in genre, that exists between a gospel narrative and a letter, has direct implications for the ethics of John.292 A gospel is not a letter and a letter is not a gospel, just as a joke is not a scientific treatise and vice versa. Letters and gospels have different aims and offer their material in different ways.293 The Gospel of John is a narrative telling the story of the mission of the Son of God, the Messiah, to this world with the aim of making the Father known to the world in darkness and death by giving eternal life to everyone 290

It was also mentioned that simply listing differences and similarities and then making a choice is not an approach that leads to a balanced conclusion; nor is isolating specific concepts, making decisions on the basis of such an individual comparison. 291 Obviously, 3 John and to a lesser extent 2 John do not reflect this structure in detail, but it is suggested. 292 Cf. Vol. 1, Chs. 3–4 and subsection 2.1 above. 293 No approach that compares Gospel material with letters in a way that ignores genre, as if there is no difference in dealing with the subject matter should be regarded as valid.

402

Section 4: The Letters and the Gospel of John

who believes that the incarnated Jesus is the Son of God, as is stated in J 20:30–31. This forms the essential plot of the Johannine tradition, both in the Gospel and in the Letters.294 In the Gospel this plot is unfolded through an interplay between events and reflective discourses on these events, thus showing that Jesus is the Son of God, also explaining why he was glorified (crucified) and how he will be with his disciples after he returns to the Father. In narrating these events, certain aspects need more emphasis than others; for instance, the Gospel much more than the Letters focuses on explaining what faith, as basic ethical action, actually is,295 since that is what the narrative is about. The family imagery, that is, having eternal life and what that implies, is also developed in quite some detail in the Gospel,296 in order to explain the identity of believers in their conflict with their opponents. There is also little reflection on the salvific side of Jesus’ death (i.e. his blood that cleanses, that he is the expiation, etc.), since that is not relevant in a narrative that focuses on the glorious Christ. The Gospel narrative therefore has its own emphasis which impacts directly on the ethics and choices made in this regard. A letter is more situationally orientated and direct in its approach. All three Letters of John deal with (a) problem(s), mostly related to conflicts experienced by the addressees. In 1 John, significant focus is placed on the need for believers to love one another, because the lack of mutual love was the problem with the addressees. A term like koinōnia that is not common to Johannine vocabulary is introduced, since it encapsulates the gist of the problem: the addressees do not properly co-operate with the orthodox group and lack in their fellowship. Other issues like sin or judgment are also influenced by the fact that 1 John as a letter has a specific situational focus. The same applies to 2 and 3 John, where each deals with its own specific problem. A gospel narrative would not solve these problems, but a letter might do, since it is ideal to directly address a specific problem, by explaining, describing, warning, encouraging, etc. Therefore, the Letters are consciously focusing on ethical issues and less on the developing narrative of Jesus. This gives the Letters an identity of their own, but also does not separate them from their basic core tradition. The applications made to the situation, like love, forgiveness of sin, protection of the family of God, etc., all go back to John’s basic core narrative. Taking this into consideration, considerable care should be taken before concluding that the Gospel and the Letters are products of different traditions. To the contrary, apart from sharing in a core theological tradition, many of the differences between the Gospel and the Letters are to be explained by the confines of the respective genres. 294

Cf. 1J 5:9–12. Vol. 1, 109–48. 296 Cf. Van der Watt (2000). 295

Chapter 13: Comparison between the Letters and the Gospels

403

13.8.2 Difference in situation As was mentioned above, the Gospel is a narrative with the aim of convincing people to believe in Jesus as the Son of God, as well as encouraging people to keep on believing in Jesus as Son of God, because this faith will result in eternal life (J 20:31). Attention is not paid to particular situational problems; rather the focus is on the aim that determines the selective (not everything is treated and discussed) but pointed aim of the Gospel. The situations addressed as well as the aim of the Letters differ from those of a gospel narrative. 1 John is written with a particular rhetorical strategy to address the situation of conflict in the group – a schism took place and that resulted in the schismatics trying to deceive (some) members of the original group (the addressees or ‘you’ group), presenting the threat of further departure from the orthodox group. The challenge for the author was to convince the addressees of the Letter to remain loyal to the orthodox group, re-establishing their co-operation and fellowship (koinōnia) with them by showing their mutual love for them. This aim that is determined by the situation has a direct impact on the choices made regarding ethics. Obviously, love will take centre stage, forgiveness of trespasses (i.e. what the addressees were guilty of) will be directly addressed, identity as being born of God that cannot but lead to obedient behaviour (i.e. not sinning) becomes a topic, following (imitating) the behaviour of Jesus as a righteous, pure and loving person is emphasized, to name but a few examples. Again, all of these examples function within the core plot of the Johannine theological narrative. Themes like birth, life, love, forgiveness, obedience, etc. are all a basic part of John’s core narrative that is applied in the specific situation faced by the author of 1 John. Let us consider another major issue that is enough to convince some that the Gospel and the Letters do not represent the same tradition, namely the shift from Christ-ology in the Gospel to Theo-logy in the Letters. In the Letters, it is claimed, Christ recedes into the background (low Christology), with God taking his place. This represents a major theological difference that is difficult for some to reconcile. However, it is not true that Jesus is completely pushed into the background; to the contrary, the Letters still acknowledge him in rich theological terms. Although the emphasis in 1 John is on God the Father, Jesus is all but marginalized. In line with the core of Johannine theology, Jesus is still the unique, incarnated Son who was sent to bring eternal life to the world.297 He is still the one who lays down his life for others298 and whose behaviour should serve as model for believers to imitate. He still is the one in whom people must believe to become children of God.299 He still is the Messiah with 297

1J 4:9. 1J 3:16. 299 1J 5:11–12. 298

404

Section 4: The Letters and the Gospel of John

whom believers will be, even after his return.300 He is even more – he is the expiation for the sins of believers and his blood cleanses them of sin.301 The basic or core narrative about Jesus is by no means changed in 1 John. Jesus does what he did in the Gospel, although there is not expansion on his glory as person as is the case in the Gospel, which would lead into a discussion about Christology.

If the difference is taken into account in both genre and situation, a plausible explanation is possible. The Gospel narrative specifically focuses on Jesus as the one sent by the Father to bring eternal life to the world in darkness and death. It is logical that the emphasis in such a narrative will fall on the protagonist, Jesus. We should remind ourselves, however, that God the Father is by no means excluded or inactive. To the contrary, he is the constant and active figure behind the narrative.302 In 1 John, the focus shifts to God, who becomes the key divine actor, and who is more directly responsible for his actions, while Jesus moves into the background, having much less emphasis. In the Letters, God is and does much of what Jesus is and does in the Gospel. Is there a natural or logical explanation for this shift or should it simply be seen as due to authors with different theologies? It is suggested that a solution might be found in the author’s rhetorical approach to the situation he addresses. He could easily have engaged in a Christological argument with the schismatics, arguing for Jesus’ humanness and messiahship, but does not do this. He did not intend to write in detail about the schismatics. His Letter is not addressed to the schismatics with their Christological problems, but to the ‘you’ group that was seemingly moving away from the orthodox group and who were falling behind in their love and co-operation with the orthodox group. His focus is not on dogmatics but on ethics,303 that is on pastorally assisting the addressees in their confrontation with the deception and behaviour that is not in line with God’s will. The author therefore followed a particular rhetorical strategy: as has been said, the opponents’ major problem was Christological in nature, that is, they did not accept Jesus as human and therefore acknowledged him as messiah. The author has chosen not to focus on Christology as the main point of his 300

1J 3:3–4. 1J 1:7; 2:2; 4:10. 302 Cf. Van der Watt (2019a). Cf. further, as examples, the volumes by Thompson (2001), Back (2012), Loader (2017) and Burz-Tropper (2019), where the roles of God and Jesus in the Gospel of John are discussed in detail. The prominence of God the Father is discussed in detail, with Jesus as the one who acts in the world on behalf of the Father – Jesus is given life by the Father, is sent by the Father, makes the Father known, is given the Spirit by the Father, etc. 303 Obviously, the confession about Jesus was not excluded in the crisis, but the major problem does not seem to lie there, since the addressees are anointed and know the truth (1J 2:20–27). 301

Chapter 13: Comparison between the Letters and the Gospels

405

argument (i.e. how and why Jesus was human or the messiah), but rather wants to guide them back pastorally to koinōnia with the orthodox group. They seemingly did not yet have a Christological problem which made engagement with Christological issues unnecessary. To do this he seemingly followed a particular rhetorical strategy. Preferring not to get tangled in a Christological argument, but rather to directly address the ethical problems, the author focuses on a common denominator, namely, on the true living God of life, love and light, the One accepted by everyone worshipping the God of the First Testament.304 The author can depart by simply stating the characteristics of this God, that is, God is the light or later on he is love. That the author simply states these characteristics shows that he is convinced that he will not be proven wrong, not even by the opponents who were previously part of his group. This leads to the second part of his argument. This God is positively linked to Jesus, the one who came into flesh and who is the Messiah. This God of light and love is the Father of his unique Son, Jesus Christ, whom he sent to bring life to the world. This is how God showed his love to the world (1J 4:9– 10). Indeed, to accept the Father means to accept his unique Son. There is no other way, as it is stated in clear terms in 1J 2:23: ‘Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father. He who confesses the Son also has the Father’. The Father further witnesses to the truth of his Son, Jesus, namely that the life he gives us is in him. Whoever denies this testimony and does not believe in the Son, makes God a liar.305 By focusing on God’s actions in relation to Jesus, namely, sending Jesus or witnessing to him, the authenticity of the Son (who is doubted by some, like the antichrists) as incarnated messiah is vouched for. Whoever rejects the Son is therefore guilty of rejecting the Father, something the antichrists were guilty of.306 In sum, the author does not argue about Christology. Neither does he argue about Theo-logy. What he does is to state what everybody believes about the true God, and then to explain that this God’s loving plan was executed in the messianic mission of this Son becoming flesh. The author links Jesus’ person and actions directly to God the Father who authenticates Jesus as his Son.307 In other words, if God is accepted, so must be Jesus as his Son who became flesh.

304

The suggested scenario of Streett that he develops in his book of 2011 would support this view. He argues that the opponents who seceded did not do so because of doctrinal innovation, but ‘they reneged upon their initial confession of Jesus as the Messiah, probably in order to return to the relative security of the Jewish synagogue’ (Streett 2011:2). 305 1J 5:10–12. 306 1J 2:22. 307 Cf. 1J 5:9–10. If a person does not confess or accept Jesus, it is implied that such a person does not accept God the Father (1J 2:22–23).

406

Section 4: The Letters and the Gospel of John

2 and 3 John are short letters dealing with very specific situations, where issues are addressed, like hospitality, personal power or protecting the group from people who want to deceive them and thus destroy what the group has worked for. It is not necessary to argue that this does not fit into the Gospel narrative, nor does it prove a difference in tradition. If the argument for the difference in rhetorical strategy is accepted, it is understandable that some of the divine qualitative descriptions are alternated between the Father and the Son. This view, of course, weakens the argument of those who want to see this as a major break in tradition. Ethical applications are done within the common Johannine core tradition, of course, proving a shared Johannine tradition with different applications. The grammar of ethics of each Letter should therefore not be regarded as universal ethical treatise, but as focused, selective ethics addressing that particular situation with its demands. If reasons for differences are looked for, the particular situations of the documents should be kept in mind. 13.8.3 Two different traditions or one living tradition? It was argued that a ‘core’ Johannine tradition dominated the theological convictions of the Johannine group, forming the framework for nuances in the application of the tradition in different situations. This leaves the idea of a ‘living tradition’ that expresses and applies the basic convictions in a novel and relevant way, as different situations might dictate. The challenges of the different situations require different choices of words, the use of different concepts, and the scope of different material, although expressions remained rooted in the same core tradition. In light of the above analysis, it is therefore difficult to argue for two different traditions, because that would militate against the synergy and cohesion of the material. One should therefore not make too strong a division between the Gospel and the Letters, but should rather acknowledge that all these documents clearly drink from the same stream of a common Johannine tradition. However, the Gospel was not the only source of tradition for the Letters, although the bulk of the tradition in 1 and 2 John refers back to the Gospel. The Letters also draw on the wider body of Christian tradition (as is, for instance, evident in the use of theological concepts like expiation and futuristic eschatology). Although the Johannine theology has its own way of theological expression, it was certainly not opposed to some of the other Christian traditions and terminology. To the contrary, if the situation demanded it, these theological ideas were integrated into the argument of the author of 1 John. This also applies to the ethics of John. It is part of, and indeed in line with, how early Christians behaved.

Addendum 1

Different ethical systems (grammars of ethics) There are numerous ways in which ethical material might be approached structurally.1 There is no single ethical structure or grammar. What follows are a few examples of ethical systems or ‘grammars’. i) Virtue ethics (that goes back to the earliest philosophers like Socrates, Plato or Aristotle and thus to the foundations of Western ethical thinking) concentrates on the virtues that a person has on the basis of habitual repetition of actions that are regarded as ethically positive, based on rational considerations that would lead to well-being. These virtues must be cultivated, strengthened and expanded through mimetic repetition. ii) Deontological ethics focuses on the rule that must be obeyed (‘ought to’ structure, i.e. ‘what is right’) – duty is a key ethical concept. The seat of authority lies outside the moral agent in the rule or law as such and this results in an egalitarian type of ethics. It is characterized by a nonconsequentialist attitude towards behaviour, focusing on what is regarded as inherently right (often based on revelation by a god or God), irrespective of the good or bad generated.2 iii) Teleological ethics focuses on an acceptable ethical outcome, that is, it should have good results. ‘Goodness’ is defined in different ways, such as self-fulfilment, happiness, pleasure, etc., which will of course influence the nature of the actions.3 The authority lies in the end result and not in the deeds that might lead up to that result. The end justifies the means. iv) Utilitarian ethics likewise focuses on outcomes, not in an egoistic but rather in an altruistic way. Not the result, nor the reason for seeking that result, but emotional arguments are of crucial importance. In the centre of what should be done is the utility that particular behaviour would bring to everybody.

1

Cf. Mizzoni (2009) and Graham (2004). The question of what the ‘good’ is in this approach might lead to the conclusion that the observance of the law for the sake of the law might be the highest good. This is known as legalism. 3 The Platonists looked for happiness while the Epicureans sought pleasure – this basic difference in orientation led to differences in behaviour (although this was not the only reason for them). 2

408

Addendum 1

v) Natural law ethics, strongly associated with Thomas of Aquinas (1225– 1274 CE), argues that on the basis of creation things that are natural are associated with what is good and this is reflected in natural law.4 In this case what is right or wrong should be evident in creation, following the principles found there of protection, harmony, life and so on. vi) Social contract ethics finds its seat of authority in the contract made by people living together in a society. Mizzoni5 mentions that this approach often leads to ethical egoism, since contracts are negotiated with the aim of preserving oneself. The ideal is living in freedom, which makes it necessary to draw certain lines and make certain rules. vii) Ultimate source ethics depends on a worldview in which an ultimate source like G(g)od dominates the ethical scene as source, lawgiver and judge. The relation between G(g)od and the ethical agent therefore becomes crucial, since within this relation the obedience of the ethical agent and his or her acceptance of duty are determined.6 A basic difference between these examples is the seat of authority, that is, does the individual decide based on his or her individual world view or rational considerations?, or does obedient submission to outside forces like rules, society, contracts or even God form the basis of ethics? If G(g)od is the source, he will be determinative of ethical behaviour; if the society is the source, ethical behaviour will be evaluated against the requirements of society; if a ‘law book’ is the seat of ethical behaviour, following those rules will be the key to correct behaviour; if the individual is the seat of his or her own ethics, correct behaviour will be measured against his or her own convictions.

4

Cf. Mizzoni (2009:61–63). Cf. ibid. 6 Cf. ibid. 103–104. 5

Addendum 2

Mimesis and reciprocity1 Both mimesis and reciprocity are important ancient social phenomena that aim at influencing behaviour in a particular way and for particular reasons. These phenomena are also found in the argumentation in John’s Letters.

1. Mimesis In ancient times mimesis (imitation) of a particular ‘model’ was a desirable practice.2 Plutarch,3 for instance, mentioned that he described the lives of his characters by selecting from them what was worthwhile to know and what could be effective in moral instruction and improvement – ‘handing on such as furthers the appreciation of character and temperament’.4 This was common to ancient biographers when instructing and propagandizing through their writings. In Graeco-Roman contexts it was common for a person to copy or emulate another admired person’s actions or attitudes (mimesis5). Morgan also opines that ‘the tradition of using the sayings and doings of famous men and women of the past as examples to be imitated or avoided goes back at least to classical Greek literature’,6 while Eastman underscores the importance of this practice by claiming, ‘imitation, or mimesis, was the glue that held together the social order in a harmonious whole’.7 Castelli offers the following important remarks, based on his detailed survey8 of the concept of mimesis, which might serve as guideline for identifying this phenomenon in texts.9 1

This is an adapted version of the corresponding Addenda in Vol. 1, 589–606. Cf. Auerbach (1946), Melberg (1995) and Gebauer and Wulf (1995:4–5, 23–26). 3 Plutarch, Aemilius Paulus 2; Alexander 1; Aemilius Paulus 1. Plutarch’s Life of Pericles 1:4 and 2:4 provides moral exempla for the leading men of his day. 4 Plutarch, Nicias 1:5. 5 The Latinized form is imitatio while in German Nachahmung or even Nachbildung are used. 6 Morgan (2007:122). 7 Eastman (2008:430). 8 For further consideration, cf. Bennema (2014:265). 9 Mimesis cannot be limited to a single theory (i.e. the theory of mimesis); rather it refers to ‘a fundamental outlook shared by most authors, philosophers and ancient educated audi2

410

Addendum 2

– ‘Mimesis is always articulated as a hierarchical relationship, whereby the ‘copy’ is but a derivation of the ‘model’ and cannot aspire to the privileged status of the ‘model’.10 Mimesis is therefore always asymmetrical, ‘for imitation does not involve both elements moving simultaneously toward similarity, but rather one element being fixed and the other transforming itself or being transformed into an approximation of the first’.11 – ‘Mimesis presupposes a valorisation of sameness over against difference. Certain conceptual equations accompany this move: unity and harmony are associated with sameness while difference is attributed characteristics of diffusion, disorder, and discord’.12 Gebauer and Wulf, in a somewhat general and theoretical analysis, confirm that in many usages mimesis ‘entails the identification of one person with another’. The one ‘clings’ to the ‘other’, ‘the Other is assimilated to the world of the person who is clinging’.13 This implies an inner reorientation of the person who imitates the model according to the patterns set by the model. Action and cognitive activity cannot be separated.14 – Although there is this sense of equality, ‘The notion of the authority of the model plays a fundamental role in the mimetic relationship’.15 Castelli remarks, ‘Further, imitation implies, then, a critical relationship of power, insofar as the model represents the standard toward which its copies move. The model sets the terms of the relationship, which is both hierarchical and asymmetrical’.16 In sum, mimesis implies an asymmetrical, hierarchical relationship between the one who imitates and the one who is imitated, in which there is the intention of the first to transform under the imitative influence of the latter. Harrison also describes the process aptly: ‘Models of ancestral or personal virtue were held forth for the imitation of future generations … to serve the conservative function of either maintaining the ancient ethical tradition or reinforcing socially acceptable paradigms of leadership of past and future generations’.17 The expectation to imitate includes an element of conserving the past, continuing the good tradition within which a person finds him- or ences in the classical period’ (Sörbom 2002:19). Gebauer and Wulf (1995:5) also prefer to use the term ‘mimesis as a label for manifold social processes summarized conceptually’. 10 Castelli (1991:16). 11 Ibid. 21. 12 Ibid. 16. 13 Gebauer and Wulf (1995:5). 14 Ibid. 15 Castelli (1991:16). 16 Ibid. 22. 17 Harrison (2013:223). Quintilian (Inst. 12.2.29) remarks, ‘Nowhere is there a larger or more striking supply of these [notable sayings and actions of the past] than in the history of our own country. Could there be any better teachers of courage, justice, loyalty, self-control, frugality, or contempt for pain and death than men like [then providing a list of names]’.

Mimesis and Reciprocity

411

herself. This, of course, implies that the deeds which should be copied reflect the virtues of the person in question, implying that his or her words and deeds should correspond.18 The result of mimesis should not be moral copies, but moral formation.19 Mimesis is not a stagnant mechanical process, but involves active and even creative reflection and novel expression of what is being imitated. There should be a proper balance between what is given (traditio) and what is produced (innovatio).20 Plato emphasized that readers should be encouraged to identify or respond to characters as though they were real people. In this act of identification, the reader assimilates him- or herself to the character. This leads the reader to affirm (or to reject) a certain set of values.21 ‘As a result we take the voices and ideas of other people into our minds: we substitute other people’s thoughts and feelings for our own’.22 In this regard, Mack makes a crucial point, namely, that mimicking implies a deeper cognitive involvement than simply copying; the pattern to be copied represents not a physical deed alone, but especially the ‘structure, character and the very being of things … To imitate the pattern of an example meant to become like it, to share its character and meaning’.23 Things to be imitated were not copyrighted, but should be actively and creatively expressed in new but corresponding forms. This implied that an element of preservation as well as a creative element was part of the process of imitation. Nightingale confirms this by referring to Plato: ‘Plato is not suggesting, of course, that a person who reads the Iliad will rush out and strap on his sword; rather, the reader or viewer internalizes an entire value system, adopting a whole set of ideas about what constitutes a good person and a good life’.24 Indeed, ‘for mimetic education to take hold the student had to participate in 18

Seneca (Ep. 52, On choosing our teachers) states this eloquently, ‘I say, but men who teach us by their lives, men who tell us what we ought to do and then prove it by practice, who show us what we should avoid, and then are never caught doing that which they have ordered us to avoid. Choose as a guide one whom you will admire more when you see him act than when you hear him speak’. 19 Quintilian, Inst. 12.2.29–30. For example, the following is said about Zeno in an Athenian decree (cited by Diogenes Laertius 7.10–12) honouring him: ‘… having offered to all as example his own life, which was in agreement with the theories he professed …’. This example comes from Harrison (2013:235) – he also provides others. 20 Gebauer and Wulf (1995:5). 21 A particular view of the world that endorsed a specific set of values was propagated, even as far back as Homer who embodies such values in certain characters in his works (Nightingale 2006:37–38). 22 Nightingale (2006:42–43). 23 Mack (1995:146) and Sörbom (2002:22). Morgan (2007:125) refers to Pliny’s remark (Pan. 45:6), ‘We need example more than we need rule … Men learn better from examples, which are particularly good because they prove that what they teach can actually be done’. 24 Nightingale (2006:42).

412

Addendum 2

the teacher’s life. To be sure, the effect of that participation was not simply rote repetition that created a cookie-cutter copy of the teacher: the students “were destined to go each his different way”, yet the character of each was shaped by his vital relationship with the teacher’.25 Indeed, what is important is the ‘performative aspect, the actualization, a presentation of what has been mimetically indicated’.26 Because of the reflective and creative nature of mimicking, part of active mimicking were constant efforts even to surpass the forebears as well as benefactors in order to enhance the fame of the group. ‘The Roman nobility boasted in prominent examples of ancestral glory for each new generation to imitate and surpass’.27 As was mentioned, mimesis was also part of Jewish28 and Christian29 culture. This is more than evident in 1 John, where believers are encouraged to follow the example of Jesus.30 Mimesis was not the only social phenomenon influencing ethical behaviour in ancient times. This idea of a person copying or emulating another person’s actions or attitudes is expressed by both of the terms mimesis31 and reciprocity.

25

Eastman (2008:434). Gebauer and Wulf (1995:5). 27 Harrison (2013:223). He (ibid. 223–24) uses the Scipionic epitaphs as examples to illustrate how prominent the desire was to imitate ancestors and continue in their ethical and honorary lines, thus ‘the nobilitas of the family is rendered even more noble and virtuous’. It was expected that each noble should equal or even surpass the virtues of his ancestors, with the exploits of the immediate father as starting point. That is why Michaelis sees imitation not as ‘repetition of a model. It is an expression of obedience’ (referred to by Castelli 1991:26–27). 28 Barton (2003:50–51) argues that imitating God could be regarded as an important model for theological ethics in Hebrew Scriptures. He refers to passages like Dt 10:17–19 or Lev 19:2, where God’s love should be imitated or people are told to be holy as God is holy, respectively. A task of human beings is ‘to do as God does: to take God’s character as the pattern of their character and God’s deeds as the model for theirs’. 29 Talbert (1977:15–17) opines that the Gospels are aimed at providing ‘a true model to follow’. Scholars like Mitchell (1991:39–60) and Witherington (1994:19–20), working predominantly on Paul, refer to the rhetorical conventions of exempla used in deliberative argumentation that should also be kept in mind when talking about imitation. 30 In the Gospel of John, as performative text, not only the characters within the narrative should imitate Jesus, but also the reader who is finding in the text the representation of Jesus. 31 The word µίµησις is only used once (as a verb) in the Johannine Corpus (3J 11), where it is used in its typical meaning of imitating the good rather than evil. Apart from that the word does not occur, although the idea is found frequently, being motivated in different ways. Cf. Bennema (2014). 26

Mimesis and Reciprocity

413

2. Reciprocity Like mimesis, reciprocity32 was a widespread phenomenon33 in antiquity,34 related to ethical social interaction, forming part of the socially standardized roles people played,35 not the least because it was important for the social networking and structuring of ancient societies.36 As Seaford puts it, reciprocity was to be found ‘as an ethical value, as factor in interpersonal relations … as a way of structuring human relations with a deity, as shaping the pattern of epic and historical narrative’.37 Different forms of reciprocity in different contexts were prevalent in ancient times. Sahlins38 distinguishes between three forms of reciprocity, namely, general, balanced and negative reciprocity. a) General reciprocity occurs ‘among kinship and friends, exhibits unilateral and altruistic giving of “pure gifts”, with a discreet yet indefinite expectation of a return’. General reciprocity is characterized by ‘selfless generosity and open-ended reciprocity’.39 Van Wees40 calls this personal reciprocity and emphasizes the voluntariness of the response even though reciprocal action was in any case expected. b) Balanced reciprocity was found in more formal relations, like economic or political relations, and might be described as ‘a less personal and calculable exchange of commensurate gifts without delay, attended by the economic interests of each party’. Crook underlines that the exchanges are ‘both less intimate and more demanding. Imbalance between parties breaks the social contract, and exchanges may well cease because of it’.41 Van Wees42 prefers to call this formal reciprocity. c) Negative reciprocity ‘features overt exploitation, with each party looking to maximize their own utility at the other’s expense’. Approaching the issue from another perspective, E. and W. Stegemann’s interest lies with the social status of the people involved, which leads them to distinguish between four types of reciprocal exchange, namely, ‘(i) familial reciprocity (egalitarian status, noncompetitive); (ii) balanced reciprocity (equal status, symmetrical relationship); (iii) general reciprocity (unequal status, asymmetrical relationship); and (iv) negative reciprocity43 (hostile relationship)’.44 32

Cf. also Addendum 5 in Vol. 1, 603–606 containing similar information. Reciprocity was common in nearly all the levels and areas of society which gives it a complexity that makes it difficult to define in single terms (Van Wees 1998:15; cf. Morgan 2007:43; Briones 2013:32–33). Cf. also the articles in Gill et al. (1998). 34 Morgan (2007:42–43). 35 Van Wees (1998:16). Although anthropologists acknowledge the presence of reciprocity in modern cultures too (cf. Van Wees 1998), it was ‘a more central value and practice in ancient than in modern societies’ (Seaford 1998:1). 36 Morgan (2007:42). 37 Seaford (1998:1). Schwartz (2010:8) calls it a ‘moral norm’. 38 Cf. Sahlins (1965:139–78). 39 Crook (2005:79). 40 Van Wees (1998:16). 41 Crook (2005:80). 42 Van Wees (1998:17). 43 Cf. Plato, Rep. 1.332B. 44 Stegemann and Stegemann (1999). 33

414

Addendum 2

In the Letters of John the emphasis clearly falls on familial or general reciprocity, binding the family of God together in mutual expectations, as will be shown.

In essence, reciprocity refers to the reaction a person shows to receiving something (from abstracts like love or goodwill to concrete objects) from somebody else. The response should be to reply in kind, that is, to return the action with a similar or comparable (analogous) action. This was a general social expectation and served as a cohesive force within a community. By mutual sharing within a community, everybody was obliged to everybody in the end, which served as social cohesion.45 A network of interrelations and interdependency was created and maintained within a community that served as a cohesive power and facilitated things,46 in much the same way as we would regard generosity today.47 Long-term attachments were thus created, based on indebtedness based on gratitude for benefits received.48 Whitlark mentions the following aspects of reciprocity: ‘(1) Reciprocity is a relational bond. (2) Ideally, the bond is long-term and maintained by each party’s fidelity to the relationship by means of a sense of indebted gratitude. (3) The bond is a cooperative agreement where both parties undertake specific obligations to maintain the relationship. (4) Cooperation entails mutual dependence with each party having to rely upon the other for the fulfilment of his or her specific obligations’.49 Reciprocity is not only a one-to-one affair. Seaford points out that there is a type of reciprocity that he calls ‘univocal reciprocity’, in which ‘A’s benefit to B causes B to benefit C, and thereby C to benefit A (or D etc., with A benefitting eventually)’.50 A wider circle or group of (related) people may be involved. In this way reciprocity creates a moral framework in which social obligation and expectation inter alia ensured the strength of the social fibre of a group in the form of enduring relationships of dependency.51 In this gener45

Cf. Seaford (1998:2). Joubert (2014:173) mentions the following, ‘According to ancient authors such as Dio Chrysostom (Oratio 75.6), relationships between children and their parents, beneficiaries and private benefactors, or cities and their public benefactors were marked by reciprocal obligations. In the same vein Seneca (de Beneficiis I.4.2) stated that social interchange constituted the chief bond that hold people together in society, while Cicero (Duties 1.15.47–8) and Pliny (Letters 9.30.1–4) knew that benefactors bestowed their largesse with a firm expectation of some kind of a return’. 47 Van Wees (1998:15) values generosity in terms of reciprocity, saying, ‘The apparent prevalence of generosity in primitive society is really the prevalence of reciprocity in social relations’. It was a positive social gesture to show generosity, however. Generosity was admired, and thus socially contributed to power, honour and prestige in society (Seaford 1998:5). 48 Whitlark (2006:32). 49 Ibid. 25. 50 Seaford (1998:2). 51 Schwartz (2010:8). 46

Mimesis and Reciprocity

415

alized reciprocity, as Crook calls it, ‘material concerns are subordinated to social concerns – what matters most is not the return but the support of the social system’.52 The process of reciprocation is indeed a constantly unfolding process of obligations shifting and increasing as people share with one another. It becomes a constantly developing cycle. The notion that ‘what we do comes back to us, often with interest: “what goes around, comes around”’53 serves as strong motivation for reciprocity.54 The notion that ‘what we do comes back to us, often with interest: “what goes around, comes around”’ served as strong motivation for reciprocity in ancient times also. Societies were ‘bound together by densely overlapping networks of relationships of personal dependency constituted and sustained by reciprocal exchange’.55 Since personal involvement was normally low or non-existent in economic contexts, return was demanded, of course with immediacy. However, in familial or more general relationships, where personal and social involvement were prominent, reciprocity (return) was not forced – the person could still decide not to do so, obviously weighing the expected (negative) social consequences of such a decision.56 It was seen as ‘voluntary,’ but was nevertheless expected. Reciprocity, repaying what was given to you, took many forms, depending on the situation and people involved. For instance, how does an inferior ‘repay’ a superior? Aristotle57 solves the problem by arguing that reciprocal benefits may be of different natures and need not be the same on both sides. The different (unequal) parties offer different benefits and in this way the requirement of reciprocity is met. While a rich man may offer material goods to the poor, the poor man might, for instance, reciprocate by honouring the rich man.58 52

Crook (2005:79). Morgan (2007:42). 54 Schwartz (2010:14); cf. Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 7.1.2; 7.10.14ff.; Seneca, Ben. 1.4.2; Cicero, Off. 1.22. 55 Schwartz (2010:14). 56 The disgust about a person not reciprocating is evident in Ps.-Libanius (Char. ep. 64; trans. White 2003:329) when he says, ‘Since you have received many favors from us, even I am amazed in the extreme at how you give no remembrance for any of them, but rather speak evil of us. Such is the mark of an ungrateful disposition. For the ungrateful forget good men and mistreat their benefactors as though they were enemies’. Cicero (Off. 2.63) similarly remarks, ‘All men detest ingratitude and look upon the sin as a wrong committed against themselves also, because it discourages generosity’. Cf. also Van Wees (1998:15, 18) and Schwartz (2010:8). 57 Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 8.6.7; 8.7.3–4. 58 According to Crook (2005:86ff.), patronage and covenantal exchange involve parties of unequal status, which leads to an exchange of unequal value, largely based on reciprocity of honour, gratitude and loyalty. 53

416

Addendum 2

This is, of course, also an issue when it comes to reciprocity towards the gods. Seaford59 notes that reciprocity towards gods is not that common. He thinks it has to do with the facts that (i) it could be understood in terms of egoism and economic self-interest, (ii) gods do not need anything, and (iii) by not eating the raw sacrifice a sign is given of the distance between the worshipper and the god. When it comes to God in 1 John, reciprocity is indeed present, as is evident from the discussions.60 The author uses phrases like, if God loves ‘us’ so much, ‘we’ should love one another (4:11, 21); ‘we’ love because He first loved ‘us’ (4:19); being born of the God of love will lead to reciprocal love (4:7).61 The reason why God is part of the social practice of reciprocity might lie in the use of the family imagery that focuses on personal relationships between the members of the family, including the Father, Son and children. However, the author of the Letter makes it clear that God did not initially reciprocate – He is the source of love, the One who loved first (4:19) and then the process of reciprocation started with his children reciprocating his love by loving one another. On an ethical level, philosophers like Socrates argued that reciprocity could not ensure justice, since reciprocity was not compulsory.62 Reciprocity’s moral inadequacy is further evident from its inability to constrain power and wealth. In Socrates’ ideal state, not reciprocal relations but rather objective rational principles would ensure cohesion and justice. Ethical norms in a group might therefore be supported by reciprocal expectations, but fixed, rational, solidarity based principles are also required. In 1 John both reciprocity and solidarity-based views co-exist.63 Believers are clearly obliged to reciprocate the love of God, but the author also emphasizes that it is the 59

Seaford (1998:10). Cf. also Bremer (1998:127–38) and Parker (1998:105–26). Cf. subsection 3.3.4.1 above. 61 Spencer (2007:68) mentions the dissonance many see between the golden rule and the practice of reciprocity. It is felt that love for enemies does not synchronize properly with the requirements for reciprocal behaviour. This leads scholars like Schwartz (2010:8) to opine that Jesus was against the principle of reciprocity. Topel (1998:475–85) argues that the golden rule goes beyond Jewish and Graeco-Roman reciprocity. On the other hand, Kirk (2003:686) argues, ‘The golden rule, expressing the foundational, all pervasive social norm of reciprocity, functions as a “starting mechanism” that stimulates the kind of interaction necessary to bring into existence the envisioned social relations. Without the reciprocity motif, the command to love enemies remains orphaned from a social context; it is just an emotive slogan, not the inaugural note of a comprehensive mission’. Against the view of Topel, Kirk argues that the way Topel read his examples is questionable (ibid. 670–71). 62 Cf. Plato, Rep. 1.331ff.; Schwartz (2010:14–16). 63 In any case, it seems as if the reciprocity-based theory would function more naturally in smaller groups, while the solidarity-based theory would accommodate larger groups more easily, although both phenomena might be present in both cases. 60

417

Mimesis and Reciprocity

commandment of God (4:21). This elevates love in the Johannine community above simple reciprocity which might or might not be displayed.

3. A final remark For clarity, the similarities and differences between these two phenomena should be distinguished, since they are not the same. Reciprocity Voluntary but socially expected Relate to socio-ethical fibre of community Normally operative within particular community Gift given and must be returned More often equal social structure (though not always) Seen as ethical value or norm Always within social structure (between people/groups) Forms part of the social networking and strengthening of social interrelatedness

Mimesis Voluntary but socially expected Relate to socio-ethical fibre of community Normally operative within particular community No gift, just example to follow. Nothing to be returned to the giver Hierarchical social structure (an important person influences a less important one) Seen as a fundamental outlook Broad social application: art, politics, ethics, etc. It is to the advantage of the individual and group. Aim is predominantly ‘educational’, that is, mimesis aims at fostering ethical values. Strengthens moral fibre

Both mimesis and reciprocity play an important role in motivating ethics in the Letters of John. Relations in the Letters function hierarchically and authoritatively, with God and Jesus as fixed points of orientation for knowing truth and what is good or preferable, thus reflecting the typical qualities expected of believers who should imitate them.

Addendum 3

Concepts contextually networked with the term ‘love’ Below is a chart listing the different concepts that are contextually networked with the term ‘love’ in 1 John, illustrating the pivotal position love takes in the argument of the Letter. Concepts contextually related to love

Verse using word love

God/of God

2:10; 3:17; 4:7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 19, 20, 21; 5:2, 3 2:15; 3:1 3:16; 4:9 2:10; 3:10, 11, 14, 16, 23; 4:7, 11, 12, 20, 21 3:1, 10; 5:1, 2 4:10, 16, 17, 19

Father Son (of God)/Jesus Brothers/one another Children of God Believers (‘us’) Salvific gift: eternal life/born of God/child of God Immanenz: being/abiding in Father/Son/believer/light Love abides in one/one abides in love Love causes the expiation for our sins Eschatological: being confident/having no fear of judgment Tradition: Love is the message from the beginning Mission of Jesus in relation to love Belief in Jesus Love is perfected Cognitive: Love can be known (believe love) Cognitive: whoever loves knows God Love is made manifest in the world Commandments/keep his words Obedience (commandments) Laying down one’s life for others Care for those in need Love in deeds (not only in speech) Love in truth

3:1, 14; 4:7, 9 2:5?, 10; 4:12, 16 3:17; 4:16 4:10 4:17, 18

3:11 4:9, 10 3:23 2:5; 4:12, 17, 18 3:16; 4:16 4:7, 8 4:9 2:5; 3:23; 4:21; 5:2, 3 2:5; 5:2, 3 3:16 3:17 3:18 3:18

420

Addendum 3

Concepts contextually related to love

Verse using word love

Love of the world and the things of the world Death Children of the devil/lies

2:15 3:14 3:10; 4:20

The broad area covered by this network, ranging from God and his salvific gifts to those who love the world, confirms that love functions as the key element or glue for the cohesion of the message of 1 John.

Addendum 4

What was the background of the opponents? The question on the opponents’ background is still unresolved. Von Wahlde1 aptly warns that determining the precise nature of the differences between the groups in 1 John to a large extent remains speculation, as is evident from the different interpretations offered, inter alia due to limited information in the text about the opponents, as well as the differences in ‘constructing’ views of the exact nature of the opponents, that is, whether the Gospel should be used as data basis for identifying them or not,2 whether the antithetical sections refer to the opponents, whether there is one or more groups, and so on. What is offered here is just a very limited and brief look at some of the views offered, simply to serve as illustration of the nature of the debate. i) The opponents were Jews or Jewish Christians. Due to the denial that Jesus was the Messiah, some assume that the schismatics must have been Jews, since this is a thoroughly Jewish matter.3 Griffith further remarks, ‘… 1 John is the product of a continuing debate between Jews and JewishChristians over whether Jesus was the Messiah, at a time when some JewishChristians belonging to Johannine Christianity had reverted to Judaism’.4 Added to this argument is the reference to idolatry in 5:21 which is then interpreted – in line with themes in Jewish writings5 – as a reference to Jews who forsake their worship of the true God6 and worshiped idols instead.7 1

Von Wahlde (1990:106–108). A common view is that the two groups represented different interpretations of the Gospel, the one denying and the other acknowledging the humanity of Jesus (cf. Von Wahlde 1990:105). 3 O’Neill (1966) even opines that a series of pre-Christian Jewish sectarian admonitions lie behind the Letters, which were adapted and expanded by a Christian editor, thus situating 1 John even more squarely within Jewish tradition. Von Wahlde (1990:184) argues strongly that the Letters cannot realistically be linked to Gnosticism, since the Letters predate the Gnostic texts, and secondly the links with contemporary Jewish text are so clear according to him that they should take precedence. 4 Griffith (2002:1). Streett (2011). Cf. also Rusam (2018:ad loc.). 5 Cf., e.g., Hosea or Testament of the twelve Patriarchs (T. Benj. 3; T. Jud. 20). 6 Lieu (1991:14) remarks that in 1991 this is a minority position. 7 Streett (2011:90–109) also argues that the opponents were Jews who decided to return to the safety of the synagogue. Docetic or Gnostic background should therefore not be suggested. 2

422

Addendum 4

Schnelle8 also argues that apostasy is addressed here as was known in the First Testament and suggests that pagan cults or worship of Caesar were part of the problem for these Jewish opponents. Participating in these activities would confirm loyalty towards the general pagan society and state. Because of this there were members of the group who were in danger of leaving the Johannine group completely, while others could have considered participating in both Christian and pagan practices. This short but powerful ending (beware of the idols – 5:21) warns against this, just as the Letter in general encourages the threatened ‘you’ group to co-operate more closely with the ‘us’ group.9 ii) The opponents were Docetists or Gnostics. The apparent denial of the opponents that Jesus came in the flesh (4:2) is linked to Gnostic ideas, opening the door for Gnostic interpretations of the Johannine material. To support this view, the episode narrated by Irenaeus (Haer. 3.3.4) is referred to, where John reacts negatively to Cerinthus, a well-known Gnostic, at the bath-house at Ephesus. This was a popular approach in the previous century, propagated by key interpreters like Bultmann, Dodd, Schnackenburg and Vouga. However, Lieu10 points out that because of the absence of several aspects of Gnostic views, most advocates of this position opt for a ‘proto-gnostic’ position or argue that the opponents are on their way to full-fledged Gnosticism. The Gnostic views are also toned down by others who prefer to call the opponents Docetists, arguing that Jesus’ humanity was not real, but just apparent.11 iii) The opponents were Christians who deviated in their Christological interpretation of the Gospel. The Gospel material is seen by many as the basis for what is offered in the Letters and that both the ‘us’ and the ‘they’ departed from Gospel material to motivate their positions.12 The opponents regarded Jesus’ nature as spiritual, discounting his humanity by referring to passages like, for instance, J 1:32 and 19:30. The roots of the ideas of the opponents are therefore to be found in the Gospel itself, without necessarily 8

Schnelle (2010:187). Contrary to, for instance, Streett (2011), Painter (2002:1) rejects a Jewish audience, saying, referring to the ‘non-Jewish context of the Epistles, which make no mention of the Jews, do not appeal to Jewish Scripture …’. However, if one can talk of a majority opinion it would be that this group was more non-Jewish than Jewish (Klauck 1991). The Qumran community (Jewish) is often seen as background to the Letters (cf. Lieu 1993; 2008; Menken 2010) on the basis of the dualism or the sectarian nature of the groups, although this view has lately been challenged. Cf. also Wurm (1903) and Griffith (2002). 10 Lieu (1991:14). Cf. also Wengst (1976:14) on this issue. 11 This of course suggests particular ethical consequences as Wengst (1976:38–61) shows. For criticism cf. Edwards (1996:63). 12 Wengst (1976:14) argues that the opponents cannot be Jewish (in the Johannine sense) but are rather Christians who interpreted the Gospel from a Gnostic-like perspective. 9

What was the background of the opponents?

423

maintaining that external Gnostic or Docetic views were the basic origin of these ideas, although subsequent influence need not be discounted.13 In essence it was part of the development of early Christian tradition. iv) The opponents are a rhetorical construction. Based on his systems theory, Schmid 14 proposes that the references to the opponents are simply the development of counter-concepts. ‘The main function of the opponents interacting with the reader is to operate as counter-concept to the community. The opponents are what the readers should never become, but what he or she will become if he or she does not follow the basic commandments and lines of the Johannine system. As a personification of denial and broader crossing they illustrate the way of departure … so that the borders of the Johannine system are neither absolute, yet always endangered’.15 In this way, he de-historicizes the opponents to a large extent, being just a construction. He then applies this view to ethics and says that the believer ‘has to become active while being constantly endangered’.16 v) The opponents were theological opponents. Perkins17 mentions the idea that the opponents should be linked to a mythological concept linked to eschatological opponents of God that were common18 and are thus vilified. This view enjoyed little support from scholars.

13 Wengst (1976:14), for instance, understands and explains the opponents in light of the Gospel. Cf. Painter (1993:372–73). 14 Schmid (2004:38–39). 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 39. 17 Perkins (1979:xxi–xxii). 18 For similar concepts, cf. Dan 11:36–37; 2 Thes 2:3–8; Rev 13.

Addendum 5

Some expressions of unity in 1 John catalogued The use of expressions of unity containing the preposition ἐν (that is, abide in [µένω ἐν], be in [εἰµὶ ἐν] or live in [περιπατέω ἐν]) are complex in John, and occur in different combinations throughout 1 John. The tables below offer some clarity. There are three major ways of using these expressions of unity (Immanenzformeln) that are relevant to us,1 namely, a) (P)persons who are in one another, b) abstract qualities or non-personal objects in persons, c) persons in abstract qualities. A (P)person abiding/being in another person (a] above) X in Y2 God in believer

God in ‘us’(him) and ‘we’ (he) in God

‘Spirit’3 in believer Believers in God

Believers in Christ

1

Concepts associated with unity (context) * Know that because He gave Spirit * Overcome spirits of antichrists because God is greater than he who is in the kosmos * If ‘we’ LOVE one another * Keep God’s commandments * Know that because He gave Spirit * Confess Jesus as Son of God * Remain in LOVE * God gave the anointing to teach believers

Verb abide is

Verse 3:24 4:4

abide abide abide abide abide abide

4:12 3:24 4:13 4:15 4:16 2:27

* ‘We’ keep His word * LOVE perfected * Behave (live) like Jesus * The anointing teaches believers * Being confident at His coming * Do not sin * In truth and in Him who is true

is is live abide abide abide is

2:5 2:5 2:6 2:274 2:285 3:6 5:20

There are other uses of ἐν that are not relevant to our purpose, since they indicate space or are used in phrases like ἐν τούτῳ. 2 In several cases the reference is uncertain, for instance, in 1J 2:27. The most probable reference will be taken, without suggesting that it is the only possibility. 3 This is based on the interpretation of ‘anointing’ in 2:27 as referring to the Spirit. 4 The reference to the last phrase (‘abide in him/it’) in 2:27 is uncertain: for instance, it may refer to the anointing (Strecker et al. 1996:76), the teaching of the anointing (Bultmann 1973:41) or to Jesus (Smalley 1984:128; Kruse 2000:109). 5 This reference may also be to the teachings of the anointing referred to in the previous verse (2:27).

426

Addendum 5

X in Y Believers in Father and Son

Concepts associated with unity (context) * What you heard from the beginning in you – LOVE

Verb abide

Verse 2:24

Devil (evil) in kosmos (as evil people) Kosmos (as evil people) in the evil one

* Believers are of God – God is greater and believers are victorious * Believers are of God – world lies in power of evil one

is

4:4

lies

5:19

– A comparison of the contents of 2:6–7, 24 and 3:24 shows that there is little semantic difference in the use of ‘be in’ (εἰµι) and ‘remain in’ (µένω). Lasting relationships are emphasized in both cases.6 – There are some phrases referring to love or to keeping God’s word that are linked to several of the same expressions of unity, for instance, God in ‘us’ (him), and ‘we’ (he) in God, and believers in God.7 The phrase believers in Father and Son is also associated with the message/word that was heard from the beginning. – The unity expressed by the phrase ‘believers in Christ’ is described in some terms that are not used for other expressions of unity, for instance, referring to being confident at Jesus’ return (2:28), that believers in Christ do not sin (3:6) or that they are in truth. – Christ is not said to be or abide in believers, as is the case in the Gospel. – In all the relations (except those referring to the devil) ethical issues are addressed, underlining the close link between ethics, interpersonal relations and unity. An overview of the association of different concepts (like love, keeping commandments, the Spirit, etc.) with the various expressions of unity (X in Y or Y in X, etc.) reveals an interesting focus. God in believer Give Spirit 3:24 Love 4:12

Believer in God

Believer in Christ

God in believer Believer in God

Anointing 2:27

Give Spirit 4:13 Love 4:16 Keep commandments 3:24

Love 2:5 Keep word 2:5

Believer in Father and Son [Love 2:24] Keep message heard from beginning 2:24

Victorious 4:4

Walk like Jesus 2:6 Do not sin 3:6 Truth 5:20 Confidence 2:28 Confess Jesus 4:15

6 7

With a few exceptions, the word ‘abide/remain’ (µένω) is used of persons. Without the ‘God in “us”’ part.

Some expressions of unity in 1 John catalogued

427

– Three concepts (above the thick line) are widespread throughout 1 John, namely, the Spirit (anointing), keeping the word/commandments, and love. These are indeed central concepts when it comes to the ethics of John, thus emphasizing the link between identity, that is, the close relationship of the believer with God and the consequent behaviour of the believer. There is indeed little or no semantic difference in the usages in the different cases.8 – The references to concepts below the thick line are unique in their use in terms of unity. Their uses are motivated by their different contexts; for instance, being confident (2:28) has to do with the eschatological situation of believers, while being victorious (4:4) deals with the conflict between the (S)spirits, indicating that God is greater than any other. B) Abstract qualities or non-personal objects in persons, or persons in abstract qualities9 (b] and c] above) Abstract IN person Anointing10 * (abides) in believer Darkness * (is) not in God

Person IN abstract

Verse 2:27 1:5

Person/ believer Believer

God Word

What you heard from beginning Witness of God Truth Love

Life

8

* (is) in believer (stated negatively) (abides) in believer * (abides) in believer

1:10,

* in believer (has it)

5:10

* (is) in believer (both stated negatively) * (is perfected) in believer * (is) in believer (stated negatively) * (abides) in believer * does not (abide) in murderer * (is) in God’s Son

1:8, 2:4 2:5, 4:12 2:15, 4:9 3:17 3:15

(is) in darkness (live) in darkness (stated negatively) (live) in light (is) in light (abide) in light (is) in light

2:9, 11 1:6, 2:11 1:7 2:9 2:10 1:7

2:14 2:24

5:11

Believer

Person who does not love

* (is perfected) in love * (abides) in love

4:18

(abides) in death (contrast to life)

3:14

Cf. also Painter (2002:274). Only those cases that refer to Immanenz are considered. 10 It could also refer to the Holy Spirit, cf. subsection 5.8.2 above. 9

Verse

4:16

428

Addendum 5 Abstract IN person

Sin Seed of God

(is) not in Jesus (abides) in believer

Verse

Person IN abstract

Verse

3:5 3:9

– A wide variety of abstract concepts11 are said to be or abide in believers. With lesser frequency certain concepts are also said to be in God the Father and his Son, or even in non-believers. This seems to be a typical rhetorical way in which the author associates qualities with persons, thus implying that these qualities influence these persons. Qualities like love or truth may be in a person, which means that that person will act accordingly. There are also references to different expressions of the message (word, witness, etc.) that abide in believers, implying that believers are determined by this message in their thinking and behaviour. – The opposite, namely, references to persons who are in ‘abstracts’ are lower in frequency than ‘abstracts’ being in persons. Persons in ‘abstracts’ are limited to the imagery of light/darkness, life and love, three major themes in 1 John. It also seems to refer to the fact that a person, being determined by these qualities, would act according to them. – Different phrases (i.e. live in the light, is in the light or abide in the light) link believers to the light. The same applies to their love or life (is/abides). This seems to suggest that these might be stylistic variations largely overlapping in meaning. – The abstracts that abide or are in persons/believers are virtually all somehow linked to ethical aspects, like love, truth, sin, darkness and light, etc.12 This underlines the close link between behaviour and identity, that is the qualities believers have in them.

11

Schnackenburg (1984:106) calls these ‘göttliche Attribute und Lebenskräfte’. The exact way in which these abstracts influence people have been discussed in the main text. 12

Addendum 6

Paraenesis Ancient paraenesis is a phenomenon that is well documented, but difficult to define.1 Paraenesis received attention as far back as Pseudo-Isocrates (To Demonicus), the writings of Seneca2 and to a lesser degree the writings of the younger Pliny.3 It was Dibelius,4 however, who more recently drew attention to this phenomenon. Although the word paraenesis means ‘to give positive advice, to suggest positive action adequate to what is needed under particular circumstances’,5 in Dibelius’ influential view the description of paraenesis was limited to ‘various exhortations, frequently without … connection, (that) are strung together and addressed to a single locality’.6 This approach shifted the focus to lose an normally unrelated exhortations (like what we find in the Letter of James, according to Dibelius).7

1 Cf., e.g., Starr and Engberg-Pedersen (2004); Gammie (1990:55); Engberg-Pedersen (2004:47–49); Popkes (2004); Aasgaard (2004:237); Dryden (2006:5); Steward-Sykes (2008:341); Harding (2003:124–25); and Wolter (1988:156–202). 2 Cf. his Ep. 94–95. 3 In his letter to Valerius Maximus, Pliny (Ep. 8.24) displays some ‘paraenetic spirit’: ‘I know you need no telling, but my love for you prompts me to remind you to keep in mind and put into practice what you know already; or else it would be better for you to remain ignorant … Please believe … that this letter was intended not to tell, but to remind you of your duties’ (cf. Harding 2003:116–17 – his translation). Cf. Engberg-Pedersen (2004), Piper (1992:20–26) and Pitts (2010; 2015) for detailed discussions of ancient authors in this regard. Cf. also Quinn (1990:191) and Steward-Sykes (2008:341–42). Dryden (2006:35) argues that ‘paraenesis grew out of the fundamental needs and concerns of the philosophic schools in the Hellenistic period as a way of promoting growth in moral maturity’. 4 Dibelius (1936; 1961). Popkes (2004:14) sets the date of renewed interest in paraenesis at 1900, but it was Dibelius – acknowledging his predecessors Harnack and Seeberg – who gave the real stimulus. 5 Popkes (2004:16–17). He (2004:28) also remarks, ‘Paraenesis can be persuasive, jussive, hortatory, admonishing, warning and the like, always trying to convince, never enforcing’. 6 Dibelius (1936:217). 7 Pitts (2015:11–12) stresses that paraenesis was seemingly not so random. Cf. also Pitts (2010:269–306) and Porter and Adams (2010).

430

Addendum 6

A notable change came with the influential work of Malherbe,8 who approached the matter from a more functional angle9 by describing the characteristics of paraenesis as follows: it represents conventional rather than new teaching, with a general application, aiming at moving people to a particular way of behaviour.10 In other words, paraenesis is the use of what is known or generally accepted,11 with the aim of encouraging12 or convincing the addressees to use this knowledge in determining their lines of behaviour.13 Stowers14 mentions that the focus on what is known does not imply that new or creative ways of communicating are forbidden; the contrary was rather the case. This approach of Malherbe influenced subsequent debates on paraenesis.15 In 1990 some further progress was made when Gammie and Perdue edited a volume, Semeia 50, entitled Paraenesis: Act and form with the aim to ‘explore the process and form of moral exhortation (paraenesis) in the ancient Near East and the Graeco-Roman world’.16 Although some of these articles used the insights of Turner17 and show overlaps with what Malherbe contended18 and with what followed with the Lund and Oslo meetings in 2000 8

Malherbe (1986; 1992; cf. also 2004). Cf. Perdue (1990) who focuses on functional aspects of paraenesis. 10 Malherbe (2004:297); cf. also Fiore (1986:45–78). 11 Stowers (1986:95) points out that paraenesis is not supposed to introduce new knowledge. It focuses on what is known. 12 Thurén (2004) discusses motivation as essential component of paraenesis in the New Testament. Malherbe (1986:125) also opines that the reference to who is known suggests general applicability within the particular community ‘since what is advised is already known, the exhorter disavows the need for further instruction’. What they already know, serves as example for imitation and therefore the addressees are encouraged to continue their pattern of behaviour according to the knowledge they have. Stowers (1986:96) mentions that paraenesis is ‘generally dominated by encouraging types of exhortation, although words of admonition or mild rebuke here and there could be appropriate’. 13 Stowers (1986:103) puts it this way: it is presupposed that ‘the addressee is, in the writer’s view, already substantially living and acting in the right way. Furthermore, the addressee already knows what is right and merely needs help in putting that knowledge into practice’. 14 Ibid. 96. 15 Cf. Aasgaard (2004:238–39) for a discussion of this matter. Parsenios (2014:24) gives a basic definition of paraenesis based on Ps.-Libanius (Char. ep. 5): ‘Essentially, paraenetic discourse has two functions: to encourage people to follow one course of action, and to dissuade them from following another’. 16 Semeia 50:1. 17 Cf. Gammie and Perdue (1990:1). 18 Malherbe (2004:297) argues that paraenesis is not a genre and notes three features that are characteristic: ‘the conviction that what is advanced does not admit of contradiction …’ functions as a ‘reminder of moral practices to be pursued or avoided …’ and creates ‘the impression of a shared, articulated world view’ (ibid. 298). He emphasizes, by 9

Paraenesis

431

and 2001, the descriptions in Semeia 50 are in many cases more general. Since it was not a volume that concentrated on the issue of paraenesis itself, it did not have the impact of the later Lund and Oslo meetings. In 2000 the so-called ‘Lund congress’ (which Malherbe attended and which shows clear influence of Malherbe’s views) reconsidered the concept of paraenesis and came to the following ‘tentative understanding’:19 Paraenesis is 1. a heuristic, modern term used to describe 2. a text or communication in which 3. a person of authority, A, addresses 4. a party, B, who shares A’s basic convictions about the nature of reality and God 5. in order to influence B’s behavior in the practical (‘ethical’) issues of everyday life, and possibly 6. in order to strengthen B’s commitment to the shared ideological convictions in 4, 7. where A may incorporate traditional ethical material, and 8. where A may employ some or all of these literary devices: a) brevity of style (e.g. precepts, lists) b) Haustafel c) antithetical statements (not ‘a’ but ‘b’) d) the offering of examples to be imitated.

In this ‘understanding’ the main aspects of what paraenesis is, are spelled out. Basic to paraenesis is that the concept ‘in a general rather than a generic sense’ deals with ‘ethical encouragement and advice’.20 Following EngbergPedersen, Pitts acknowledges another one of the fundamental points of paraenesis, namely, that it is ‘different from an order or commandment; it is not issued as a master commanding his slaves, but expects and leaves obedience up to those who are enjoined’.21 In this framework, teaching played an important role. Children were given exempla (paradeigmata) to emulate.22 Indeed, existing relations between the people involved often formed the motivating basis of the advice given.23 In 2001 another conference was held at Oslo that proposed a modified and shorter working definition:24

quoting Dio Chrysostom (Or. 17:2–3), that one should not only ‘learn’ the things that are helpful, but should also choose to do them (Malherbe 2004:302). Ancient ethics consistently integrate identity, knowledge and behaviour. 19 Starr and Engberg-Pedersen (2004:3). 20 Steward-Sykes (2008:343). 21 Pitts (2010:277). 22 Ibid. 294. 23 Malherbe (1992) refers to philosophers like Cicero and Seneca who confirm that ancient paraenesis was common among friends and indeed amicable. 24 Cf. Popkes (2004:34); Aasgaard (2004:239).

432

Addendum 6

Paraenesis is 1. (a) concise, benevolent injunction25 2. that reminds26 of moral practices to be pursued or avoided27 3. (that) expresses or implies a shared world view28 (slightly modified: ‘expresses a shared, articulated world view’). 4. Consequently paraenesis does not anticipate disagreement.29

In comparing the two ‘definitions’ (Lund and Oslo), Popkes noted the following: the use of ‘injunction’ rather than ‘text’ points to a short and clearcut piece of advice without making any reference to genre. Secondly, ‘the people involved, as either giving or receiving paraenesis, step back behind the message. Only indirectly does the aspect of authority enter into the picture … It is of such an impressive and superior quality that disagreement is not anticipated’.30 Common ground is anticipated when it comes to worldview, convictions and values. The Oslo definition also departs from the long-held position (cf. Dibelius) that paraenesis is based only on traditional material,31 but emphasizes the link between paraenesis and ethics, arguing that ethics is a key focus of paraenesis.32 The similarly influential view of Aune might also be noted here, although it was not all that different from the other developments. He maintained that paraenesis refers to moral exhortation that i) ‘is traditional, reflecting conventional wisdom generally approved by society’.33 Paraenetic instructions are more general than specific and ‘require no polemic to convince the audience of their validity’.34 25 Cf. Malherbe (1986:125). In his redefinition Popkes (2004:42) formulates this point as ‘clear, concrete, benevolent guidance’, thus moving away from the idea of brevity, as well as injunction. Guidance allows for a much wider application. Cf. also Stowers (1986:103). 26 This is another way of saying that paraenesis is based on previously acquired and shared knowledge. 27 Popkes (2004:43) redefines this phrase in the following way: it ‘reminds of practices to be pursued or avoided in the Christian way of life’. Again the definition is broadened, moving further than simply ethical aspects by including doctrines or convictions (cf. also Starr 2004:79). 28 Amicability is possible because of the shared convictions (Starr 2004:80). 29 Ps.-Libanius (Char. ep. 5) remarks, ‘Paraenesis is hortatory speech that does not admit of a counter-statement’. 30 Popkes (2004:34–35), quote from p. 34. 31 Not only traditional material is used, but also personal advice by the author him- or herself. Apart from that, Starr (2004:80) argues that traditional material is not so frequent in ancient paraenetic material and is widely used in all first-century moral discourse and should therefore not be seen as a specific characteristic of paraenesis. 32 Cf. Popkes (2004:41). 33 Aune (2003:334). 34 Dryden (2006:27), also refers to Seneca (Ep. 94:28) who remarks, ‘Such maxims need no special pleader (advocatum ista non quaerunt); they go straight to our emotions, and help us simply because Nature is exercising her proper function’.

Paraenesis

433

ii) It ‘is applicable to many situations’.35 iii) It ‘is so familiar that it is often represented as a “reminder”’.36 Usually no new doctrines are presented, ‘the reiterations of doctrine are chosen for their usefulness in promoting the author’s paraenetic aims.37 iv) It ‘can be exemplified in exceptional people who are models of virtue’.38 v) It ‘is usually transmitted by people who are regarded as socially and morally superior to those they address’.39 This obviously suggests that paraenesis will function in certain relationships and in certain situations. Porter and Adams40 argue that the functional (rhetorical) influence of paraenesis on building or sustaining a particular group should not be underestimated. ‘Paraenesis seeks to facilitate progress in moral virtue … [and] is concerned with the transformation of life to conform to beliefs’.41 It wants to ‘promote attitudes and actions which secure the future of the recipient, both short- and long-range’.42 Indeed, one of the requirements for paraenesis that Stowers43 suggests is ‘recommendation of habits of behaviour that conform to a good example, together with dissuasion from what is deemed bad behaviour’. There still seems to be some confusion about the literary status of paraenesis. Wolter44 noted that paraenesis should not be regarded as a literary genre, but refers to the intention of the text to influence the reader to follow a specific line of (positive) action. Likewise, Popkes45 mentions the tendency to move away from the traditional idea of a literary genre, which implies that one should not speak of ‘paraenetic texts’, but must simply ‘ask from case to case whether a given text serves paraenetic purposes’.46 On the other hand, Hellholm and Blomkvist47 regard paraenesis as an ancient genre-designation. Pardee48 further notes that people like Aune and Fiore acknowledge paraenesis as stylistic feature. Aune even distinguishes between epistolary paraenesis (found in defined concluding sections of Christian letters) and paraenetic styles which permeate letters.49 35

Dryden (2006:27). Ibid. 37 Ibid. 26. 38 Ibid. 27. 39 Cf. also Stowers (1986:103), Wolter (1988:138–39) and Perdue (1990:14). 40 Porter and Adams (2010:262). 41 Dryden (2006:23). He (ibid. 35) also concludes that ‘paraenesis works in three primary modes: by providing moral advice, contextualizing moral instruction and reorientating affective commitments’. 42 Popkes (2004:17). 43 Stowers (1986:103). 44 Wolter (2011:311). 45 Popkes (2004:19–20). 46 Ibid. 19. Cf. also Gammie (1990) and Quinn (1990), for instance, who still approach paraenesis as genre. 47 Hellholm and Blomkvist (2005:470). 48 Pardee (2014:115). Cf. also Dryden (2006:5). 49 Aune (2003:334). For a detailed discussion of the link between ancient letter writing and paraenesis, cf. Pitts (2015:2–10). 36

434

Addendum 6

These differences (or in some cases nuances) in approach illustrate that the discussion of paraenesis depends on the description or definition used.50 Popkes, after analyzing and comparing different modern definitions of paraenesis, concludes that ‘any attempt at a scholarly definition ends up in a compromise … Will a redefinition be successful? Possibly we shall have to continue living with different concepts, applied differently by different scholars, some using a narrower, others a wider understanding … any attempt at a definition is somewhat arbitrary, because it is impossible to do justice to all aspects’.51 That is why Holmstrand 52 chooses not to use a too rigid definition that states ‘yes’ or ‘no’, but to allow for some differentiation, that is, that it would be preferable to talk about a ‘paraenetic style’, at least when it comes to 1 John. This doubt about a precise scholarly definition should not discourage the use of the concept of paraenesis, however. Due to the intense debates, the major aspects are at least placed on some firm ground and might be used in clarifying what happens in the text of 1 John. The text of John is not regarded as paraenetic text as such, but it has definite paraenetic characteristics.53

50

Cf. also Holmstrand (2004:428). Popkes (2004:41–42). 52 Holmstrand (2004:429). 53 In sum, this quote from Harding (1993:114) describes paraenesis as follows: ‘In the Graeco-Roman world there was a hortatory tradition in which a letter writer appealed to the addressee to continue to live in a certain way, the writer commending perseverance in the ways of conventional morality and traditional wisdom already adopted by the addressee. This appeal on the part of the writer was reinforced not just by reminder but also by positive and negative examples, as well as by reminder to the addressee to of what he already knows of the ethical lifestyle. This mode of address, frequently encountered in letters and treatises, is called paraenesis’. 51

Addendum 7

Occurrences of the concept of truth in the Letters of John The following table illustrates the diversity of the use of the concept of truth in the Letters of John. Truth associated with God: God is true 1J 5:20 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεός 1J 5:20 ἵνα γινώσκωµεν τὸν ἀληθινόν 1J 5:20 ἐσµὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ

He is the true God. We know He is true. We are in Him who is true.

Truth associated with the Spirit: The Spirit is truth/Spirit of truth 1J 5:7 ὅτι τὸ πνεῦµά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια Spirit is truth 1J 4:6 ἐκ τούτου γινώσκοµεν τὸ πνεῦµα τῆς Spirit of truth (vs spirit of error) ἀληθείας καὶ τὸ πνεῦµα τῆς πλάνης (People) know the truth 2J 1 καὶ πάντες οἱ ἐγνωκότες τὴν ἀλήθειαν 1J 2:21 οἴδατε τὴν ἀλήθειαν

Truth is in people/abides in them 2J 2 διὰ τὴν ἀλήθειαν τὴν µένουσαν ἐν ἡµῖν 1J 1:8 ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡµῖν 1J 2:4 ψεύστης ἐστὶν καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν (People) are out of the truth 1J 3:19 ἐν τούτῳ γνωσόµεθα ὅτι ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐσµέν (People) do the truth/live in truth 1J 1:6 οὐ ποιοῦµεν τὴν ἀλήθειαν 2J 4 3J 3 3J 4

ἐκ τῶν τέκνων σου περιπατοῦντας ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καθὼς σὺ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ περιπατεῖς ἀκούω τὰ ἐµὰ τέκνα ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ περιπατοῦντα

Know the truth

Truth abides in us Truth is not in you = deceive yourself/lie

People are out of the truth

Do not do the truth/act according to truth Live in truth

436

Addendum 7

(People) love in truth 1J 3:18 µὴ ἀγαπῶµεν λόγῳ µηδὲ τῇ γλώσσῃ ἀλλὰ ἐν ἔργῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ 2J 1 οὓς ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ 3J 1 ὃν ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ

Love in (deeds and) truth

(People) are fellow workers in truth 3J 8 συνεργοὶ γινώµεθα τῇ ἀληθείᾳ

Fellow workers in truth

(People) testify to your truth 3J 3 µαρτυρούντων σου τῇ ἀληθείᾳ

Testify to your truth

Truth witnesses to somebody 3J 12 ∆ηµητρίῳ µεµαρτύρηται ὑπὸ πάντων καὶ ὑπὸ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας

Truth witnesses to Demetrius

Peace is with somebody in truth and love 2J 3 ἔσται µεθʼ ἡµῶν χάρις ἔλεος εἰρήνη … ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ἀγάπῃ

Peace with you in truth and love

In truth there is no lie 1J 2:21 ὅτι πᾶν ψεῦδος ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἔστιν

No lie is out of the truth.

Truly/true 1J 2:5

1J 2:8

1J 2:27 3J 12

ὃς δʼ ἂν τηρῇ αὐτοῦ τὸν λόγον, ἀληθῶς ἐν τούτῳ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ τετελείωται ὅ ἐστιν ἀληθὲς ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν ὑµῖν, … τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἤδη φαίνει καὶ ἀληθές ἐστιν καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ψεῦδος οἶδας ὅτι ἡ µαρτυρία ἡµῶν ἀληθής ἐστιν

Truly

True

The term ἀλήθεια (truth) is a key term in the Letters and is used with a relatively high frequency. From the above table it is evident that the term is used in a variety of ways throughout the Letters. – Truth is qualitatively associated with God – He is true and determines the truth.1 Truth, linked to any other concept in the Letters, identifies that concept or person as being qualitatively associated with God and the divine. This distinguishes such concepts or persons from what is evil, the devil, the world, including those who turned against God, like the antichrists. 1 Due to the difficulty in determining whether a reference is to the Father or the Son in some cases in 1 John, it is possible that this expression might refer to both the Father and the Son.

Occurrences of the concept of truth in the Letters of John

437

– The Spirit is (metaphorically) called truth as well as the Spirit of truth. As spirit of truth the Spirit opposes the spirits of error and deception and the antichrist. – A variety of remarks are made when it comes to people (specifically believers) and the truth. They know the truth, are from the truth and the truth abides in them. Although each of these expressions has its own emphasis, the essence is that believers are ‘determined’ by the truth in the sense that the Spirit cognitively and existentially influences them as part of their thinking. Since truth is directly associated with God, this implies that the divine way of thinking dominates the cognitive activities of believers. – Believers also live in truth and do the truth, meaning that their actions are determined by truth, that is, by what is acceptable to God. They also love according to the requirements of truth, that is, according to what God, as truth, requires. If people share in what is required by God, they are called fellow workers in truth. This is not theory, but is evident in practice, which enables people to testify to somebody’s truth, that is, testify to the fact that the person’s behaviour corresponds to what is qualitatively acceptable to God. – The author can therefore also wish people peace in love and truth, that is, the peace that is characterized by and forms part of the divine qualitative reality; even more, peace is there where love and truth abide. – The author also personifies truth – it witnesses to somebody and qualifies that person as being in line with the truth of God. If truth witnesses to a person, it implies that such a person is doing what truth requires, that is, living according to truth. – In some contexts the term is also used to describe what is true in adjectival or adverbial sense (true or truly). Although the term is used in a variety of ways, there is a common denominator binding the variety of uses together. The term ‘truth’ consistently refers to what is qualitatively divine and is characterized by and associated with the divine. In this sense it is general and unspecific, not referring to a specific object, but to the overarching divine reality, indeed, what is in truth or done in truth is directly associated with what God wants and stands for.

Addendum 8

The ethical language of the Letters of John The Letters of John are not ethical treatises, but are thoroughly ethical in the sense that all of them deal with the question of correct behaviour within different crises.1 In what follows, the way in which the author presents his ethical material will be explored.2

1. Words and phrases as building blocks for the grammar of ethics Words and phrases are the building blocks for creating meaning. Specific words are ethical by default, like love or hate. In the Letters of John there are some key terms that highlight some of the focal points of the ethics of the Letters. They will not be discussed here in any detail, since they receive detailed attention in the discussion itself. Some of the key ‘ethical’ terms are mentioned here, however. – Two of the major words that express moral action are περιπατέω3 (to walk around/live) and ποιέω (to do).4 – Words like ἀγάπη (love),5 κοινωνία (fellowship), πιστεύω (to believe)6 and δικαιοσύνη (righteousness)7 focus on relationships related to ethical behaviour. 1 Dryden (2006:27) notes that in his view there are four types of moral instruction, namely maxims, exhortations and admonitions, virtue and vice lists, and moral exemplars. All but virtue and vice lists are used in the Letters. 2 The Letters display a similar sociolect, echoing the Gospel, although there are also differences in expression and theological reflection. This overview includes material from all three Letters for the sake of comparison. 3 The lexicographical meaning of περιπατέω may be divided into two areas, namely, ‘walking around/go about’ and ‘habitually living’ or ‘conducting one’s life’ (Arndt et al. 2000:ad loc.; Liddell and Scott 1996:1382). The latter meaning is primary in the Letters. 4 This word refers to action and is usually syntactically linked to some other word, thus defining the deed. 5 ἀγάπη: 1J 2:5, 15; 3:1, 16, 17; 4:7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 18; 5:3; 2J 3, 6; 3J 6; ἀγαπάω: 1J 2:10, 15; 3:10, 11, 14, 18, 23; 4:7, 8, 10, 12, 19, 20, 21; 5:1, 2; 2J 1, 5; 3J 1; φίλος: 3J 15. 6 πιστεύω: 1J 3:23; 4:1, 16; 5:1, 5, 10, 13; πίστις: 1J 5:4; πιστός: 1J 1:9; 3J 5. 7 δικαιοσύνη: 1J 2:29; 3:7, 10; δίκαιος: 1J 1:9; 2:1, 29; 3:7, 12.

440

Addendum 8

– Words like ἀλήθεια (truth)8 or φῶς/σκοτία (light/darkness)9 refer to the divine qualitative nature of something, often with ethical consequences. – A key word expressing the will of God is ἐντολή (commandment).10 This word is closely linked to the word λόγος (word)11 and is used in combination with a variety of other terms.12 The word τηρέω is often used to emphasize the keeping of the commandment or word.13 In the Letters, words or phrases are used in a variety of ways, rather than in just one or two standardized forms. This results in diverse and rich expressions that often overlap, with little difference in conceptual meaning. For instance, to live in light and to live in truth each has its own emphasis, but conceptually both relate to behaviour derived from God. The same applies to expressions such as doing the truth or righteousness, or following the commandments or the will of God. On a negative note, the ethical concepts of lying/lies or misleading someone occur frequently in 1 and 2 John. Words like ψεύδοµαι/ψεύστης,14 ψεῦδος15 or πλανάω16 highlight the dangers of being deceived or misled, consequently

8

E.g., ἀλήθεια: 1J 1:6, 8; 2:4, 21; 3:18, 19; 4:6; 5:6; 2J 1, 2, 3, 4; 3J 1, 3, 4, 8, 12. φῶς: 1J 1:5, 7; 2:8, 9, 10; σκότος: 1J 1:6. 10 The typical word for ‘law’, namely νόµος, is not used in the Letters. 11 The word λόγος is used in a variety of ways in the Letters (1J 1:1, 10; 2:5, 7, 14; 3:18; 3J 10). In certain contexts it refers to a fixed base of knowledge that also connects to the tradition of the Johannine group. 12 The term ἐντολή is used in combination with the following terms: (µὴ) τηρῶµεν 1J 2:3, 4; 3:22, 24; 5:3 ποιῶµεν 1J 5:2 καινὴν/παλαιάν 1J 2:7, 8; 2J 5 περιπατῶµεν 2J 6 ἔδωκεν (most probably God) 1J 3:23 ἔχοµεν ἀπ̓ αὐτοῦ (most probably God) 1J 4:21 ἐλάβοµεν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός 2J 4 βαρεῖαι οὐκ εἰσίν 1J 5:3 ἵνα πιστεύσωµεν τῷ ὀνόµατι τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ 1J 3:23 Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἀγαπῶµεν ἀλλήλους ὃς δ̓ ἂν τηρῇ αὐτοῦ τὸν λόγον 1J 2:5 ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ παλαιά ἐστιν ὁ λόγος ὃν ἠκούσατε 1J 2:7 13 Cf. 1J 2:3, 4; 3:22, 24; 5:3 and 1J 2:5. 14 These words are all part of conditional sentences except for one case in 1J 5:10: ἐὰν εἴπωµεν; ἐάν τις εἴπῃ (ἐάν plus the subjunctive); ὁ λέγων; ὁ ἀρνούµενος (present participle). 15 A lie, falsehood – 1J 2:21, 27. This word is exclusively used in the context where the antichrists are discussed (1J 2:18ff.) and is contrasted with the truth which is known by the addressees under the influence of the Spirit. 16 1J 2:26; 3:7. 9

The ethical language of the Letters of John

441

resulting in erroneous behaviour.17 This highlights one of the major foci in the Letters. Linked to these words are the references to sin and evil. The terms ἁµαρτάνω/ἁµαρτία (to sin/sin) are only used in 1 John, with the verb mainly used in 1J 318 and the noun in 1:7–2:2. The noun ἁµαρτία is also used with ποιέω (to do) to express evil deeds.19 References to evil deeds (τὰ ἔργα) are also not absent. On a more personal level, the opposition to God is mentioned by using words like devil (διάβολος),20 idol (εἴδωλον)21 and evil (πονηρός)22 as well as antichrist (ἀντίχριστος), expressing the work of evil within certain people. This opposition to God is responsible for conflict and struggle, expressed in phrases such as overcoming the evil, destroying the works of the devil, evil not touching believers.

2. Ways of expressing exhortation23 2.1 The use of imperatives as exhortation Imperatives are typical of moral language and are the normal form for exhortations.24 In 1 John, imperatives are used ten (possibly eleven) times,25 three times in 2 John26 and twice in 3 John.27 In 1 John imperatives are used to address three situations:

17

πλάνοι (deceivers) is used in 2J 7, but these terms are not used in 3 John. The term ‘evil-doer’ (κακοποιῶν) is used in 3J 11. 19 The relation between sinning and one’s identity is also emphasized. In 1J 1 being in the light and in 1J 3 being part of the family of God (1J 5:18; or the devil) are all directly linked to correct behaviour or in contrast to sin. 20 1J 3:8, 10. References to the devil (διάβολος) and idols (εἴδωλον) are only found in 1 John. 21 1J 5:21. 22 1J 2:13, 14; 3:12; 5:18, 21; 2J 11; 3J 10. Evil (πονηρός) is expressed both as power (1J 2:13, 14; 5:18, 21) and as quality of deeds (1J 3:12; 2J 11; 3J 10). 23 Dryden (2006:27) describes an exhortation as ‘moral advice given in the imperative calling the hearer to adopt a certain attitude or to perform a specific action’. Imperatives express commands, but can also just express a request or a concession, depending on the context. The imperative may also be substituted by the subjunctive (sometimes with ἵνα), future indicative or the infinitive, again depending on the context. Cf. Blass et al. (1961:195). 24 The use of ἴδετε in 3:1 draws attention to the love of God for believers, but should not be regarded as ethical imperative. 25 1J 2:15, 24, 27, 28; 3:1, 7, 13; 4:1; 5:21 and perhaps 2:29. 26 2J 8, 10 (2x). 27 3J 11, 15. 18

442

Addendum 8

i) The highest frequency in the use of imperatives is to warn against evil or the deception of the opponents,28 which is also true of 2 John.29 This underlines the author’s serious and real intention to warn the ‘you’ against the deception of the opponents. ii) Imperatives are also used to command the addressees to remain loyal to their tradition (ethos) or to abide in the Son.30 iii) The author only twice addresses moral behaviour by means of an imperative. In 1J 2:15 the addressees are told not to love the world,31 and in 5:21 to keep themselves from idols.32 Imperatives are not used to refer to positive matters, for instance that people should love or should confess (1J 2:15),33 suggesting a more cautious approach by the author when it comes to what is ethically expected. Clearly, the author does not regard his (authoritative) commandments as a key rhetorical strategy in his approach to the addressees. Instead he refers to their shared knowledge and ethos. In 3J 11 the imperative is used to implore believers to imitate what is good and not what is bad as positive ethical encouragement.34 2.2 Subjunctives as exhortation As is grammatically expected, subjunctives are also used to oblige the addressees, expecting their positive response to what is asked. In 1J 3:1835 and 4:7,36 2137 subjunctives express exhortations, urging the addressees to love. Subjunctives seem to be preferred to imperatives when it comes to encouraging believers to love.38

28

1J 2:15; 3:7, 13; 4:1; 5:21; 2J 8, 10; 3J 11. Four of these imperatives deal with false teachers (3:7, 13; 4:1). Cf. Lieu (1991:27). 29 Cf. 2J 8, 10. 30 1J 2:27–28. Μένετε in 2:27 may however be either an indicative or an imperative. 31 µὴ ἀγαπᾶτε – µή with a present imperative. 32 φυλάξατε ἑαυτά. 33 Cf. also 3J 11 where it is commanded that good and not evil should be followed. 34 Contextually this relates to the negative behaviour of Diotrephes that should not be imitated, but also refers to the positive behaviour that should be imitated. In 3J 15 an imperative is used to ask Gaius to greet others, but that is not directly related to an ethical command. 35 Subjunctive with negative, corresponding in mood to an imperative. 36 A jussive subjunctive. 37 Strong emphasis lies on the obligation to do what is expected. 38 In 2J 5 the word ἐρωτάω (indicative) is used when the Presbyter asks the lady that they love one another. This word is different from just asking, and semantically points to pleading, beseeching or perhaps asking very politely. Instead of using an imperative, a more polite and perhaps less demanding way of asking is preferred in this case.

The ethical language of the Letters of John

443

2.3 The verb ὀφείλω, expressing obligation Potentially, the verb ὀφείλω (ought to) may refer to ‘be under obligation to meet certain social or moral expectations’39 and is often used in reciprocal contexts. In 1 John ὀφείλω is used three times.40 In 2:6 a person who claims to be in Him41 ought to (is under the obligation to) behave like Jesus. In 3:16 love is explained in terms of Jesus laying down his life, followed by the remark that believers ought to (are under the obligation to) do the same. In 4:11 it is stated that God loves ‘us’ which puts the obligation on believers (‘we’) to love one another. In 3J 8 the word ὀφείλω is used once, obliging the addressee to receive the traveling missionaries, which will make them co-workers for the truth. 2.4 Commandments – formulating the will of God The commandments expressing the will of God42 are mostly related to mutual love.43 Commandments serve as required guidelines to authentic life that must be followed, thus having the force of imperatives. 2.5 Conditional phrases emphasizing ethical content Antithetical statements serve as motivating and broadening the argumentative base for developing the author’s position. What is stated should be regarded as the truth, giving it some exhortative power. These statements are usually introduced by ἐάν (‘if we say’) or a participle (‘he who says …’).44 This allows the author to contrast different positions and identify the correct one, illustrating what is allowed and what is not. The above remarks confirm that the author uses a variety of stylistic features to exhort people to act in an appropriate moral way. This is not just for rhetorical aesthetics, but has some rationale behind it. By choosing alternatives to the imperative, the author chooses a ‘softer’ approach, not bluntly commanding but rather pointing out the obligation in light of the situation. The author seems to feel no need to exercise some form of personal authority. His approach is more urgent, however, when it comes to conflict. He then uses imperatives, warning the addressees against deception.

39

Arndt et al. (2000:ad loc.). 1J 2:6; 3:16; 4:11. 41 The reference is not sure – it could be God or Jesus. 42 The commandments are usually from God, but in some cases it is unclear whether the commandment is from the Father or from Jesus. 43 1J 3:23; cf. also 4:21, 5:2–3. 44 As examples, cf. 1J 1:6, 7, 8, 9, 10; 2:1, 3, 15, 24, 28, 29; 3:2, 20, 21, 22; 4:12, 15, 20; 5:14, 16; 3J 5, (10). 40

444

Addendum 8

3. Some stylistic features and ethics 3.1 Dualism and the ethics of John Dualism or ‘dualist patterns’45 as Lieu calls it, is one of the basic stylistic features of Johannine literature.46 These patterns come in pairs that are networked, that is heaven (above)/earth (below), life/death, light/darkness, truth/lie, love/hate, good/evil, and so on. This dualistic view of reality maintains a strict division into two distinguishable and contrasting parts, not allowing for middle ground. In this worldview God and what He represents is contrasted with the devil and what he stands for. A person either lives or is dead, is in light or darkness, has the truth or not. The effect of such a dualistic view is the lack of nuance, not allowing for grey areas or for different positions between these two extreme poles. This is of course problematic for ethical considerations, since ethical issues are normally complicated, multi-layered and nuanced, allowing for different perspectives and concessions. Johannine documents all deal with conflict (‘us’ against the others), which might be one explanation for the dualistic approach. Lieu thinks that 1 John was written to ‘a beleaguered minority needing affirmation’,47 who require clear identity and border markers. Lieu further notes that there are ‘two divinely intended groups fixed in an unchanging opposition which has been mysteriously generated by the polarity in the divine world between God and the devil’.48 This dualistic, religious-cosmological framework places the author in a position of power, since his perspective presupposes the divine perspective, discrediting other worldviews as inauthentic. There are no grey areas: only light or darkness, truth or lies, spiritual life or death.49 There is no middle way; in other words, the person is either on the side of the author who is on God’s side, or people are in the dark and are children of the devil.

45

Lieu (1991:80). Aspects like light/darkness or life/death are dualistic, but when it comes to God vs the devil, it is more a matter of contrast. Because of qualitative differences between them, their relation is not dualistic in the sense that they should be interpreted as (equal) opposing poles. 47 Lieu (1991:40). 48 Ibid. 36–37. 49 Lincoln (2000:20). Motyer (1997:186–90) shows that dualistic structures, especially ethical structures, were well known in Second Temple Judaism (e.g. in Qumran literature [1QS 3:19–21, 4:15–16; 4QFlor 1:8], The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs [T. Lev. 3:3; T. Zeb. 9:8; T. Ash. 1:8–9; 3:2; 6:5; T. Jud. 19:4; T. Dan 1:7–8; 5:1] and in the Palestinian Targums on Gen 3 [Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 3:6]). 46

The ethical language of the Letters of John

445

The reality of the conflict challenges the absoluteness of this dualistic position, however. There are ‘grey’ areas where people are still part of ‘us’, but seem to be on their way to the opposition (‘they’), thus finding themselves ‘in between’ these two groups, that is, in what may be called a ‘grey’ area, implying that borders are in reality not as fixed as they are portrayed in Johannine dualistic language. The addressees, in the ‘grey’ area, are not abandoned, but are exhorted to return to the koinōnia of the orthodox group by loving their brothers again. This does not invalidate the dualistic pattern, but rather confirms it. If you find yourself in the grey area you must either repent or are regarded as an antichrist. 3.2 Metaphors, metonyms, maxims and stereotyping Stylistic features like metaphors,50 metonyms,51 symbols52 or stereotyping are ways in which the author expresses some ethical ideas.53 A few examples may serve to illustrate their use and significance. Metaphor is a well-known feature of Johannine style.54 In 1 John, family life55 is a key complex metaphor (imagery), including single metaphors like being begotten by God, having God’s seed, being a child of God, and so on.56 Such ‘every day’ metaphors, based on common social conventions and knowledge, serve as effective analogies for understanding the ethical dynamics, since what is ethically expected of an ordinary earthly family serves as analogy for understanding what is expected of the heavenly family. In this way the reader may grasp the essence of the ethics of the family of God.

50 Cf. Van der Watt (2000:ad loc.) for a definition. The term ‘imagery’ might also be used for complex (networked) metaphors – cf. Van der Watt (2000:18–22). 51 A metonym may be described as ‘a figure of speech consisting of the use of the name of one thing for that of another of which it is an attribute or with which it is associated’ (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). 52 Cf. Van der Watt (2000:1–6) for a definition of Johannine symbolism, a term which is of course being used at will by scholars. Cain might function as symbol of evil, also being stereotyped as somebody evil who turned away from ‘his family’. 53 Since these features receive the necessary attention where they are relevant to the issues in the text, they will not be treated in full here. 54 Cf. Van der Watt (2000) and Vol. 1, 35–37. 55 Cf. also ‘God is light’ or ‘God is love’. 56 Terms like ‘birth of God’, ‘eternal life’, ‘children of God’, ‘God becoming our Father’, etc. are used in conjunction to form part of a larger network of metaphors related to family imagery (cf. Van der Watt 2000:161–393; Osiek and Balch 1997; Blasi 2002:304). It must be noted that family as it is used here should not be confused with modern ideas about families. Here it refers to the οἰκία (it could be translated as house, household, house community, family – Allmen 1981:54) as whole family. Cf. also Scholtissek (2000:374).

446

Addendum 8

A saying that may also be treated as a metaphor, but could just as well be a metonym, is the central expression that God is love.57 Love is an aspect of God that is associated with his overall behaviour and relation to believers. If one is associated with God, one is associated with love. Stereotyping was well-known in ancient times to describe identity and determine behaviour. A typical Jewish stereotype,58 namely Cain, symbolizes what is bad and evil by murdering his brother. By contrasting positive ethical behaviour with Cain’s negative behaviour, the stereotype provides positive authority for the ethical argument. Maxims59 are also an integral part of Johannine style. In 1 John, God is called love (4:8) or light (1:5), it is stated that he who loves the father will love his child (5:1–2), and there is no fear in love (4:18).

4. Some rhetorical techniques as part of the ethical arsenal of the Letters The author uses a variety of different rhetorical approaches in his efforts to convince the addressees to correct their ways. 4.1 Questions, rhetorical and otherwise The author utilizes rhetorical questions to emphasize the ethical point he wants to make, although not with high frequency. For instance, in 1J 2:21–22 the author identifies liars by rhetorically asking who they are, with the addressees being more than capable of answering the question and thus aligning themselves with the truth. In 1J 3:17 the rhetorical question is posed as to how a believer could see another in need, but yet not help him – how can the love of God be in him? The answer to this question would oblige believers to help their fellow believers. In 1J 5:5 it is asked who (else) conquered the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. This question has rhetorical features, since in this context the addressee will not be able to differ from the answer given in the text. In this way the author succeeds in confirming and authorizing his message rhetorically. The author also uses questions that are not rhetorical, yet have some affinity to rhetorical questions, as technique to forward and develop his argument. In 1J 3:12 it is stated that Cain killed his brother. The question is then asked: ‘why?’, which enables the author to continue his ethical argument.

57

The use of the term παράκλητος (1J 2:1 – ‘paraclete’) might also be seen as metonym. Cf. subsection 3.3.7.2 above. 59 Maxims are statements that seem to be generally accepted and need not be motivated. 58

The ethical language of the Letters of John

447

4.2 Contrasting parallelism (antithesis) Contrasting (antithetical) parallelism (also called antithesis), which is common throughout the Letter, is another rhetorical device used to encourage the addressees to follow the author’s advice. For instance, in 1J 2:10–11 the author uses contrasting parallelism (v. 10: ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ – v. 11: ὁ δὲ µισῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ) to explain what the different options of living in light and love against living in darkness and hate mean. In 1J 3:11– 15, Cain is contrasted with those who have life because of their love for one another (v. 14). Through these antithetical parallelisms good and evil are described as options to choose from, in order to encourage the addressees to make the right choice. 4.3 Mimesis Mimesis60 is a social convention that was expected to be followed, especially in familial and educational contexts, and thus served as mechanism to encourage and even convince people of what the right thing to do is.61 Therefore, believers should do what Jesus has done, love as he loved, and be righteous as he is righteous. With imitating, the character of the action and not a mechanical example is followed, as is seen in the example of how to give one’s life like Jesus gave his life, namely helping the brother in need (1J 3:16–17). 4.4 Reciprocity Reciprocity62 requires that what is received from somebody ought to be ‘returned’ in some or other way, for instance, ‘Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another’ (1J 4:11).63 By rhetorically using social conventions like reciprocity (or mimesis) in his ethical arguments, the author provides the necessary social authority in order to convince the addressees. 4.5 Theological clustering Theological clustering involves grouping different theological ideas together, forming a ‘theological network’, inter alia to motivate a request or an exhortation. A few examples should suffice. In 1J 1:5–7 there is a step-like development of ideas, linking who that is light to correct perceptions about ethics and of course how one should behave. The cluster begins with an absolute remark: (i) ‘God is light’ and 60

Cf. Addendum 2. Cf. Addendum 2 on mimesis. 62 Cf. Addendum 2 on reciprocity. Cf. also Trebilco (2019:500). 63 Cf. also 1J 4:21; 5:1–2. 61

448

Addendum 8

(ii) there is no darkness in him (1:5). The consequences that are logically based on this statement are now developed by way of conditional phrases. (iii) Claiming to have fellowship with God but living in darkness makes one a liar. (iv) One does not do the truth by living in the darkness (1:6). In this way a false perception is addressed. The term ‘living’ is taken up in the next conditional phrase: (v) If one live in the light – as He is in the light – believers have fellowship with one another. (vi) In such a case the blood of Jesus also purifies them from all sin, thus preparing the stage for the next phase of the argument dealing with sin (1:7). This clustering continues in 1J 1:8–2:2, but for our purposes we need not follow it through. From the dogmatic statement that God is light, which is not motivated but simply stated, the ethical expectation is developed that one should live in the light. The rationale is that God is in this light and that this determines the identity of believers who live in partnership and fellowship with God. This implies that one does the truth and lives in fellowship with one another. It is a lie to think that words and deeds, identity and actions can be separated. Through clustering, the author gives the rationale for ethical behaviour by explaining how it is determined by the character and presence of God, who is not only the light, but also in the light. In this way ethical material is imbedded in the larger picture.64 4.6 Self-reflection on reasons for writing the Letter of 1 John as ethical tool The author of 1 John often refers to the reasons for his writing the Letter,65 often marked with the phrases, ‘(These things) I write to you’.66 For instance, in 1J 2:1 he writes these things to them so that they do not sin; or in 1J 5:13 he writes so that they remember that they have eternal life. By giving the reasons for writing, the author implies self-reflection on what the addressees ought to know. He stands in an (eye-witness) tradition on the basis of which he writes to remind them of these traditional truths which form their ethos. For instance, in 1J 2:12–14 the phrases γράφω/ἔγραψα ὑµῖν (I write/I have written to you) are repeated seven times, confirming ethical remarks that mostly precede this section and indicating the ethical reasons why he writes the Letter. The addressees are reminded that their sins are forgiven, that they are victors, that they know the Father and that His word and love are in them.

64

Cf., e.g., 1J 4:7, 17–18. 1J 2:1, 8, 12, 13, 14, 21, 26, but also in 1:4 and 5:13. 66 (ταῦτα) γράφω ὑµῖν. 65

The ethical language of the Letters of John

449

4.7 Narratives (fables) and exempla as basis for ethics The Letters of John make use of narratives/stories to develop their ethical ideas. One may distinguish between a ‘master (overarching) narrative’ and minor narratives. The ethical argumentation in 1 John is held together by a master narrative, which was part of the ethos and tradition of the Johannine group.67 God’s love is shown by sending his Son to bring eternal life to everyone who believes in him. He destroyed the works of the devil and ensured eternal life for now and for ever, thus sharing his victory over the devil with believers. Through life, believers are children of God whose love and koinōnia should be expressed among one another as family of God, in spite of the hatred of the world. There are also minor ‘stories’ used with ethical intentions in the Letters. Some examples that have ethical consequences include: i) There are conditional illustrations such as that of the poor man who is in need. A brother who has the world’s goods, sees him but is not touched by the situation and does not help. By way of rhetorical question it is asked whether God’s love is in such a person. This practical illustration is then used to express the requirements of the love of God (1J 3:16). Another conditional situation: A false teacher comes to the door of a believer to visit. The believer then shows him the door and does not even greet him. This is to illustrate what should be done with false teachers who do evil things (2J 10–11). ii) The stereotyped story of Cain is also used in the ethical argumentation (1J 3:11–14), stereotyping him as a murderer of his brother and therefore an evil person who does not have life. Believers should behave in the opposite way. This story serves as an example of evil behaviour. iii) Eschatological expectations predict that the antichrist will come. This is true of the ‘now opponents’, who initially were part of the congregation but who have left. They now form an active opposition with some influence in the community. They must now be countered by warning and encouraging the ‘you’. iv) The events that led to 3 John being written suggests an interesting ‘story’. Missionaries were sent out by the Presbyter and relied on the assistance of fellow believers, known to the Presbyter. They were rejected by Diotrephes, however, as being a challenge to the Presbyter’s authority. He even prohibited others to receive these missionaries. The Presbyter responded by writing to Gaius, asking him to receive Demetrius as a travelling missionary, because he has done that before. Diotrephes can be sure that the

67

This is broadly also the master narrative of the Gospel.

450

Addendum 8

Presbyter will visit him and address his bad actions. And thus the story unfolds, highlighting what is good and what is bad (3J 11). v) To a certain extent, Jesus’ actions are exempla for believers: his righteousness (1J 2:29), his purity (3:3), his love (3:16), the way he lived (2:6) are all examples which should be imitated. 4.8 Vice lists in 1 John? No use is made of lists of virtues and vices in 1 John. The closest John comes to such a list is in 2:16 where the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes and the pride of riches are mentioned in sequence. The sequential mention of the fathers, sons, little children and young people in 2:12–14 may be seen as an ethically related list, though not a virtue and vice list.

Addendum 9

The use of ‘us/we/I’, ‘you’, ‘they’ and third person ‘neutral’ Verses ‘We/us/I’ 1:5 1:6

1:7

1:8

1:9

1:10

1

ἀκηκόαµεν ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀναγγέλλοµεν1 εἴπωµεν ὅτι κοινωνίαν ἔχοµεν … περιπατῶµεν … ψευδόµεθα … ποιοῦµεν3 περιπατῶµεν … κοινωνίαν ἔχοµεν µετʼ ἀλλήλων … τὸ αἷµα … καθαρίζει ἡµᾶς …4 εἴπωµεν ὅτι … ἔχοµεν, ἑαυτοὺς πλανῶµεν καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡµῖν5 ὁµολογῶµεν τὰς ἁµαρτίας ἡµῶν … ἀφῇ ἡµῖν τὰς ἁµαρτίας καὶ καθαρίσῃ ἡµᾶς6 εἴπωµεν ὅτι οὐχ ἡµαρτήκαµεν, ψεύστην ποιοῦµεν αὐτὸν καὶ ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἡµῖν7

‘You’ ὑµῖν

He (neutral)

They (opponents)

2

we have heard from him and proclaim. to you. 3 if we say that we have fellowship … we live … we lie … we do. 4 we live … we have fellowship with one another … the blood cleanses us. 5 we say that … we have … we deceive ourselves … and the truth is not in us. 6 we confess our sin … he forgives our sin and cleanses us. 7 we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar and his word is not in us. 2

452

Addendum 9

Verses ‘We/us/I’ 2:1

‘You’

He (neutral)

They (opponents)

9

Τεκνία µου, … γράφω8

Τεκνία µου … ὑµῖν ἵνα µὴ ἁµάρτητε10

ἐάν τις ἁµάρτῃ11

12

2:3–6

παράκλητον ἔχοµεν γινώσκοµεν ὅτι ἐγνώκαµεν αὐτόν, ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶµεν13 ὁ λέγων ὅτι Ἔγνωκα αὐτὸν καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ µὴ τηρῶν, ψεύστης ἐστὶν, καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν· ὃς δʼ ἂν τηρῇ αὐτοῦ τὸν λόγον, ἀληθῶς ἐν τούτῳ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ τετελείωται14 ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκοµεν ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐσµεν15 ὁ λέγων ἐν αὐτῷ µένειν ὀφείλει καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησεν καὶ αὐτὸς [οὕτως] περιπατεῖν16

2:7–11 γράφω18

8

Ἀγαπητοί17 … ὑµῖν19 … εἴχετε ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς· …

I write … my little children. 10 to you, so that you may not sin. 11 if anyone does sin. 12 we have a paraclete. 13 we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. 14 he who says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments, he is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But he who keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. 15 by this we may know that we are in him. 16 he who says he abides in him, in the same way in which he walked, he ought to walk. 17 beloved. 18 I write. 19 to you. 9

The use of ‘us/we/I’, ‘you’, ‘they’ and third person ‘neutral’ Verses ‘We/us/I’

γράφω21

2:12–14

2:15

20

‘You’ ὁ λόγος ὃν ἠκούσατε.20 ὑµῖν22 ὅ ἐστιν … ἐν ὑµῖν23

A series of: Γράφω ὑµῖν27 with terms of endearness (τεκνία,28 πατέρες,29 νεανίσκοι,30 παιδία31) and verbs in the second person following. Μὴ ἀγαπᾶτε32

He (neutral)

453

They (opponents)

ὁ λέγων ἐν τῷ φωτὶ εἶναι καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ µισῶν ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ ἐστὶν ἕως ἄρτι.24 ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ φωτὶ µένει καὶ σκάνδαλον ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν· 25 ὁ δὲ µισῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ περιπατεῖ καὶ οὐκ οἶδεν ποῦ ὑπάγει, ὅτι ἡ σκοτία ἐτύφλωσεν τοὺς ὀφθαλµοὺς αὐτοῦ.26

ἐάν τις ἀγαπᾷ33 … οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν αὐτῷ34

you heard from the beginning … the word you have heard. I write. 22 to you. 23 that is … in you. 24 he who says he is in the light and hates his brother, he is still in darkness. 25 he who loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no ‘stumbling’. 26 he who hates his brother … walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes. 27 I write to you. 28 little children. 29 fathers. 30 young men. 31 (little) children. 32 Imperative: you must not love … 33 if someone loves … 34 the love of the Father is not in him. 21

454

Addendum 9

Verses ‘We/us/I’

‘You’

2:17

Παιδία36… ἠκούσατε ὅτι37

ἀντίχριστοι πολλοὶ γεγόνασιν38

ὅθεν γινώσκοµεν39 ἐξ ἡµῶν ἐξῆλθαν ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡµῶν40

ἐξ ἡµῶν ἐξῆλθαν ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἦσαν ἐξ ἡµῶν· 42 εἰ γὰρ ἐξ ἡµῶν ἦσαν, µεµενήκεισαν ἂν µεθʼ ἡµῶν·… ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν πάντες ἐξ ἡµῶν.43

εἰ γὰρ ἐξ ἡµῶν ἦσαν, µεµενήκεισαν ἂν µεθʼ ἡµῶν· ἀλλʼ ἵνα φανερωθῶσιν ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν πάντες ἐξ ἡµῶν.41 2:20

2:21

2:22

35

They (opponents)

ὁ δὲ ποιῶν τὸ θέληµα τοῦ θεοῦ µένει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα35

2:18

2:19

He (neutral)

οὐκ ἔγραψα45

ὑµεῖς χρῖσµα ἔχετε … οἴδατε πάντες44 ὑµῖν ὅτι οὐκ οἴδατε … ἀλλʼ ὅτι οἴδατε46 Τίς ἐστιν ὁ ψεύστης εἰ µὴ ὁ ἀρνούµενος …47 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀντίχριστος, ὁ ἀρνούµενος48

he who does the will of God, he abides for ever. (little) children. 37 you have heard that … 38 there are many antichrists. 39 therefore we know. 40 they went out from us, but they were not of us. 41 for if they were of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out … they all are not of us. 42 they went out from us, but they were not of us. 43 for if they were of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out … they all are not of us. 44 you are anointed … and all of you know. 45 I have not written. 46 to you because you do not know … but because you know. 47 who is the liar but he who denies. 48 he is the antichrist, he who denies. 36

The use of ‘us/we/I’, ‘you’, ‘they’ and third person ‘neutral’ Verses ‘We/us/I’

‘You’

2:23

2:26

They (opponents)

πᾶς ὁ ἀρνούµενος τὸν υἱὸν οὐδὲ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει, ὁ ὁµολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει.49

2:24

2:25

He (neutral)

455

ὑµεῖς ὃ ἠκούσατε … ἐν ὑµῖν µενέτω. ἐὰν ἐν ὑµῖν µείνῃ … ἠκούσατε, καὶ ὑµεῖς … µενεῖτε.50 καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐπαγγελία ἣν αὐτὸς ἐπηγγείλατο ἡµῖν51 ἔγραψα52

2:27

2:28

ὑµῖν περὶ τῶν πλανώντων ὑµᾶς53 ὑµεῖς τὸ χρῖσµα ὃ ἐλάβετε … µένει ἐν ὑµῖν καὶ οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε ἵνα τις διδάσκῃ ὑµᾶς, ἀλλʼ ὡς τὸ αὐτοῦ χρῖσµα διδάσκει ὑµᾶς … καὶ καθὼς ἐδίδαξεν ὑµᾶς, µένετε ἐν αὐτῷ54 τεκνία, µένετε ἐν αὐτῷ55

ἵνα … σχῶµεν παρρησίαν καὶ µὴ αἰσχυνθῶµεν56

49 everyone who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son he has the Father also. 50 let what you heard … abide in you. If what you heard … abides in you, then you too will abide. 51 and this is the promise He made to us. 52 I wrote. 53 to you concerning those who want to deceive you. 54 the anointing that you received … abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you … just as it has taught you, you should abide in him. 55 (little) children, (you must) remain in him (imperative). 56 so that we may have confidence and we may not shrink.

456

Addendum 9

Verses ‘We/us/I’

‘You’

He (neutral)

2:29

ἐὰν εἰδῆτε … γινώσκετε ὅτι57 ἴδετε59

πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν … γεγέννηται.58

3:1 δέδωκεν ἡµῖν … ἵνα τέκνα θεοῦ κληθῶµεν, καὶ ἐσµέν … ὁ κόσµος οὐ γινώσκει ἡµᾶς,60

3:2

They (opponents)

ὁ κόσµος οὐ γινώσκει ἡµᾶς … ὅτι οὐκ ἔγνω αὐτόν.61 Ἀγαπητοί

τέκνα θεοῦ ἐσµεν, καὶ οὔπω ἐφανερώθη τί ἐσόµεθα. οἴδαµεν ὅτι … ὅµοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόµεθα, ὅτι ὀψόµεθα αὐτὸν, καθώς ἐστιν. 3:3

καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἔχων τὴν ἐλπίδα ταύτην … ἁγνίζει ἑαυτόν62 Πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁµαρτίαν καὶ τὴν ἀνοµίαν ποιεῖ …

3:4

3:5 3:6

οἴδατε ὅτι63

3:7

Τεκνία, µηδεὶς πλανάτω ὑµᾶς64

3:8

57

πᾶς ὁ ἐν αὐτῷ µένων οὐχ ἁµαρτάνει· πᾶς ὁ ἁµαρτάνων οὐχ ἑώρακεν αὐτὸν οὐδὲ ἔγνωκεν αὐτόν. ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην δίκαιός ἐστιν, ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁµαρτίαν ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν

if you know … you know that … everyone who does …, he is born … 59 you see. 60 he gave us … in order that we should be called children of God, and we are … the world does not know us. 61 the world does not know us … because the world does not know him. 62 everyone who has this hope … purifies himself. 63 you know that. 64 (little) children, let no one deceive you (imperative). 58

The use of ‘us/we/I’, ‘you’, ‘they’ and third person ‘neutral’ Verses ‘We/us/I’

‘You’

3:9

He (neutral)

457

They (opponents)

Πᾶς ὁ γεγεννηµένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁµαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ, ὅτι σπέρµα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ µένει, καὶ οὐ δύναται ἁµαρτάνειν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται. πᾶς ὁ µὴ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ ὁ µὴ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ.

3:10

3:11

ἡ ἀγγελία ἣν ἠκούσατε65 ἵνα ἀγαπῶµεν ἀλλήλους66

3:12

οὐ καθὼς Κάϊν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν καὶ ἔσφαξεν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ· καὶ χάριν τίνος ἔσφαξεν αὐτόν; ὅτι τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ πονηρὰ ἦν τὰ δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ δίκαια67

3:13

3:14

65

ἀδελφοί, µὴ θαυµάζετε εἰ µισεῖ ὑµᾶς ὁ κόσµος68 ἡµεῖς οἴδαµεν ὅτι µεταβεβήκαµεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν, ὅτι ἀγαπῶµεν τοὺς ἀδελφούς70

εἰ µισεῖ ὑµᾶς ὁ κόσµος69 ὁ µὴ ἀγαπῶν µένει ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ.

the message you heard. that we love one another. 67 not like Cain, he who was of the evil one and he who murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous. 68 brothers, you should not be surprised (imperative) if the world hates you. 69 if the world hates you. 70 we know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. 66

458

Addendum 9

Verses ‘We/us/I’

‘You’

3:15

He (neutral)

They (opponents)

πᾶς ὁ µισῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἐστίν71 οἴδατε ὅτι72

3:16

ἐγνώκαµεν τὴν ἀγάπην, ὅτι ἐκεῖνος ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἔθηκεν· καὶ ἡµεῖς ὀφείλοµεν73

3:17

ὃς δʼ ἂν ἔχῃ … θεωρῇ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ χρείαν ἔχοντα καὶ κλείσῃ τὰ σπλάγχνα αὐτοῦ … πῶς ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ µένει ἐν αὐτῷ;74 Τεκνία …75

3:18 76

3:19

3,20

µὴ ἀγαπῶµεν γνωσόµεθα ὅτι ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐσµέν καὶ … πείσοµεν τὴν καρδίαν ἡµῶν77 ἡµῶν ἡ καρδία … τῆς καρδίας ἡµῶν Ἀγαπητοί …78

3:21

ἡ καρδία ἡµῶν … 3:22

παρρησίαν ἔχοµεν79 ὃ ἐὰν αἰτῶµεν λαµβάνοµεν … ὅτι τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηροῦµεν καὶ … ποιοῦµεν80

71 he who does not love he abides in death. Everyone who hates his brother he is a murderer. 72 you know. 73 we know love … he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives. 74 if anyone has … and sees his brother in need, yet he closes his heart … how does God’s love abide in him? 75 little children. 76 we must not love. 77 we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart. 78 beloved. 79 we have confidence. 80 and whatever we ask we receive … because we keep his commandments and we do.

The use of ‘us/we/I’, ‘you’, ‘they’ and third person ‘neutral’ Verses ‘We/us/I’ 3:23

‘You’

He (neutral)

459

They (opponents)

πιστεύσωµεν … ἀγαπῶµεν ἀλλήλους, καθὼς ἔδωκεν ἐντολὴν ἡµῖν.81

3:24

ὁ τηρῶν … ἐν αὐτῷ µένει καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν αὐτῷ82 γινώσκοµεν ὅτι µένει ἐν ἡµῖν, ἐκ τοῦ πνεύµατος οὗ ἡµῖν ἔδωκεν83

4:1–3

Ἀγαπητοί, µὴ … πιστεύετε ἀλλὰ δοκιµάζετε84 … γινώσκετε85 … ἀκηκόατε86 τεκνία, ὑµεῖς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστε, καὶ νενικήκατε88

4:4

… τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου …, ὅτι ἔρχεται, καὶ νῦν ἐν τῷ κόσµῳ ἐστὶν87

4:5

αὐτοὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόςµου εἰσίν, διὰ τοῦτο ἐκ τοῦ κόσµου λαλοῦσιν καὶ ὁ κόσµος αὐτῶν ἀκούει.89

4:6

ἡµεῖς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐσµεν· ὁ γινώσκων τὸν θεὸν ἀκούει ἡµῶν, ὃς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἀκούει ἡµῶν … γινώσκοµεν90

ὁ γινώσκων τὸν θεὸν ἀκούει ἡµῶν, ὃς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἀκούει ἡµῶν …91

we believe … we love one another, just as he has commanded us. he who keeps … he abides in him, and God in him. 83 we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit whom he has given us. 84 beloved, you should not believe … but you should test … (imperative) . 85 you know … 86 you heard … 87 the (spirit) of the antichrist who was coming and is in the kosmos. 88 little children, you are of God and you have overcome. 89 they are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. 90 we are of God. He who knows God listens to us. He who is not of God, does not listen to us … we know … 91 he who knows God he listens to us. He who is not of God, does not listen to us. 81 82

460

Addendum 9

Verses ‘We/us/I’ 4:7

‘You’ Ἀγαπητοί

He (neutral)

ἀγαπῶµεν ἀλλήλους93

πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν … γεγέννηται καὶ γινώσκει … ὁ µὴ ἀγαπῶν οὐκ ἔγνω94

4:8 4:9–10 ἐφανερώθη ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ἡµῖν … ἵνα ζήσωµεν … ἡµεῖς ἠγαπήκαµεν … ἠγάπησεν ἡµᾶς … ἱλασµὸν περὶ τῶν ἁµαρτιῶν ἡµῶν95 4:11– 12 ὁ θεὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡµᾶς … ἡµεῖς ὀφείλοµεν ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾶν

They (opponents)

92

Ἀγαπητοί96

θεὸν οὐδεὶς τεθέαται97

4:13– 14

4:15

92

ἐὰν ἀγαπῶµεν ἀλλήλους ὁ θεὸς ἐν ἡµῖν µένει καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη αὐτοῦ ἐν ἡµῖν τετελειωµένη ἐστιν98 γινώσκοµεν ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ µένοµεν καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν ἡµῖν, ὅτι … δέδωκεν ἡµῖν … ἡµεῖς τεθεάµεθα καὶ µαρτυροῦµεν …99 ὃς ἐὰν ὁµολογήσῃ … ὁ θεὸς ἐν αὐτῷ µένει καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ θεῷ100

beloved. let us love one another. 94 he who does not love, he does not know. 95 the love of God is made manifest to us … so that we shall live … we loved … he loved us … propriation for our sins. 96 beloved. 97 no one has … seen God. 98 God loved us … we ought to love one another … if we love one another God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. 99 we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us … we have seen and we testify … 100 he who confesses … God abides in him, and he in God. 93

The use of ‘us/we/I’, ‘you’, ‘they’ and third person ‘neutral’ Verses ‘We/us/I’ 4:16

‘You’

He (neutral)

461

They (opponents)

ἡµεῖς ἐγνώκαµεν καὶ πεπιστεύκαµεν τὴν ἀγάπην ἣν ἔχει ὁ θεὸς ἐν ἡµῖν.101 καὶ ὁ µένων ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ ἐν τῷ θεῷ µένει καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἐν αὐτῷ µένει.102

4:17

µεθʼ ἡµῶν, ἵνα παρρησίαν ἔχωµεν … ἡµεῖς ἐσµεν …103

4:18

4:19

… ὁ δὲ φοβούµενος οὐ τετελείωται104 ἡµεῖς ἀγαπῶµεν, ὅτι αὐτὸς … ἠγάπησεν ἡµᾶς105

4:20

4:21

5:1

101

ἔχοµεν …107

τις εἴπῃ ὅτι … µισῇ, ψεύστης ἐστίν … ὁ γὰρ µὴ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ὃν ἑώρακεν, τὸν θεὸν ὃν οὐχ ἑώρακεν οὐ δύναται106 ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν θεὸν ἀγαπᾷ καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ108 Πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων ὅτι … γεγέννηται, καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν γεννήσαντα ἀγαπᾷ τὸν γεγεννηµένον ἐξ αὐτοῦ

we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. he who abides in love he abides in God, and God abides in him. 103 with us, so that we may have confidence … we are. 104 he who fears, he has not been perfected. 105 we love because he … loved us. 106 he who says … he hates … he is a liar for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen he cannot love God whom he has not seen. 107 we have … 108 he who loves God he must also love his brother. 102

462

Addendum 9

Verses ‘We/us/I’ 5:2

‘You’

He (neutral)

They (opponents)

γινώσκοµεν ὅτι ἀγαπῶµεν, ὅταν τὸν θεὸν ἀγαπῶµεν καὶ ποιῶµεν τηρῶµεν …

5:3 5:4

πᾶν τὸ γεγεννηµένον … νικᾷ

5:9 5:10

ἡ πίστις ἡµῶν λαµβάνοµεν109 ὁ πιστεύων … ἔχει τὴν µαρτυρίαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, ὁ µὴ πιστεύων … πεποίηκεν …, ὅτι οὐ πεπίστευκεν110

5:11 5:12

ἔδωκεν ἡµῖν ὁ θεός111

5:13

ἔγραψα113

5:14

ἡ παρρησία ἣν ἔχοµεν … ἐάν τι αἰτώµεθα … ἀκούει ἡµῶν116 οἴδαµεν ὅτι ἀκούει ἡµῶν ὃ ἐὰν αἰτώµεθα, οἴδαµεν ὅτι ἔχοµεν τὰ αἰτήµατα ἃ ᾐτήκαµεν117

5:15

109

ὁ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει … ὁ µὴ ἔχων τὸν υἱὸν … οὐκ ἔχει112 ὑµῖν ἵνα εἰδῆτε ὅτι ζωὴν ἔχετε114 … τοῖς πιστεύουσιν115

we receive … he who believes … he has the testimony in himself. He who does not believe … he has made … because he has not believed. 111 God gave us. 112 he who has the Son … he has … he who does not have … he does not have. 113 I wrote. 114 to you so that you know that you have life. 115 for you who believe. 116 the confidence that we have … we ask … he hears us. 117 we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked. 110

The use of ‘us/we/I’, ‘you’, ‘they’ and third person ‘neutral’ Verses ‘We/us/I’

‘You’

5:16– 17

5:18

οἴδαµεν ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐσµεν124

5:20

οἴδαµεν … δέδωκεν ἡµῖν … ἵνα γινώσκωµεν … ἐσµὲν …126

5:21

118

τις ἴδῃ τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ … αἰτήσει118 ἵνα ἐρωτήσῃ120 πᾶς ὁ γεγεννηµένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐχ ἁµαρτάνει ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ τηρεῖ … ὁ πονηρὸς οὐχ ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ122

λέγω119 Οἴδαµεν121

5:19

He (neutral)

463

They (opponents)

ὁ πονηρὸς οὐχ ἅπτεται αὐτοῦ123 ὁ κόσµος ὅλος ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ κεῖται125

Τεκνία, φυλάξατε ἑαυτὰ127

he who sees his brother …, he shall ask. I say. 120 that he shall ask. 121 we know. 122 everyone who has been born … he does not sin … he who was born of God protects him … the evil one does not touch him. 123 the evil one does not touch him. 124 we know that we are of God. 125 the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. 126 we know … he gave to us … so that we may know … we are. 127 little children, keep yourselves (imperative) . 119

Bibliography Aasgaard, R 2004 Brotherly advice. Christian siblingship and New Testament paraenesis, in: Early Christian paraenesis in context, Starr, J, and Engberg-Pedersen, T (eds.), Berlin, 237–65. Akin, DL 2001 1, 2, 3 John, Nashville. Allen, R, Neil, B, and Mayer, W (eds.) 2009 Preaching poverty in late antiquity: Perceptions and realities, Leipzig. Allen, R, and Sitzler, S 2009 Introduction, in: Preaching poverty in late antiquity: Perceptions and realities, Allen, P, Neil, B, and Mayer, W (eds.), Leipzig, 15–34. Allmen, D von 1981 La famille de Dieu: La symbolique familiale dans le Paulinisme, Göttingen. Armitage, C 2021 Atonement and ethics in 1 John: A peacemaking hermeneutic, London. Arndt, W, Danker, FW, and Bauer, W [BDAG] 2000 A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature, Chicago. Asher-Greve, J 2002 Decisive sex, essential gender, in: Sex and gender in the Ancient Near East, Parpola, S, and Whiting, RM (eds.), Helsinki, 11–26. Ashton, J 1991 Understanding the Fourth Gospel, Oxford. – 1994 Studying John: Approaches to the Fourth Gospel, Oxford. Auerbach, E 1946 Mimesis. Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendländischen Literatur, Bern. Augenstein, J 1993 Das Liebesgebot im Johannesevangelium und in den Johannesbriefen, Stuttgart. Aune, DE 1987 The New Testament in its literary environment, Cambridge. – 2003 The Westminster dictionary of New Testament and early Christian literature and rhetoric, Louisville. Back, F 2012 Gott als Vater der Jünger im Johannesevangelium, Tübingen. Balz, HR 1986 Johanneische Theologie und Ethik im Licht der ‘Letzten Stunde’, in: Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des Neuen Testaments, Schrage, W (ed.), Berlin, 34–56. Banks, RJ 2012 Paul’s idea of community, Grand Rapids. Bartchy, SS 2003 Who should be called Father? Paul of Tarsus between the Jesus tradition and the Patria Potestas, BTB 33(4), 135–47. Barton, J 2003 Understanding Old Testament ethics: Approaches and explorations, Louisville. Bauer, W 1971 Orthodoxy and heresy in earliest Christianity, Philadelphia. Baumert, N 2003 Koinōnein und metechein: Eine umfassende semantische Untersuchung, Stuttgart. Bayertz, K 2004 Warum überhaupt moralisch sein?, München. Becker, J 1981 Das Evangelium nach Johannes. Kapitel 11–21, Gütersloh. Bennema, C 2007 Christ, the Spirit and the knowledge of God: A study in Johannine Epistemology, in: The Bible and epistemology: Biblical soundings on the knowledge of God, Healy, M, and Parry, R (eds.), Milton Keys, 107–33.

466

Bibliography

– 2014 Mimesis in John 13: Cloning or creative articulation?, NT 56, 261–74. – 2016 Mimetic ethics in the Gospel of John, in: Metapher – Narratio – Mimesis – Doxologie: Begründungsformen frühchristlicher und antiker Ethik, Horn, FW, Volp, U, and Zimmermann, R (eds.), Tübingen, 205–17. – 2017 Mimesis in the Johannine literature: A study in Johannine ethics, New York. Berger, K 1984 Formgeschichte des Neuen Testaments, Heidelberg. Berger, PL, and Luckmann, T 1966 The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge, London. Betz, HD 1995 The Sermon on the Mount: A commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, Philadelphia. Beutler, J 1986 Das Hauptgebot im Johannesevangelium, in: Das Gesetz im Neuen Testament, Kertelge, K (ed.), Freiburg, 222–36. – 2000 Die Johannesbriefe, Regensburg. – 2016 Das Kernproblem der Johannesbriefe in der Rezeption des Johannesevangeliums in Briefform, in: Erzahlung und Briefe im johanneischen Kreis, Poplutz, U, and Frey, J (eds.), Tübingen, 57–69. – 2017 A commentary on the Gospel of John, Grand Rapids. – 2019 ‘Gott ist Liebe’. Sinn und Bedeutung der zentralen Gottesprädikation im ersten Johannesbrief, in: Studien zum Gottesbild im Johannesevangelium, Burz-Tropper, V (ed.), 227–44. Blasi, AJ 2002 Early Christian culture as interaction, in: Handbook of early Christianity: Social science approaches, Blasi, AJ, Duhaime, J, and Turcotte, P-A (eds.), New York, 291–308. Blass, F, Debrunner, A, and Funk, RW 1961 A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature, Chicago. Bolkestein, H 1939 Wohltätigkeit und Armenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum, Utrecht. Bolyki, J 2003 Ethics in the Gospel of John, CV 45, 198–208. Bonsack, B 2009 Der Presbyteros des dritten Briefs und der geliebte Jünger des Evangeliums nach Johannes, ZNW 79(1–2), 45–62. Borig, R 1967 Der wahre Weinstock: Untersuchungen zu Jo 15,1–10, München. Bosman, PR 2003 Conscience in Philo and Paul, Tübingen. Brant, J-A A 2011 John, Grand Rapids. Braun, H 1951 Literar-Analyse und theologische Schichtung im ersten Johannesbrief, ZTK 48, 262–92. Bremer, J-M 1998 The reciprocity of giving and thanksgiving in Greek worship, in: Reciprocity in ancient Greece, Gill, C, Postlethwaite, N, and Seaford, R (eds.), Oxford, 127–38. Briones, DE 2013 Paul’s financial policy: A socio-theological approach, London. Brooke, AE 1912 A critical and exegetical commentary on the Johannine Epistles, Edinburgh. Brown, RE 1966 The Gospel according to John, Vol. 1, London. – 1979 The community of the Beloved Disciple: The life, loves, and hates of an individual church in New Testament times, New York. – 1986[1982] The Epistles of John, New York. – 2002 An introduction to the Gospel of John, Moloney, FJ (ed.), New York. Büchsel, F 1933 Die Johannesbriefe, Leipzig. Bultmann, R 1959 Johannesevangelium, in: RGG3 Vol. 3, 840–50. – 1973 The Johannine Epistles: A commentary on the Johannine Epistles, Philadelphia. Burz-Tropper, V (ed.) 2019 Studien zum Gottesbild im Johannesevangelium, Tübingen.

Bibliography

467

Calvin, J, and Owen, J 2010 Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, Bellingham. Campbell, JY 1932 Kοινωνία and its cognates in the New Testament, JBL 51(4), 352–80. Campbell, RA 1994 The elders: Seniority within the earliest Christianity, Edinburgh. Carson, DA, et al. (eds.) 1994 New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, Downers Grove. Castelli, EA 1991 Imitating Paul: A discourse of power, Louisville. Chester, A 2013 The relevance of Jewish inscriptions for New Testament ethics, in: Early Christian ethics in interaction with Jewish and Greco-Roman contexts, Van Henten, JW, and Verheyden, J (eds.), Leiden, 107–45. Childress, JF 1980 Scripture and Christian ethics: Some reflections on the role of Scripture in moral deliberation and justification, Interpretation 34, 371–80. Chilton, BD, and Neusner, J 2000 Comparing spiritualities: Formative Christianity and Judaism in finding life and meeting death, London. Christ, K 1984 The Romans: An introduction to their history and civilization, London. Cocke, AR 1895 Studies in the Epistles of John; or, The manifested life, Richmond. Cohen, SJD 2006 From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, London. Crook, ZA 2005 Reciprocity: Covenantal exchange as a test case, in: Ancient Israel: The Old Testament in its social context, Esler, PF (ed.), London, 78–91. Culpepper, RA 1985 1, 2, 3 John, Atlanta. – 1998 The Gospel and Letters of John, Nashville. – 2014 The relationship between the Gospel of John and 1 John, in: Communities in dispute. Current scholarship in the Johannine epistles, Culpepper, RA, and Anderson, PN (eds.), Atlanta, 95–122. – 2017 The creation ethics of the Gospel of John, in: Johannine ethics: The moral world of the Gospel and Epistles of John, Minneapolis, 67–90. Deissler, A 1995 Die Grundbotschaft des Alten Testaments, Freiburg. De La Potterie, I 1959 Oida et ginōskō, les deux modes de la connaissance dans le quatrième évangile, Bib 40(3), 709–25. deSilva, DA 2004 An introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, methods and ministry formation, Downers Grove. Despres, LA 1975 Toward a theory of ethnic phenomena, in: Ethnicity and resource competition in plural societies, Despres, LA (ed.), Den Haag, 187−95. De Vaux, R 1974 Ancient Israel: Its life and institutions, London. Di Tommaso, L, et al. 2009 Angels and angel-like beings, EBR Vol. 1, 1165–1209. Dixon, S 1991 The Roman Family, London. Dobschütz, E von 1907 Johanneische Studien I, ZNW 8, 1–8. Dodd, CH 1946 The Johannine epistles, London. Doty, WG 1973 Letters in primitive Christianity, Philadelphia. Douglas, M 1972 Deciphering a Meal, Daedalus 101, 61–81. Dryden, JdW 1998 The sense of σπέρµα in 1 John 3:9: In light of lexical evidence, Filologia Neotestamentaria 11, 85–100. – 2006 Theology and ethics in 1 Peter, Tübingen. Dunn, JDG 2003 Jesus remembered (Christianity in the making 1), Grand Rapids. Du Rand, JA 1997 Johannine Perspectives, Pretoria. Eastman, S 2008 Imitating Christ imitating us: Paul’s educational project in Philippians, in: The Word leaps the gap: Studies in Scripture and theology in honor of Richard B. Hays, Wagner, JR, Grieb, AK, and Rowe, CK (eds.), Grand Rapids, 427–51. Ebner, M 1998 Wer liebt mehr? Die liebevolle Jüngerin und der geliebte Jünger nach Joh 20:11–18, BZ 42, 39–55.

468

Bibliography

Ebrard, JHA 1860 Biblical commentary on the epistles of St. John, in: Continuation of the work of Olshausen, Pope, WB (trans.), Edinburgh/London, 393–95. Edwards, RB [1996] 2001 The Johannine epistles, Sheffield. Elliott, JH 1991 Temple versus household in Luke-Acts: A contrast in social institutions, in: The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for interpretation, Neyrey, JH (ed.), Peabody, 211–40. – 2000 1 Peter, New York. Elwell, WA 1995 Evangelical commentary on the Bible, Vol. 3, Grand Rapids. Endenburg, PJT 1937 Koinōnia: En gemeenschap van zaken bij de Grieken in den klassieken tijd, Amsterdam. Engberg-Pedersen, T 2004 The concept of paraenesis, in: Early Christian paraenesis in context, Starr, J, and Engberg-Pedersen, T (eds.), Berlin, 47–72. Ferguson, E 1990 Backgrounds of early Christianity, Grand Rapids. Feuillet, A 1973 The structure of First John: Comparison with the 4th Gospel. The pattern of Christian life, BTB 3(2), 194–216. Fiore, B 1986 The function of personal example in the Socratic and Pastoral epistles, Rome. Fischer, J 1995 Theologische Ethik und Christologie, ZTK 92(4), 481–516. Fitzgerald, JT 2003 Last will and testaments in Graeco-Roman perspective, in: Early Christianity and classical culture: Comparative studies in honor of Abraham J. Malherbe, Fitzgerald, JT, Olbricht, TH, and White, LM (eds.), Leiden, 637–72. Frey, J 2000 Die johanneischen Eschatologie, Vol. 3: Die eschatologische Verkündigung in den johanneischen Texten, Tübingen. – 2008 Recent perspectives on Johannine dualism and its background, in: Text, thought, and practice in Qumran and early Christianity, Clemens, RA, and Schwartz, R (eds.), Leiden, 127–60. – 2012 ‘Ethical’ traditions, family ethos, and love in the Johannine literature, in: Early Christian ethics in interaction with Jewish and Greco-Roman contexts, van Henten, JW, and Verheyden, J (eds.), Leiden, 167–203. – 2012a Brother, brotherhood IV: New Testament, EBR Vol. 4, 550–57. – 2018 The Gospel of John as narrative memory of Jesus, in: Memory and memories in early Christianity, Butticaz, S, and Norelli, E (eds.), Tübingen, 261–84. – 2021 Eschatology in the Gospel of John and in the Johannine Epistles, in: Eschatology in antiquity: Forms and functions, Marlow, H, Pollmann, K, and Van Noorden, H (eds.), Leiden, 396–408. Funk, RW 1976 The form and structure of II and III John, JBL 86, 424–30. Furger, F 1984 Ethische Argumentation und neutestamentliche Aussagen, in: Ethik im Neuen Testament, Kertelge, K (ed.), Freiburg, 13–31. Furnish, VP 1968 Theology and ethics in Paul, New York. Gammie, JG 1990 Paraenetic literature: Toward a morphology of a secondary genre, in: Paraenesis: Act and form, Gammie, JG, and Perdue, LG (eds.), Atlanta, 41–77. Gammie, JG, and Perdue, LG (eds.) 1990 Paraenesis: Act and form, Semeia 50, Atlanta. Gardner, GE 2015 The origins of organized charity in Rabbinic Judaism, New York. Gehring, RW 2004 House church and mission, Peabody. Gielen, M 1990 Tradition und Theologie neutestamentlicher Haustafelethik, Bonn. Gilbertson, MT 1959 The way it was in Bible times, Augsburg. Gill, C, Postlethwaite, N, and Seaford, R (eds.), 1998 Reciprocity in ancient Greece, Oxford. Gillman, J 1992 Gaius, in: ABD Vol. 2, 869.

Bibliography

469

Golden, M 1990 Children and childhood in classical Athens, London. Graham G 2004 Eight theories of Ethics, London. Griffith, T 2002 Keep yourself from idols: A new look at 1 John, Sheffield. Gundry, RH 2010 Commentary on the New Testament, Peabody. Gutbrod, W 1964 ἀνοµία, in: TDNT Vol. 1, 1085–86. Guthrie, D 1996 New Testament introduction, Downers Grove. Haas, C, de Jonge, MD, and Swellengrebel JL 1972 1 John. A translator’s handbook on the Letters of John, New York. Haenchen, E 1960 Neuere Literatur zu den Johannesbriefen, TRu 26, 1–43, 267–91. Hagner, DA 1993 Matthew 1–13, Dallas. Hahn, F 1977 Neutestamentliche Grundlagen einer christlichen Ethik, TTZ 86, 31–41. Hahn, H 2009 Tradition und Neuinterpretation im ersten Johannesbrief, Zürich. Hakola, R 2010 The reception and development of the Johannine tradition in 1, 2 and 3 John, in: The legacy of John, Rasimus, T (ed.), Leiden, 17–48. Hands, AR 1968 Charities and social aid in Greece and Rome, Ithaca. Harding, M 2003 Early Christian life and thought in social context, London. Harnack, A von 1897 Űber den dritten Johannesbrief, Leipzig. – 1910 The constitution and law of the church in the first two centuries, New York. Harrison, JR 2013 The imitation of the ‘great man’ in antiquity: Paul’s inversion of a cultural icon, in: Christian origins and Greco-Roman culture, Porter, SE, and Pitts, AW (eds.), Leiden, 213–54. Hauck, F 1966 κοινός, κοινωνός, κοινωνέω, κοινωνία, συγκοινωνός, συγκοινωνέω, κοινωνικός, κοινόω, TDNT Vol. 3, 789–809. Hays, RB 1996 The moral vision of the New Testament: A contemporary introduction to New Testament ethics, San Francisco. Heckel, TK 2004 Die Historisierung der johanneischen Theologie im ersten Johannesbrief, NTS 50(3), 425–43. Heiligenthal, R 1983 Werke als Zeichen, Tübingen. Hellholm, D, and Blomkvist, V 2004 Paraenesis as an ancient genre-designation, in: Early Christian paraenesis in context, Starr, J, and Engberg-Pedersen, T (eds.), Berlin, 467– 520. Hock, RF 1980 The social context of Paul’s ministry, Philadelphia. Hodges, ZC 1985 2 John, in: The Bible knowledge commentary: An exposition of the Scriptures, Vol. 2, Walvoord, JF, and Zuck, RB (eds.), Wheaton, 2908–2909. Holmstrand, J 2004 Is there paraenesis in 1 John?, in: Early Christian paraenesis in context, Starr, J, and Engberg-Pedersen, T (eds.), Berlin, 405–32. Horrell, DG 2005 Solidarity and difference: A contemporary reading of Paul’s ethics, London. Hughes, RB, and Laney, JC 1990 The Tyndale concise Bible commentary, Wheaton. Hunold, GW, Laubach, T, and Greis, A (eds.) 2000 Theologische Ethik: Ein Werkbuch, Tübingen. Johnson, TF [1993] 2011 1, 2, and 3 John, Grand Rapids. Jones, PR 2009 1, 2 & 3 John, Macon. Joubert, SJ 2014 Patrocinium and Euergetism: Similar or Different Reciprocal Relationships? Eavesdropping on the Current Debate amongst Biblical Scholars, in: The New Testament in the Graeco-Roman world, Nel, M, Van der Watt, JG, Janse van Rensburg, FJ (eds.), Münster, 171–95.

470

Bibliography

Judge, EA 2008 The teacher as moral exemplar in Paul and in the inscriptions of Ephesus, in: Social distinctives of the Christians in the first-century, Scholer, DM (ed.), Peabody, 175–88. Kampling, R, and Schreiner, J 2000 Der Nächste – der Fremde – der Feind, Würzburg. Käsemann, E 1951 Ketzer und Zeuge: Zum johanneischen Verfasserproblem, ZTK 48, 292–311. Keck, LE 1974 On the Ethos of Early Christians, JAAR 42, 435−52. Keener, CS 1993 The IVP Bible background commentary: New Testament, Grove. Kelly, AJ 1999 ‘God is love’: A theological-moral reading of 1 John, Studia Moralia 37(1), 35–71. Kelly, W 1905 An Exposition of the Epistles of John the Apostle, London. Kim, C-H 1972 The form and function of the familiar Greek letter of recommendation, Missoula. Kirk, A 2003 ‘Love your enemies,’ the Golden Rule, and ancient reciprocity, JBL 122(4), 667–86. Kistemaker, SJ 2001 Exposition of James and the Epistles of John, Grand Rapids. Klauck, H-J 1989 Brudermord und Bruderliebe: Ethische Paradigmen in 1 Joh 3,11–17, in: Neues Testament und Ethik, Merklein, H (ed.), Freiburg, 151–69. – 1991 Der erste Johannesbrief, Zürich. Kloppenborg, JS 2017 Disciplined exaggeration: The heuristics of comparison in Biblical studies, NT 59(4), 390–414. – 2019 Christ’s associations: Connecting and belonging in the ancient city, New Haven. Kloppenborg, JS, and Ascough, RS 2011 Greco-Roman associations: Texts, translations, and commentary, Berlin. Klosinski, LE 1988 Meals in Mark, PhD diss., Claremont Graduate School. Konradt, M 2022 Ethik im Neuen Testament, Göttingen. Konstan, D 1996 Friendship, frankness and flattery, in: Friendship, flattery, & frankness of speech: Studies on friendship in the New Testament world, Fitzgerald, JT (ed.), Leiden, 7–19. Kruse, CG 2000 The Letters of John, Grand Rapids. Kysar, R 1992 John, Epistles of, ABD Vol. 3, 900–12. Lacey, WK 1987 Patria Potestas, in: The Family in ancient Rome: New perspectives, Rawson, B (ed.), New York, 121–44. Lange, JP, et al. 2008 A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: 1, 2, 3 John, Bellingham. Lassen, EM 1992 Family as metaphor: Family images at the time of the Old Testament and early Judaism, SJOT 6(2), 247–62. Lattke, M 1975 Einheit im Wort: Die spezifische Bedeutung von ἀγάπη, ἀγαπᾶν und φιλεῖν im Johannesevangelium, München. Law, R 1909 The Texts of Life: A study of the first epistle of St. John, Edinburgh. Lenski, RCH 1966 The Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude, Minneapolis. Leutzsch, M 1994 Die Bewährung der Wahrheit: Der dritte Johannesbrief als Dokument urchristlichen Alltags, Trier. Levine, B 2002 ‘Seed’ versus ‘womb’: Expressions of male dominance in biblical Israel, in: Sex and gender in the Ancient Near East, Parpola, S, and Whiting, RM (eds.), Helsinki, 337–44. Liddell, HG, and Scott, R 1996 A Greek-English lexicon, Oxford. Lietaert Peerbolte, LJ 1996 The antecedents of Antichrist: A tradition-historical study of the earliest Christian views on eschatological opponents, Leiden.

Bibliography

471

Lieu, JM 1981 Authority to become children of God, NT 23(3), 210–28. – 1986 The second and third Epistles of John, Edinburgh. – 1991 The Theology of the Johannine Epistles, Cambridge. – 1993 What was from the beginning: Scripture and tradition in the Johannine Epistles, NTS 39, 458–77. – 2008 I, II, & III John: A commentary, Louisville. – 2008a Us or you? Persuasion and identity in 1 John, JBL 127(4), 805–19. – 2014 The audience of the Johannine Epistles, in: Communities in dispute: Current scholarship on the Johannine Epistles, Culpepper, RA, and Anderson, PN (eds.), Atlanta, 123–40. Lincoln, AT 2000 Truth on trial: The lawsuit motif in the Fourth Gospel, Peabody. – 2005 The Gospel according to Saint John, London. – 2014 How babies were made in Jesus’ time, BAR 49(6), 42–49. Ling, TJM 2006 The Judaean poor and the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge. Lingad, CG 2001 The problems of Jewish Christians in the Johannine community, Rome. Loader, WRG 2009 Poverty and Riches in the New Testament, in: Prayer and spirituality in the early Church, Vol. V: Poverty and Riches, Dunn, GD, Luckensmeyer, D, and Cross, L (eds.), Strathfield, 3–35. – 2014 The significance of 1 John 2:15–17 for understanding the ethics of 1 John, in: Communities in dispute: Current scholarship on the Johannine Epistles, Culpepper, RA, and Anderson, PN (eds.), Atlanta, 225–37. – 2017 Jesus in John’s Gospel, Grand Rapids. Lorencin, I 2008 Hospitality versus patronage: An investigation of social dynamics in the third epistle of John, AUSS 46(2), 165–74. Louw, JP, and Nida, EA 1996 Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains, New York. Lücke, F 1837 A Commentary on the Epistles of St. John, Edinburgh. Luz, U 2007 Matthew 1–7: A commentary on Matthew 1–7, Minneapolis. Mack, BL 1988 The myth of innocence, Philadelphia. – 1995 Who wrote the New Testament? The making of the Christian myth, New York. Malatesta, E 1973 The Epistles of St. John: Greek text and translation schematically arranged, Rome. – 1978 Interiority and covenant, Rome. Malherbe, AJ 1977 The inhospitality of Diotrephes, in: God’s Christ and his people, Jervell, J, and Meeks, WA (eds.), Oslo, 222–32. Reprinted in substantially the same form with an addendum in: Malherbe, A, Social aspects of early Christianity, Philadelphia, 92–112. – 1983 Social aspects of early Christianity, Philadelphia. – 1986 Moral Exhortation: A Greco-Roman sourcebook, Philadelphia. – 1988 Ancient epistolary theorists, Atlanta. – 1992 Hellenistic Moralists and the New Testament, in ANRW II.26.1, 267–333. – 2004 Paraenesis in the Epistle of Titus, in: Early Christian paraenesis in context, Starr, J, and Engberg-Pedersen, T (eds.), Berlin, 297–317. Malik, K 2014 The quest for a moral compass: A global history of ethics, London. Malina, BJ 1986 The received view and what it cannot do: III John and hospitality, Semeia 35, 171–94. Malina, BJ, and Neyrey, JH 1991 Conflict in Luke-Acts: Labelling and deviance theory, in: The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for interpretation, Neyrey, JH (ed.), Peabody, 97−122.

472

Bibliography

– 1991a Honor and shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal values of the Mediterranean world, in: The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for interpretation, Neyrey, JH (ed.), Peabody, 25–65. Malina, BJ, and Rohrbaugh, RL 1998 Social-science commentary on the Gospel of John, Minneapolis. Marshall, IH 1978 The Epistles of John, Grand Rapids. Martyn, JL 2003 History and theology in the Fourth Gospel, Louisville. Marxsen, W 1989 ‘Christliche’ und christliche Ethik im Neuen Testament, Gütersloh. – 1993 New Testament foundations for Christian ethics, Minneapolis. Mauss, M 1954 The Gift: Forms and function of exchange in Arabic societies, London. McNamara, M 1983 Palestinian Judaism and the New Testament, Washington. Meeks, WA 1993 The origins of Christian morality: The first two centuries, New Haven. Melberg, A 1995 Theories of mimesis, Cambridge. Menken, MJJ 2010 1, 2 en 3 Johannes: Een praktische bijbelverklaring, Kampen. Metzger, BM 1994 A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition: A companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.), London/New York. Mills, DW 1998 The concept of sinlessness in 1 John in relation to Johannine eschatology, Ann Arbor. Mitchell, MM 1991 Paul and the rhetoric of reconciliation, Tübingen. – 1998 ‘Diotrephes does not receive us’: The lexicographical and social context of 3 John 10–11, JBL 117(2), 299–320. Mizzoni, J 2009 Ethics: The basics, Chichester. Mönnig, HO 1980 Groepsidentiteit en groepswrywing: Enkele waarneminge oor ras en rassisme, volk en etnisiteit, nasie en nasionalisme, Johannesburg. Morgan, T 2007 Popular morality in the Early Roman Empire, Cambridge. Motyer, S 1997 Your father the devil? A new approach to John and ‘the Jews’, Carlisle. Nauck, W 1957 Die Tradition und der Charakter des ersten Johannesbriefes, Tübingen. Neufeld, D 1994 Reconceiving Texts as Speech Acts: An Analysis of I John, Leiden. Newman, BM, and Nida, EA 1980 A translator’s handbook on the Gospel of John, New York. Nicklas, T 2006 Was macht die Johannesbriefe eigentlich zu ‘Katholischen Briefen’?, BiLi 79, 129–32. Nightingale, A 2006 Mimesis: Ancient Greek literary theory, in: Literary theory and criticism: An Oxford guide, Waugh, P (ed.), Oxford, 37–47. Nissen, J 1999 Community and ethics in the Gospel of John, in: New readings in John: Literary and theological perspectives, Nissen, J, and Pedersen, S (eds.), Sheffield, 194– 212. Nolland, J 2005 The Gospel of Matthew: A commentary on the Greek text, Grand Rapids. O’Cearbhalláin, S 1975 All who have this hope in Him (1 Jn 3, 3): A contribution to a Johannine theology of hope, Rome. Ogereau, JM 2014 Paul’s koinōnia with the Philippians: Societas as a missionary funding strategy, NTS 60(3), 360–78, online accessed, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ S002868851400006X. – 2014a Paul’s koinōnia with the Philippians: A socio-historical investigation of a Pauline economic partnership, Tübingen. Olsson, B 1999 DEUS SEMPER MAIOR? On God in the Johannine writings, in: New readings in John. Literary and theological perspectives, Nissen, J, and Pedersen, S (eds.), Sheffield, 143–71.

Bibliography

473

O’Neill, JC 1966 The puzzle of 1 John, London. Osiek, C, and Balch, DL 1997 Families in the New Testament world: Households and house churches, Louisville. Painter, J 2002 1, 2, 3 John, Collegeville. Panikulam, G 1979 Koinōnia in the New Testament: A dynamic expression of Christian life, Rome. Pardee, N 2014 Be holy, for I am holy: Paraenesis in 1 Peter, in: Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude: A resource for students, Mason, EF, and Martin, TW (eds.), Atlanta, 113–34. Parker, R 1998 Pleasing thighs: Reciprocity in Greek religion, in: Reciprocity in ancient Greece, Gill, C, Postlethwaite, N, and Seaford, R (eds.), Oxford, 105–26. Parkin, A 2006 ‘You do him no service’: An exploration of pagan almsgiving, in: Poverty in the Roman World, Atkins, M, and Osborne, R (eds.), Cambridge, 60–82. Parsenios, GL 2014 First, Second, and Third John, Grand Rapids. Perdue, LG 1990 The social character of paraenesis and paraenetic literature, in: Paraenesis: Act and form, Gammie, JG, and Perdue, LG (eds.), Atlanta, 5–39. Perkins, P 1979 The Johannine Epistles, Wilmington. – 1983 Koinōnia in 1 John 1:3–7: The social context of division in the Johannine Letters, CBQ 45(4), 631–41. – 1992 Apocalyptic sectarianism and love commands: The Johannine epistles and Revelation, in: The love of enemy and nonretaliation in the New Testament, Swartley, WM (ed.), Louisville, 287–95. Pfeiffer, CF, and Harrison, EF (eds.) 1962 The Wycliffe Bible commentary: New Testament, Chicago. Pieper, A 2002 Einführung in die Ethik, Tübingen. Pilch, JJ, and Malina, BJ 1993 Biblical social values and their meaning: A handbook, Peabody. Piper, J 1992 Love your enemies: Jesus’ love commandment in the synoptic gospels and the early Christian paraenesis, Grand Rapids. Pitts, AW 2010 Philosophical and epistolary contexts for Pauline paraenesis, in: Paul and the ancient letter form, Porter, SE, and Adams, SA (eds.), Leiden, 269–306. – 2015 Hellenistic Moral Philosophy and the Greek Epistolary Tradition, published online at Jeffspqr: http://www.scribd.com/doc/274160650/Hellenistic-Moral-Philosophyand-the-Greek-Epistolary#scribd. Plummer, A 1886 The Epistles of S. John, Cambridge. Popkes, W 1996 Paränese und Neues Testament, Stuttgart. – 2004 Paraenesis in the New Testament: An exercise in conceptuality, in: Early Christian paraenesis in context, Starr, J, and Engberg-Pedersen, T (eds.), Berlin, 13–46. Porter, SE, and Adams, SA 2010 Paul and the ancient letter form, Leiden. Price, RM 1989 The Sitz im Leben of Third John: A new reconstruction, EvQ 61, 114–19. Prostmeier, R 1990 Handlungsmodelle im ersten Petrusbrief, Würzburg. Quell, G 1964 ἀγαπάω: Old Testament, TDNT Vol. 1, 21–34. Quinn, JD 1990 Paraenesis and the Pastoral Epistles: Lexical observations bearing on the nature of the sub-genre and soundings on its role in socialization and liturgies, in: Paraenesis: Act and form, Gammie, JG, and Perdue, LG (eds.), Atlanta, 189–210. Rawson, B 1987 The Roman family, in: The family in ancient Rome: New perspectives, Rawson, B (ed.), New York, 1–57. Rensberger, DK 1997 1, 2 & 3 John, Nashville. – 2001 The Epistles of John, Louisville. – 2006 Conflict and community in the Johannine letters, Interpretation 60(3), 278–91.

474

Bibliography

– 2014 Completed love: 1 John 4:11–18 and the mission of the New Testament church, in: Communities in dispute: Current scholarship on the Johannine Epistles, Culpepper, RA, and Anderson, PN (eds.), Atlanta, 237–71. Rese, M 1985 Das Gebot der Bruderliebe in den Johannesbriefen, TZ 41, 44–58. – 2014 Free will and determinism, in: The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Ethics, Brawley, RL (ed.), Oxford, Volume 1, 309–313. Roberts, JW 1984 City of Socrates: An introduction to classical Athens, London. Roitto, R 2011 Behaving as a Christian-believer. A cognitive perspective on identity and behaviour norms in Ephesians, Winona Lake. Roloff, J 1993 Die Kirche im Neuen Testament, Göttingen. Roth, AM 2000 Father earth, mother sky: Ancient Egyptian beliefs about conception and fertility, in: Reading the Body: Representations and Remains in the Archaeological Record, Rautman, AE (ed.), Philadelphia, 187–201. Rusam, D 1993 Die Gemeinschaft der Kinder Gottes: Das Motiv der Gotteskindschaft und die Gemeinden der johanneischen Briefe, Stuttgart. – 2018 Der erste, zweite und dritte Johannesbrief, Göttingen. Sabourin, L 1981 Koinōnia in the New Testament, Religious Studies Bulletin 1(4), 109–15. Sahlins, MD 1965 On the sociology of primitive exchange, in: The relevance of models for social anthropology, Banton, M (ed.), London, 139–78. Sanders, JT 1986 Ethics in the New Testament, London. Scheffler, E 2006 Compassionate action: Living according to Luke’s gospel, in: Identity, ethics, and ethos in the New Testament, Van der Watt, JG (ed.), Berlin, 77–106. Schenk, W 1978 ἐρωτάω ask, request, EDNT Vol. 2, 57–58. Schlier, H 1970 Die Bruderliebe nach dem Evangelium und den Briefen des Johannes, in: Mélanges Bibliques: FS B. Rigaux, Descamps, A, and De Halleux, A (eds.), Gembloux, 235–45. Schmeller, T 2001 Neutestamentliches Gruppenethos, in: Der neue Mensch in Christus, Beutler, J (ed.), Freiburg, 120−34. Schmid, H 2004 How to read the First epistle of John non-polemically, Bib 85, 24–41. Schnackenburg, R 1967 The moral teaching of the New Testament, 2nd edn., New York. – 1968 The Gospel according to St John, Vol. 1, New York. – 1976 The Gospel according to St John, Vol. 3, London. – 1980 The Gospel according to St John, Vol. 2, London. – 1984 Die Johannesbriefe, Freiburg. – 1988 Die Agape Gottes nach Johannes, in: Creatio ex amore: FS A Ganoczy, Würzburg, 36–47. – 1991 ‘Der Vater, der mich gesandt hat’: Zur johanneischen Christologie, in: Anfänge der Christologie: FS für Ferdinand Hahn zum 65. Geburtstag, Breytenbach, JC, and Paulsen, H (eds.), Göttingen, 275–91. Schnelle, U 2010 Die Johannesbriefe, Leipzig. – 2012 Ethical theology in 1 John, in: Rethinking the ethics of John, Van der Watt, JG, and Zimmermann, R (eds.), Tübingen, 321–39. – 2016 Das Evangelium nach Johannes, Leipzig. Scholtissek, K 2000 In Ihm sein und bleiben: Die Sprache der Immanenz in den johanneischen Schriften, Freiburg. Schrenk, G 1964 δίκη κτλ, TDNT Vol. 2, 178–92. – 1967 πατήρ κτλ, TDNT Vol. 5, 945–1014. Schrot, G 1979 Familia, in: Der Kleine Pauly: Lexikon der Antike Vol. 2, München, 511– 512.

Bibliography

475

Schwartz, S 2010 Were the Jews a Mediterranean society? Reciprocity and solidarity in ancient Judaism, Princeton. Scullion, JJ 1992 Righteousness, ABD Vol. 5, 724–36. Seaford, R 1998 Introduction, in: Reciprocity in ancient Greece, Gill, C, Postlethwaite, N, and Seaford, R (eds.), Oxford, 1–12. Sedley, D 1999 The ideal of godlikeness, in: Plato 2: Ethics, politics, religion, and the soul, Fine, G (ed.), Oxford, 309–28. Seesemann, H 1933 KOINÕNIA: Der Begriff im Neuen Testament, Gießen. Segovia, FF 1981 The love and hatred of Jesus and Johannine sectarianism, CBQ 43, 258– 72. – 1982 Love relationships in the Johannine tradition: ἀγάπη/ἀγαπᾶν in 1 John and the Fourth Gospel, Chicago. Senior, D 2007 The death of Jesus as sign: A fundamental Johannine ethic, in: The death of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, Van Belle, G (ed.), Leuven, 271–92. Shelton, J-A 1988 As the Romans did: A source book in Roman social history, Oxford. Smalley, SS 1984 [2002] 1, 2, 3 John, Dallas. Smith, D s.a. The Epistles of John, in: The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Vol. 5, London 1910, 149–208 (quoted according to Kindle edn.). Smith, DE 2002 From symposium to Eucharist: The banquet in the early Christian world, Minneapolis. Smith, DM 1991 First, Second and Third John, Louisville. Snodderley, ME 2008 A socio-rhetorical investigation of the Johannine understanding of ‘the works of the Devil’ in 1 John 3:8, Pretoria. Söding, T 1996 ‘Gott ist Liebe’: 1 Joh 4,8.16 als Spitzensatz Biblischer Theologie, in: Der lebendige Gott: Studien zur Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Söding, T (ed.), Münster, 306–57. Sörbom, G 2002 The classic concept of mimesis, in: A companion to art theory, Smith, P, and Wilde, C (eds.), Oxford, 19–28. Sorokin, PA 1948 Society, culture and personality – their structure and dynamics: A general system of sociology, New York. Spence-Jones, HDM (ed.) 1909 2 John, London. Spencer, PE 2007 Rhetorical texture and narrative trajectories of the Lucan Galilean ministry speeches, London. Sproston North, WE 2001 The Lazarus story within the Johannine tradition, Sheffield. Stählin, G 1974 φίλος, φίλη, φιλία, TDNT Vol. 9, 147−71. Stambaugh, J, and Balch D 1986 The Social World of the First Christians, London. Starr, J 2004 Was paraenesis for beginners?, in: Early Christian paraenesis in context, Starr, J, and Engberg-Pedersen, T (eds.), Berlin, 73–111. Starr, J, and Engberg-Pedersen, T (eds.) 2004 Early Christian paraenesis in context, Berlin. Stauffer, E 1964 ἀγαπάω, TDNT Vol. 1, 35–55. Stegemann, E and W 1999 The Jesus movement: A social history of its first century, Edinburgh. Steward-Sykes, A 2008 ἀποκῠησις λόγῳ ἀληθείας: Paraenesis and baptism in Matthew, James, and the Didache, in: Matthew, James, and Didache, Van de Sandt, HWM, and Zangenberg, J (eds.), Atlanta, 341–60. Stott, JRW 1988 The Letters of John: An introduction and commentary, Grand Rapids. Stowers, SK 1986 Letter writing in Greco-Roman antiquity, Philadelphia. Strecker, G 1989 Die Johannesbriefe, Göttingen.

476

Bibliography

Strecker, G, and Attridge, HW 1996 The Johannine letters: A commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John, Minneapolis. Streett, DR 2011 They went out from us: The identity of the opponents in First John, Berlin. Stuhlmacher, P 1999 Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Vol. 2, Göttingen. Taeger, JW 1987 Der konservative Rebell: Zum Widerstand des Diotrephes gegen den Presbyter, ZNW 78, 267–87. Talbert, C 1977 What is a Gospel? The Genre of the canonical gospels, Philadelphia. Thatcher, T 2012 Cain the Jew the antiChrist: Collective memory and the Johannine ethic of loving and hating, in: Rethinking the ethics of John: ‘Implicit ethics’ in the Johannine writings, Van der Watt, JG, and Zimmermann, R (eds.), Tübingen, 350–73. Theißen, G 1989 Soziologie der Jesusbewegung, München. Thomas, JC 1993 Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine community, Sheffield. Thompson, MM 2001 The God of the Gospel of John, Grand Rapids. Thurén, L 2004 Motivation as the core of paraenesis – Remarks on Peter and Paul as persuaders, in: Early Christian paraenesis in context, Starr, J, and Engberg-Pedersen, T (eds.), Berlin, 353–71. Thyen, H 1976 Johannesevangelium, TRE Vol. 17, 200–25. Tomson, PJ 1997 ‘Als dit uit de Hemel is …’: Jezus en de schrijvers van het Nieuwe Testament in hun verhouding tot het Jodendom, Hilversum. Topel, J 1998 The tarnished golden rule (Luke 6:31): The inescapable radicalness of Christian ethics, TS 59, 475–85. Trebilco, P 2019 Salvation and gift in 1 John: Unconditioned, but not unconditional, in: SÕTĒRIA: Salvation in early Christianity and antiquity, du Toit, DS, Gerber, C, and Zimmermann, C (eds.), Leiden, 498–516. Tuckett, CM 2001 Christology and the New Testament: Jesus and his earliest followers, Louisville. Turner, GA 1976 Soteriology in the Gospel of John, JETS 19(4), 271–77. Ulrich, HG 2009 Wie Geschöpfe leben – zur narrativen Exploration im geschöpflichen Leben, in: Ethik und Erzählung: Theologische und philosophische Beiträge zur narrativen Ethik, Hofheinz, M, Mathwig, F, and Zeinder, M (eds.), Zürich, 303–28. Van der Merwe, DG 2005 Understanding sin in the Johannine epistles, Verbum et Ecclesia 26(2), 527–42. – 2006 ‘A matter of having fellowship: Ethics in the Johannine epistles’, in: Identity, ethics, and ethos in the New Testament, Van der Watt, JG (ed.), Berlin, 535–63. – 2008 Waardes as kultuuraspek van die Afrikaner, Journal of Humanities 48(3), 357–73. Van der Watt, JG 1988 Broederliefde in 1 Johannes, in: Kerk in Konteks, Breytenbach, C (ed.), Pretoria, 65–76. – 1994 ‘Metaphorik’ in Joh 15,1−8, BZ 38(1), 67−80. – 1999 Ethics in First John: A Literary and Social Scientific Perspective, CBQ 61, 491– 511. – 2000 Family of the King: Dynamics of metaphor in the Gospel according to John, Leiden. – 2004 Hoe akkuraat kan ’n Bybelvertaling wees? Geboorte (gennaō) in 1 Joh 5:1–4 as voorbeeld, Hervormde Teologiese Tydskrif 60(3), 1–22. – 2006 Radical social redefinition and radical love: Ethics and ethos in the Gospel according to John, in: Identity, ethics, and ethos in the New Testament, Van der Watt, JG (ed.), Berlin, 49–75. – 2007 Introduction to John’s Gospel and Letters, Edinburgh.

Bibliography

477

– 2009 The good and the truth in John’s Gospel, in: Studien zu Matthäus und Johannes/ Études sur Matthieu et Jean, Dettwiler, A, and Poplutz, U (eds.), Zürich, 317–33. – 1, 2 en 3 Johannes: ’n Oorsig van die huidige stand van navorsing oor die inleidingsvraagstukke, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 67(1), Art. #867, 7 pages, http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v67i1.867. – 2013 Reflections on doing what is good and true in the Gospel of John, in: Ethische Normen des frühen Christentums, Horn, FW, Volp, U, and Zimmermann, R (eds.), Tübingen, 73–92. – 2013a Wie was Gaius, die addressant van 3 Johannes? Enkele kantaantekeninge, NGTT 54(1–2), 233–43. – 2013b ’Working the works of God’: Identity and behavior in the Gospel of John, in: Paul, John, and apocalyptic eschatology: Festschrift for M. de Boer, Krans, J, LietaertPeerbolte, BJ, Smit, P-B (eds.), Leiden, 135–50. – 2014 On ethics in 1 John, in: Communities in dispute: The Johannine epistles, Culpepper, RA, and Anderson, P (eds.), Atlanta, 197–222. – 2014a On hospitality in 3 John, NGTT 55(1&2), DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5952/55–1– 2–506. – 2015 The situation in 2 John: A worried Presbyter, Journal for early Christian history 5(2), 123–56. – 2015a Cosmos in the First Letter of John, in: Creation stories in dialogue: The Bible, science and folk traditions, Culpepper, RA, and Van der Watt, JG (eds.), Leiden, 253– 70. – 2015b The ethos of being like Jesus: Imitation in 1 John, in: Theologie und Ethos im Neuen Testament: FS Michael Wolter, Flebbe, J, and Konradt, M (ed.), NeukirchenVluyn, 415–40. – 2016 Reciprocity, mimesis and ethics in 1 John, in: Erzählung und Briefe im johanneischen Kreis, Poplutz, U, and Frey, J (eds.), Tübingen, 257–76. – 2017 Education and teaching in John’s Gospel, in: Multiple teachers in Biblical texts, Koet, B, and van Wieringen, ALHM (eds.), Leuven, 169–84. – Paraenesis in 1 John?, in: Glaube, Liebe, Gespräch: Neue Perspektiven johanneischer Ethik, Hoegen-Rohls, C, and Poplutz, U (eds.), Göttingen, 165–80. – 2018a Stereotypes, in-Groups, and out-Groups in the Gospel of John, in: Anatomies of the Gospels and beyond: Essays in honor of R. Alan Culpepper, Parsons, MC, and Anderson, PA (eds.), Leiden, 300–18. – 2019 A Grammar of the Ethics of John: Reading John from an Ethical Perspective, Vol. 1, Tübingen. – 2019a An attempted coup? No, the Father is made known by his Son, in: Studien zum Gottesbild im Johannesevangelium, Burz-Tropper, V (ed.), 103–22. Van Leeuwen, RC 2005 Wisdom, in: Dictionary for theological interpretation of the Bible, Vanhoozer, K (ed.), Grand Rapids, 844–50. Van Wees, H 1998 The law of gratitude: Reciprocity in anthropological theory, in: Reciprocity in ancient Greece, Gill, C, Postlethwaite, N, and Seaford, R (eds.), Oxford, 13– 50. Verhey A 1984 The great reversal: Ethics and the New Testament, Grand Rapids. Veyne, P 1990 Bread and circuses: History, sociology and political pluralism, London. Vincent, MR 1888 Word studies in the New Testament, Vol. II, Grand Rapids. Visotzky, BL 2005 Methodological considerations in the study of John’s interaction with first-century Judaism, in: Life in Abundance, Donahue, JR (ed.), Collegeville, 91–107. Vogler, W 1993 Die Briefe des Johannes, Berlin.

478

Bibliography

Von Wahlde, UC 1990 The Johannine commandments: 1 John and the struggle for the Johannine tradition, New York. – 2010 The Gospel and Letters of John, Vol. 3, Grand Rapids. Walls, D, and Anders, D 1999 I & II Peter, I, II & III John, Jude, Nashville. Watson, DF 1989 A Rhetorical Analysis of 2 John According to Greco-Roman Convention, NTS 35, 104–30. Wendt, HH 1925 Die Johannesbriefe und das johanneische Christentum, Halle. Wengst, K 1976 Häresie und Orthodoxie im Spiegel des ersten Johannesbriefes, Gütersloh. – 1978 Der erste, zweite und dritte Brief des Johannes, Gütersloh. Westcott, BF [1883] 1902 The Epistles of St John, London. Wheeler, SE 1995 Wealth as peril and obligation: The New Testament on possessions, Grand Rapids. Whitlark, JA 2006 Fidelity to God: Perseverance in Hebrews in light of the reciprocity system of the ancient world, Unpublished PhD diss., Baylor University. Windisch, H 1951 Der erste Johannesbrief, in: Die Katholischen Briefe, Windisch, H (ed.), Tübingen, 106–36. Wischmeyer, O 2009 Das alte und das neue Gebot: Ein Beitrag zur Intertextualität der johanneischen Schriften, in: Studien zu Matthäus und Johannes, Dettwiler A, and Poplutz, U (eds.), Zürich, 207–20. Witherington, B 1994 Friendship and finances in Philippi: The letter of Paul to the Philippians, Valley Forge. – 2009 The indelible image, Downers Grove. Wolter, M 1988 Die Pastoralbriefe als Paulustradition, Göttingen. – 2001 Die ethische Identität christlicher Gemeinden in neutestamentlicher Zeit, in: Härle, W, and Preul, P (eds.), Woran orientiert sich Ethik?, Marburg, 61–90. – 2009 Theologie und Ethos im frühen Christentum, Tübingen. – 2011 Paulus, Neukirchen-Vluyn. Wurm, A 1903 Die Irrlehrer im Ersten Johannesbrief, Freiburg. Yarborough, RW 2008 1–3 John, Grand Rapids. Zahn, T 1953 Introduction to the New Testament, Vol. 3, Edinburgh. Zimmermann, R 2012 Is there ethics in the Gospel of John? Challenging an outdated consensus, in: Rethinking the ethics of John, Van der Watt, JG, and Zimmermann, R (eds.), Tübingen, 44–80. – 2016 Die Logik der Liebe: Die ‘implizite Ethik’ der Paulusbriefe am Beispiel des 1. Korintherbriefs, Neukirchen-Vluyn.

Index of Biblical Sources First Testament and Septuagint Genesis 3 3:6 4 4:1–16 4:8 18:1–14 18:23–26 19:1–23 39:7

172 444 170 168 170 346 94 346 155

1 Samuel 16:13

245

2 Samuel 7:14

59

2 Esdras 8:32

94

Tobit 4:7

154

Psalms 1:6 32:1 50:4 50:5 50:7 50:11

94 198 198 198 198 198

Proverbs 5:8 7:26 8:20

321 321 94

Exodus 12:24–27 13:8

84 84

Leviticus 19:2 19:17–18 19:34

412 113 112

Numbers 11:12 18:22

61 225

Deuteronomy 4:12 7:9 8:2 10:12–13 15:1–11 15:7–8 15:11

126 112 84 113 113 113 113

Ecclesiastes 8:20

353

Jesus Sirach 14:8–10 14:10 18:2 48:22

154 154 94 188

Joshua 7:21 22:5 23:11

155 113 113

Isaiah 1:2 1:4

59 112

480 2:5 5:15 30:1 30:9 44:22 49:15 60:1 60:21 61:1 66:13 Jeremiah 3:19

Index of Biblical Sources 94, 353 155 112 112 198 61 242 94 245 61

31 31:20

242 61

Baruch 5:9

94

Ezekiel 36

242

Daniel 9:18 11:36–37

94 423

59

New Testament Matthew 5:3 5:13–25 5:19 5:43 5:44–48 6:2–4 6:22–23 7:9–11 7:16 7:17–20 7:23 9:10–12 10:11–14 10:14 10:14–15 10:40 13:41 18:15–17 19:17 20:15 23:28 24:12 25:31–46 25:34–40 25:35–36

256 321 183 256 321 256 154, 155, 156 191 97 142 199 319, 321 303 321 317 303 199 317 183 154 90 199 256 126 256

Mark 1:10 4:19 7:5

244 151 353

9:37 9:50 10:19 12:13–17

303 133 183 137

Luke 1:6 3:21–22 4:18 6:20–21 10 10:10–11 11:34 11:34–36 15:11–12 18:13 19:8 23:56

183 244 244–245 253 258 321 154 154 191 119 258 183

John 1:1 1:5 1:9 1:9–13 1:10 1:12 1:12–13 1:13 1:14 1:17

386 377 354 383 379 389 66, 239 61, 389, 392 354, 382, 388 183, 354

Index of Biblical Sources 1:18 1:29 1:32 1:32–33 1:45 1:47 3:3 3:5 3:5–8 3:6 3:8 3:15 3:16 3:16–17 3:18 3:19–21 3:21 3:31 3:33 3:34 3:36 4:7–10 4:18 4:19 4:21 4:23 4:24 4:34 4:37 4:42 5:1–2 5:20 5:22 5:23 5:24 5:26–27 5:30 5:31 5:32 5:33 5:37 5:38 5:46–47 6:14 6:28 6:28–29 6:29

116, 372, 384, 385, 386 239, 387 422 387 183 354 61, 239, 387 61, 239, 387 392 65 387 388 164, 167, 239, 375 388 388 376, 377, 399 354, 381, 382 387 354, 381 386 388, 399 239 354 239 239 354 354, 381 239 354 354, 379 239 375 399 239 376, 388, 399 399 239 354 354 354 116, 381 244, 390 394 354 388 136, 378, 397 71

6:32 6:37 6:40 6:39–40 6:43 6:44 6:46 6:55 6:56 6:63 6:66 7:16–17 7:18 7:19 7:19ff. 7:23 7:26 7:28 7:29 7:40 7:42 7:49 7:51 8:5 8:12 8:13 8:14 8:15–16 8:16 8:17 8:19 8:23 8:26 8:28–29 8:29 8:31 8:32 8:33 8:34 8:37 8:38 8:39 8:40 8:41 8:44

8:45 8:46

481 354 386 388 250, 399, 400 133 250, 399, 400 116, 372 354 392 387 383 301 354 183 194 183 354 354, 379, 380 380 354 65 183 183 183 377, 378 354 354 399 354, 399 183, 354 379, 380 387 354 390 191 354, 382, 394 354, 381, 382 65 389 65 82, 218 141 354, 381 218 151, 215, 239, 354, 381, 382, 391 354, 381 354, 381

482 8:47 8:49–51 8:50ff. 8:51 8:52 8:54–55 8:55 8:56 9:29 9:39 10:11 10:15 10:17–18 10:18 10:28 10:29–30 10:30 10:34 10:41 11:9–10 11:25–26 12:2 12:24 12:24–26 12:25 12:31 12:34 12:35–36 12:43 12:47 12:47–48 12:48 12:49 13 13:1 13:1ff. 13:1–17 13:1–35 13:14 13:15 13:27 13:34 13:34–35 13:37 13:38 14

Index of Biblical Sources 382, 388, 392 379 380 390 390 379 390 394 195 376 137 137 137, 138, 139, 389 378 391 385 385 183 354 377 389 208 82 389, 393, 394 375 239, 387, 397 183 377 358 399 376, 399 376, 399 384 340 374 390 390 163 133 390, 393 83, 208 132, 133, 311, 374, 378 92, 144, 239, 265, 374, 375 137 137 118

14:1–3 14:6 14:6ff. 14:7 14:9 14:10–11 14:13 14:13–15 14:14 14:15 14:16–17 14:17 14:21 14:23 14:23–24 14:26 14:30 15 15:1 15:1–8 15:3 15:4 15:5 15:6 15:7 15:9–10 15:9–13 15:10 15:12 15:13 15:13–17 15:17 15:18 15:18–16:4 15:19 15:20 15:21 15:21–22 15:25 15:26 15:32 15:38 15:44 16:7 16:7–11 16:8–15

400 354, 381 384, 385 380 380 384 393 393 393 374 73, 77 354, 379, 381, 386 374, 375 374 375, 390 77, 387 387, 397 267 354 76, 392 379 392 392 392 244, 392, 393 374, 390 374 373, 375, 378 133, 239, 374, 375, 378 67, 140, 375 390 132, 133, 373 391 391 375, 376, 387 390 379, 380 399 183 73, 77, 245, 354, 381, 386, 387 391 137 358 354, 381 73, 77 245

483

Index of Biblical Sources 16:11 16:13

21:15–16 21:15–17 21:15–19 21:24 21:25

239, 387 354, 381, 386. 387 73, 77 393 387 354, 380, 381 390 385 354 387 354, 381 394 354 372, 380 208 301 183 354, 381 354, 382 125, 183 422 254, 354 239 394 387 394 281, 386 394 14 14, 275, 370, 388, 403 374 390 383 354 14

Acts 2–6 10:5–6 10:38 15:23 16:14–15 16:15 17:7 18:1–3 18:1–7 20:20

256 346 245 308 346 311 313 313 346 314

16:13–15 16:23 16:33 17:3 17:6 17:6ff. 17:8 17:16 17:17 17:18 17:19 17:25 18:2–3 18:19 18:31 18:37 18:38 19:7 19:30 19:35 20:17 20:21 20:22 20:27–29 20:28 20:28–31 20:30 20:31

20:20–21 21:8 21:16 21:17 21:21 23:26 28:7 28:14

346 346 348 313 353 308 313 346

Romans 1:17 3:21–26 3:25 4:7 5:1 8:31–39 12:10 12:13 12:16 13:8 14–16 14:13 14:15 14:19 15:3 15:7 15:23–24 15:25 16:1–2 16:5 16:23

90 90 119 198 90 131 133 303, 311, 313 133 133 313 133 353 133 133 133 346 256 346 316 313

1 Corinthians 5:4–5 6:12–20 7:19 9:7 11:1 11:33 12:13 14:16–25 16:19

318 160 133 256 84 133 133 313 313, 316

2 Corinthians 1:21–22 6:14

244, 245 199

Galatians 2:10

256

484

Index of Biblical Sources

3:1 3:28 5:6 5:19–21 5:19–23 5:26 6:2 6:16

154 133 133 159 137 133 133 133

Ephesians 1:13 5:2 5:3–10

245 353 188

Philippians 1:23 2:5–8

151 84

Colossians 1:6 3:5 3:8 3:9 3:11 3:12–15 4:15

295 137 137 133 133 137 313, 316

1 Thessalonians 1:5–6 1:6 1:8 4 4:9 5:11 5:13 5:15

245 84 294 249 133 133 133 133

2 Thessalonians 1:3 2:3 2:3–8 2:8

133 199 423 199

1 Timothy 5:10 6:13–14

256, 303 84

2 Timothy 4:10

148

Titus 1:8 3:10 3:13

256 318 346

Philemon 2 2–7

313, 316 313

Hebrews 2:17 6:11 7:18 9:5 10:17 10:24 12:2–3 13:2

119 151 183 119 198 133 84 256, 303, 311

James 1:1 1:9–11 1:14–15 2:1–10 2:11 2:15–16 3 3:10–12 4:11 5:9

308 256 156 256 137 142 137 142 133 133

1 Peter 2:21 4:1–5 4:9 4:18 5:5

84 160 256, 303, 313 90 133

2 Peter 1:4 3

151 249

1–3 John Due to the numerous references to the Letters on virtually every page, it is not functional to index all these references. Good use may be made of the Table of Contents to identify where specific themes or verses are discussed.

485

Index of Biblical Sources Revelation 5:5 12:11 13

249 249 423

17:14 18:14 21 22:11

249 151 249 90

Index of Non-Biblical Sources Ancient Greek and Roman Sources Aristotle Ethica Nicomachea (Eth. Nic.) 3.3.111a–b 210 7.1.2 86, 415 7.10.14ff. 86, 415 8.3–5 62 8.5 63 8.5.5 86 8.6.7 87, 415 8.7.2 87 8.7.3–4 87, 415 8.8.5 87 8.13.1 87 8.14.2 87 8.14.4 88 9.8.5 138 9.8.18–20 138 9.8.25–26 138 Cicero Ad Familiares (Fam.) 2.4.1

Demetrius of Phaleron De elocutione (Eloc.) 223–225 227–228 228 231

5 7 8 8

Ps.-Demetrius Typoi epistolikoi Introduction 5–8

8, 222

Demosthenes Orationes (Or.) 24:152

197

Dio Chrysostom Orationes (Or.) 12:42 17:2–3 74:12 75:6

63 431 133 414

Diogenes Laertius Vitae Philosophorum 7.1.124 7.10–12

107 411

8

De amicitia (Amic.) 7:24–25 14:49 19:69 20:72

138 86 87 87

De officiis (Off.) 1.15.47–48 1.17.58 1.22 2.63

414 62 86, 415 415

Dionysius of Halicarnassus Antiquitates romanae (Ant. rom.) 2.26.2–4 220 7.66.5 191 Epictetus Diatribai (Diatr.) 2.10.7 2.19.7 4.1.1

217 62 210

488 Enchiridion (Ench.) 2:8 32:2 32:3 Euripides Alcestis (Alc.) 12–18 689–690

Index of Non-Biblical Sources

210 139 139

138 138

Hierocles De officiis (Off.) [collected by Stobaeus] 4.25.53 62, 63 4.27.53 144 Homer Odyssey (Od.) 3.4–485 5.382–13.187 15.193 Isocrates Busiris (Bus.) 1–3

485 347 214

Ps.-Libanius Characteres epistolici (Char. ep.) 5 201, 202, 430, 432 64 415 Lucian Icaromenippus (Icar.) 29–31 258

138

Martial Epigrammata (Epigr.) 2.43.1–16 107 Maximus Tyrius Dialexeis (Dial.) 19:21

Plato Lysis (Lys.) 207C

107

Phaedo (Phaed.) 62C

138

Protagoras (Prot.) 325C–326D

85, 190

Res publica (Rep.) 1.331ff. 1.332B

416 413

Symposium (Symp.) 179–180

138

Theaetetus (Theaet.) 175D–E

210

Pliny the Younger Epistulae (Ep.) 7.18 8.13 8.24 9.30.1–4

256 85 429 414

Panegyricus (Pan.) 45:6

411

201

Ps.-Isocrates Ad demonicum (Demon.) 28 255

Toxaris (Tox.) 36

Cornelius Nepos De viris illustribus (Vir. ill.) 15.3.4 154

Plutarch Moralia De adulatore et amico (Adul. amic.) 24 (Mor. 65A–B) 107 De amicorum multitudine (Amic. mult.) 110 1 (Mor. 93B) 6 (Mor. 95D–E) 86 De fraterno amore (Frat. amor.) 4 (Mor. 480A) 165 De liberis educandis (Lib. ed.) 16 (Mor. 12A–D) 220

154

489

Index of Non-Biblical Sources Vitae parallelae Aemilius Paulus 1 2 Alexander 1

409 409

Seneca De beneficiis (Ben.) 1.4.2 3.8.3 6.23.5

86, 414, 415 255 62

409

Pericles 1:4 2:4

409 409

Nicias 1:5

409

Quintilian Institutio oratoria (Inst.) 12.2.29 410 12.2.29–30 411

Epistulae morales (Ep.) 9:10 138 40:1 6 40:1–2 7 52 411 75:1–2 6 94:28 432 Xenophon Memorabilia (Mem.) 2.7.1

133

Qumran Community Rule (1QS) 1:3–9 1:6 3:18–21 3:19–21 4:15–16 4:17–21 8:21–24 8:24–9:2 11:9 11:11

165 156 199 444 444 199 225 225 150 150

Damascus Document (CD) 2:16 156 Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab) 5:7 156 War Scroll (1QM) 4:3

150

4QFlorilegium (4QFlor) 1:8 444

Other Early Jewish Literature Aristeas, Letter of (Ep. Ar.) 229 125 Josephus Antiquitates Judaicae (Ant.) 1.2.1 § 53 170 1.13.1 § 222 191 4.8.24 §§ 260–264 62 4.8.24 § 262 63 4.8.24 § 264 220 4.8.39 § 289 61, 62

De bello Judaico (Bell.) 2.8.3 §§ 124–126 346 7.8.7 § 346 126 Contra Apionem (C. Ap.) 2.196 191

Jubilees (Jub.) 16:26 17:16

94 215

490 36:4

Index of Non-Biblical Sources 133

Philo of Alexandria De confusione linguarum (Conf. ling.) 108 197 De ebrietate (Ebr.) 143

197

De Decalogo (Decal.) 120 63 De Deo 17–18

Psalms of Solomon (Pss. Sol.) 15:10 197 17:11–32 199 Sibylline Oracles (Sib. Or.) 2.252–262 199 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Testament of Benjamin (Test. Benj.) 3:4 169 7:3–5 169 8:2 169 Testament of Dan (Test. Dan) 5:3 133

63

De specialibus legibus (Spec. leg.) 4.85–86 151 In Flaccum (In Flacc.) 96 131

Testament of Gad (Test. Gad) 4:7 169 5:2 169 6:1 133

Legum allegoriae (Leg. all.) 3.79 197

Testament of Joseph (Test. Jos.) 17:2–3 133

Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin (Quaest. in Gen.) 1.59 170

Testament of Judah (Test. Jud.) 17:1 160

Early Christian Literature Barnabas, Letter of (Barn.) 18:2 199 Didache (Did.) 11:1–2 11:13 16:4

318 341 199

Ignatius of Antioch Letter to the Philadelphians (Phld.) 11:1 341 Letter to the Smyrnaeans (Smyrn.) 4:1 318 7:1 318 9:1 318

Papyri Select Papyri 121

62

Papyri Bouriant 1:8

86

Papyri Oxyrhynchus (P. Oxy.) 1121.20 197

Index of Modern Authors Aasgaard, R…58, 63, 131, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 429, 430, 431, 465 Adams, SA…429, 433, 473 Akin, DL…50, 80, 90, 91, 95, 99, 155, 157, 158, 198, 224, 243, 245, 246, 295, 299, 303, 304, 312, 322, 465 Allen, P…5, 7, 256, 465 Allmen, D…58, 445, 465 Anders, D…322, 478 Armitage, C…2, 34, 37, 113, 133, 164, 465 Arndt, W…48, 73, 74, 77, 80, 90, 94, 97, 106, 111, 119, 125, 128, 130, 149, 150, 151, 154, 157, 167, 183, 184, 189, 197, 207, 243, 291, 297, 323, 326, 327, 340, 341, 353, 360, 439, 443, 465 Ascough, RS…317, 470 Asher-Greve, J…65, 465 Ashton, J…13, 465 Attridge, HW…124, 125, 126, 127, 225, 476 Auerbach, E…409, 465 Augenstein, J…187, 465 Aune, DE…9, 10, 432, 433, 465 Back, F…404, 465 Balch, DL…58, 445, 473, 475 Balz, HR…24, 26, 32, 33, 38, 152, 156, 157, 161, 267, 465 Banks, RJ…314, 465 Bartchy, SS…58, 465 Barton, J…125, 211, 220, 412, 465 Bauer, W…48, 73, 74, 77, 80, 90, 94, 97, 106, 111, 119, 125, 128, 130, 149, 150, 151, 154, 157, 167, 183, 184, 189, 197, 207, 243, 291, 297, 323, 326, 327, 338, 340, 341, 353, 360, 439, 443, 465

Baumert, N…106, 107, 465 Bayertz, K…17, 465 Becker, J…138, 465 Bennema, C…84, 85, 86, 89, 233, 252, 412, 465 Berger, K…200, 466 Berger, PL…206, 466 Betz, HD…155, 466 Beutler, J…1, 10, 12, 37, 38, 113, 124, 138, 176, 200, 377, 466 Blasi, AJ…58, 445, 466 Blass, F…441, 466 Blomkvist, V…434, 469 Bolkestein, H…255, 256, 466 Bolyki, J…358, 466 Bonsack, B…340, 466 Borig, R…73, 466 Bosman, PR…207, 466 Brant, J-AA…254, 466 Braun, H…36, 466 Bremer, J-M…416, 466 Briones, DE…58, 63, 413, 466 Brooke, AE…37, 187, 466 Brown, RE…1, 4, 10, 12, 13, 24, 25, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 47, 48, 49, 52, 61, 64, 65, 66, 70, 72, 73, 77, 82, 84, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 107, 109, 110, 111, 115, 116, 117, 120, 124, 127, 131, 140, 142, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 168, 171, 173, 178, 184, 185, 187, 188, 190, 191, 197, 198, 199, 218, 222, 224, 236, 244, 246, 248, 249, 250, 252, 254, 255, 256, 288, 289, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 310, 311, 312, 314, 315, 319, 320, 335, 337, 339, 341, 343,

492

Index of Modern Authors

344, 345, 346, 349, 350, 361, 367, 368, 370, 371, 386, 387, 400, 466 Büchsel, F…32, 466 Bultmann, R…14, 35, 36, 49, 109, 123, 127, 128, 148, 164, 191, 215, 244, 247, 248, 288, 295, 299, 303, 305, 308, 310, 315, 319, 324, 328, 338, 339, 422, 425, 466, 466 Burz-Tropper, V…440, 466 Calvin, J…224, 467 Campbell, JY…106, 108, 467 Campbell, RA…347, 467 Carson, DA…106, 107, 321, 467 Castelli, EA…85, 409, 410, 412, 467 Chester, A…58, 162, 256, 307, 346, 467 Childress, JF…211, 467 Chilton, BD…89, 467 Christ, K…63, 64, 467 Cocke, AR…311, 467 Cohen, SJD…193, 467 Crook, ZA…413, 415, 467 Culpepper, RA…9, 47, 51, 153, 162, 219, 224, 339, 346, 351, 352, 368, 371, 467 Danker, FW…48, 73, 74, 77, 80, 90, 94, 97, 106, 111, 119, 125, 128, 130, 149, 150, 151, 154, 157, 167, 183, 184, 189, 197, 207, 243, 291, 297, 323, 326, 327, 340, 341, 353, 360, 439, 443, 465 Debrunner, A…441, 466 Deissler, A…59, 61, 112, 220, 256, 467 de Jonge, MD…24, 49, 80, 91, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 108, 110, 115, 126, 127, 143, 148, 150, 152, 157, 172, 198, 199, 244, 245, 299, 302, 303, 309, 315, 469 De La Potterie, I…235, 244, 467 deSilva, DA…314, 467 Despres, LA…18, 467 De Vaux, R…63, 467 Di Tommaso, L…215, 467 Dixon, S…64, 191, 220, 223, 467 Dobschütz, E von…35, 42, 43, 467 Dodd, CH…9, 33, 41, 84, 155, 159, 161, 244, 250, 304, 312, 422, 467 Doty, WG…9, 467

Douglas, M…160, 467 Dryden, JdW…64, 429, 432, 433, 439, 441, 467 Dunn, DG…194, 253, 467 Du Rand, JA…9, 32, 36, 289, 293, 467 Eastman, S…409, 412, 467 Ebner, M…112, 467 Ebrard, JHA…288, 294, 295, 296, 299, 300, 301, 303, 304, 305, 306, 310, 314, 315, 319, 320, 321, 328, 468 Edwards, RB…5, 36, 37, 38, 152, 155, 167, 215, 234, 295, 298, 301, 304, 342, 346, 351, 422, 468 Elliott, JH…191, 387, 468 Elwell, WA…245, 316, 468 Endenburg, PJT…106, 107, 468 Engberg-Pedersen, T…429, 431, 468, 476 Ferguson, E…316, 468 Feuillet, A…370, 468 Fiore, B…201, 430, 433, 468 Fischer, J…73, 468 Fitzgerald, JT…160, 468 Frey, J…10, 12, 13, 40, 51, 52, 162, 249, 387, 468 Funk, RW…335, 441, 466, 468 Furger, F…16, 468 Furnish, VP…18, 468 Gammie, JG…203, 429, 430, 433, 468 Gardner, GE…256, 468 Gehring, RW…313, 468 Gielen, M…64, 468 Gilbertson, MT…63, 468 Gill, C…413, 468 Gillman, J…349, 468 Golden, M…61, 469 Graham, G…151, 407, 469 Greis, A…16, 469 Griffith, T…9, 10, 14, 37, 38, 51, 95, 197, 199, 200, 201, 204, 421, 422, 469 Gundry, RH…109, 469 Gutbrod, W…197, 198, 199, 469 Guthrie, D…11, 295, 469

Index of Modern Authors Haas, C…24, 49, 80, 91, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 108, 110, 115, 126, 127, 143, 148, 150, 152, 157, 172, 198, 199, 244, 245, 299, 302, 303, 309, 315, 469 Haenchen, E…166, 469 Hagner, DA…154, 469 Hahn, F…118, 469 Hahn, H…10, 33, 215, 216, 252, 469 Hakola, R…36, 288, 367, 368, 370, 469 Hands, AR…254, 255, 469 Harding, M…4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 429, 434, 469 Harnack, A von…337, 429, 469 Harrison, EF…106, 310, 473 Harrison, JR…410, 411, 412, 469 Hauck, F…109, 469 Hays, RB…11, 12, 253, 257, 258, 469 Heckel, TK…10, 24, 25, 29, 469 Heiligenthal, R…17, 469 Hellholm, D…434, 469 Hock, RF…337, 469 Hodges, ZC…311, 469 Holmstrand, J…200, 204, 206, 434, 469 Horrell, DG…16, 166, 469 Hughes, RB…106, 109, 469 Hunold, GW…16, 469 Johnson, TF…24, 37, 94, 95, 97, 98, 109, 115, 126, 127, 143, 163, 186, 187, 199, 244, 245, 246, 289, 294, 295, 296, 299, 302, 303, 305, 306, 318, 321, 323, 469 Jones, PR…161, 469 Joubert, SJ…254, 414, 469 Judge, EA…86, 470 Kampling, R…313, 314, 315, 470 Käsemann, E…36, 338, 470 Keck, LE…18, 470 Keener, CS…96, 112, 138, 215, 244, 313, 318, 346, 470 Kelly, AJ…113, 470 Kelly, W…310, 311, 322, 470 Kim, C-H…335, 470 Kirk, A…416, 470 Kistemaker, SJ…244, 245, 304, 306, 315, 322, 470 Klauck, H-J…1, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 24, 26, 29, 33, 34, 36, 39, 47, 48, 50, 51, 58, 60, 61, 65, 66, 67, 72, 76, 77, 78, 84,

493

91, 92, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 106, 109, 111, 114, 115, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 136, 140, 142, 148, 150, 151, 152, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 172, 174, 178, 198, 199, 207, 216, 234, 242, 244, 245, 248, 249, 250, 251, 258, 308, 353, 422, 470 Kloppenborg, JS…317, 368, 369, 470 Klosinski, LE…160, 470 Konradt, M…1, 271, 351, 356, 470 Konstan, D…86, 470 Kruse, CG…25, 37, 49, 98, 109, 133, 146, 225, 299, 304, 305, 307, 310, 313, 314, 315, 316, 319, 353, 425, 470 Kysar, R…1, 9, 33, 51, 84, 124, 163, 164, 470 Lacey, WK…223, 470 Laney, JC…106, 109, 469 Lange, JP…115, 320, 321, 470 Lassen, EM…58, 60, 63, 470 Lattke, M…112, 470 Laubach, T…16, 469 Law, R…140, 157, 470 Lenski, RCH…311, 312, 470 Leutzsch, M…353, 470 Levine, B…65, 470 Liddell, HG…73, 74, 90, 94, 106, 111, 119, 128, 149, 150, 183, 184, 189, 243, 297, 323, 326, 340, 439, 470 Lietaert Peerbolte, LJ…305, 470 Lieu, JM…1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 31, 37, 38, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 71, 72, 73, 89, 90, 94, 95, 111, 113, 114, 115, 121, 131, 133, 135, 142, 144, 145, 147, 152, 153, 155, 158, 163, 164, 168, 170, 172, 199, 215, 216, 217, 220, 222, 223, 224, 227, 233, 236, 244, 247, 248, 249, 262, 270, 274, 279, 287, 288, 289, 293, 305, 306, 307, 318, 319, 320, 323, 324, 353, 368, 379, 380, 421, 422, 442, 444, 471 Lincoln, AT…65, 192, 193, 444, 471 Ling, TJM…254, 471 Lingad, CG…13, 39, 84, 471

494

Index of Modern Authors

Loader, WRG…147, 149, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 172, 192, 262, 404, 471 Lorencin, I…335, 337, 340, 344, 346, 347, 350, 471 Louw, JP…59, 73, 74, 79, 80, 90, 94, 97, 106, 111, 112, 119, 125, 128, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155, 167, 183, 184, 189, 197, 207, 244, 323, 326, 471 Lücke, F…312, 318, 320, 471 Luckmann, T…200, 206, 466 Luz, U…154, 155, 156, 471 Mack, BL…160, 411, 471 Malatesta, E…109, 125, 471 Malherbe, AJ…2, 5, 7, 8, 58, 85, 144, 201, 202, 205, 236, 258, 296, 300, 303, 307, 313, 314, 335, 336, 337, 339, 341, 342, 346, 349, 350, 352, 430, 431, 432, 471 Malik, K…208, 471 Malina, BJ…2, 58, 60, 61, 64, 112, 207, 208, 236, 266, 313, 314, 315, 316, 335, 336, 337, 342, 344, 347, 348, 357, 471, 472 Marshall, IH…9, 11, 31, 32, 35, 36, 45, 49, 90, 95, 106, 117, 148, 151, 153, 157, 159, 244, 245, 248, 250, 288, 289, 295, 299, 308, 336, 338, 342, 361, 472 Martyn, JL…13, 472 Marxsen, W…9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 216, 217, 223, 367, 368, 395, 472 Mauss, M…341, 472 Mayer, W…5, 7, 465 McNamara, M…170, 472 Meeks, WA…16, 18, 53, 135, 251, 472 Melberg, A…409, 472 Menken, MJJ…1, 4, 9, 10, 15, 31, 33, 37, 39, 40, 49, 61, 72, 77, 109, 197, 198, 199, 234, 242, 244, 245, 247, 289, 300, 305, 306, 307, 309, 318, 328, 354, 361, 422, 472 Metzger, BM…89, 294, 472 Mills, DW…218, 472 Mitchell, MM…335, 337, 341, 412, 472 Mizzoni, J…233, 407, 408, 472 Mönnig, HO…18, 472

Morgan, T…19, 62, 82, 87, 94, 98, 166, 207, 212, 254, 255, 258, 409, 411, 413, 415, 472 Motyer, S…444, 472 Nauck, W…36, 472 Neil, B…5, 7, 465 Neufeld, D…35, 37, 472 Neusner, J…89, 467 Newman, BM…94, 472 Neyrey, JH…61, 64, 207, 208, 236, 471 Nicklas, T…1, 472 Nida, EA…59, 73, 74, 79, 80, 90, 94, 97, 106, 111, 112, 119, 125, 128, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155, 167, 183, 184, 189, 197, 207, 244, 323, 326, 471, 472 Nightingale, A…411, 472 Nissen, J…192, 472 Nolland, J…154, 472 O’Cearbhalláin, S…130, 249, 472 Ogereau, JM…106, 107, 222, 310, 472 Olsson, B…114, 145, 166, 167, 185, 186, 189, 241, 242, 245, 265, 268, 472 O’Neill, JC…421, 473 Osiek, C…58, 445, 473 Owen, J…224, 467 Painter, J…1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 24, 25, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 47, 49, 51, 61, 64, 65, 66, 71, 72, 76, 77, 90, 94, 95, 98, 105, 109, 115, 123, 126, 127, 130, 143, 148, 152, 155, 157, 170, 197, 198, 199, 216, 219, 234, 242, 244, 257, 295, 296, 299, 300, 301, 303, 306, 307, 310, 315, 329, 337, 353, 371, 395, 422, 423, 427, 473 Panikulam, G…90, 109, 122, 473 Pardee, N…433, 473 Parker, R…416, 473 Parkin, A…254, 255, 473 Parsenios, GL…9, 10, 12, 23, 52, 109, 110, 200, 201, 238, 430, 473 Perdue, LG…203, 205, 430, 433, 468, 473 Perkins, P…1, 37, 52, 107, 112, 163, 165, 172, 216, 423, 473

Index of Modern Authors Pfeiffer, CF…106, 310, 473 Pieper, A…17, 473 Pilch, JJ…58, 60, 314, 315, 473 Piper, J…429, 473 Pitts, AW…88, 429, 431, 433, 473 Plummer, A…224, 310, 321, 473 Popkes, W…200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 429, 431, 432, 433, 434, 473 Porter, SE…429, 433, 473 Postlethwaite, N…413, 469 Price, RM…336, 473 Prostmeier, R…17, 473 Quell, G…112, 113, 115, 131, 165, 473 Quinn, JD…205, 429, 433, 473 Rawson, B…58, 64, 473 Rensberger, DK…2, 94, 128, 131, 289, 302, 304, 310, 318, 324, 335, 337, 339, 348, 353, 473 Rese, M…1, 163, 474 Reumann, J…93, 94, 474 Roberts, JW…58, 220, 474 Rohrbaugh, RL…112, 236, 472 Roitto, R…54, 474 Roloff, J…10, 474 Roth, AM…65, 474 Rusam, D…34, 37, 61, 106, 107, 109, 110, 124, 131, 133, 421, 474 Sabourin, L…106, 474 Sahlins, MD…413, 474 Sanders, JT…164, 166, 474 Scheffler, E…254, 474 Schenk, W…1, 297, 474 Schlier, H…144, 146, 158, 474 Schmeller, T…17, 18, 474 Schmid, H…11, 37, 39, 50, 200, 224, 248, 249, 250, 423, 474 Schnackenburg, R…1, 2, 4, 9, 11, 31, 33, 48, 49, 59, 61, 64, 65, 72, 73, 76, 77, 79, 90, 97, 106, 109, 110, 114, 116, 123, 126, 127, 128, 130, 131, 132, 136, 138, 140, 148, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 159, 162, 178, 199, 200, 213, 233, 242, 245, 246, 251, 270, 289, 294, 295, 297, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 308, 309, 319,

495

320, 321, 324, 328, 335, 337, 338, 342, 346, 349, 354, 361, 422, 428, 474 Schnelle, U…1, 2, 9, 12, 13, 24, 38, 44, 45, 48, 49, 73, 82, 113, 114, 116, 118, 121, 127, 130, 131, 141, 144, 145, 151, 152, 158, 187, 189, 190, 191, 192, 198, 206, 209, 215, 218, 220, 222, 224, 225, 244, 272, 293, 299, 302, 306, 308, 323, 326, 328, 335, 336, 337, 339, 340, 342, 343, 349, 353, 354, 356, 358, 359, 360, 375, 376, 422, 474 Scholtissek, K…58, 61, 72, 73, 445, 475 Schreiner, J…313, 314, 315, 470 Schrenk, G…63, 94, 474 Schrot, G…63, 474 Schwartz, S…86, 87, 171, 413, 414, 415, 416, 475 Scott, R…73, 74, 90, 94, 106, 111, 119, 128, 149, 150, 183, 184, 189, 243, 297, 323, 326, 340, 439, 471 Scullion, JJ…93, 94, 475 Seaford, R…87, 126, 413, 414, 416, 469, 475 Sedley, D…96, 475 Seesemann, H…106, 475 Segovia, FF…37, 41, 145, 171, 475 Senior, D…13, 475 Shelton, J-A…62, 64, 475 Sitzler, S…256, 465 Smalley, SS…1, 9, 23, 25, 31, 32, 37, 48, 49, 73, 80, 85, 89, 90, 91, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 133, 139, 140, 142, 143, 148, 150, 151, 153, 155, 156, 157, 164, 168, 173, 191, 198, 199, 243, 244, 245, 246, 248, 288, 289, 295, 296, 299, 300, 301, 303, 304, 305, 308, 310, 311, 313, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 324, 335, 343, 349, 353, 425, 475 Smith, D…312, 313, 318, 319, 475 Smith, DE…160, 475 Smith, DM…289, 475 Snodderley, ME…2, 475 Söding, T…1, 113, 145, 475 Sörbom, G…410, 411, 475

496

Index of Modern Authors

Sorokin, PA…18, 475 Spence-Jones, HDM…312, 475 Spencer, PE…416, 475 Sproston North, WE…10, 475 Stählin, G…107, 475 Stambaugh, J…58, 475 Starr, J…202, 203, 204, 429, 431, 432, 475 Stauffer, E…111, 115, 117, 125, 131, 132, 165, 166, 169, 475 Stegemann, E…413, 475 Stegemann, W…413, 475 Steward-Sykes, A…429, 431, 475 Stott, JRW…105, 109, 225, 475 Stowers, SK…9, 200, 201, 202, 203, 430, 432, 433, 475 Strecker, G…9, 48, 49, 50, 64, 65, 67, 77, 91, 97, 98, 99, 114, 115, 116, 117, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 146, 152, 153, 170, 178, 200, 225, 244, 247, 248, 250, 297, 298, 299, 300, 302, 303, 304, 305, 310, 319, 328, 338, 344, 349, 361, 374, 425, 475, 476 Streett, DR…31, 36, 38, 50, 289, 302, 303, 305, 405, 421, 422, 476 Stuhlmacher, P…121, 176, 476 Swellengrebel, JL…24, 49, 80, 91, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 108, 110, 115, 126, 127, 143, 148, 150, 152, 157, 172, 198, 199, 244, 245, 299, 302, 303, 309, 315, 469 Taeger, JW…338, 476 Talbert, C…412, 476 Thatcher, T…23, 31, 32, 33, 163, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 216, 305, 476 Theißen, G…17, 476 Thomas, JC…225, 342, 476 Thompson, MM…404, 476 Thurén, L…201, 430, 476 Thyen, H…9, 15, 31, 34, 35, 36, 38, 335, 337, 338, 339, 388, 476 Tomson, PJ…193, 476 Topel, J…416, 476

Trebilco, P…61, 86, 88, 99, 125, 447, 476 Tuckett, CM…252, 476 Turner, GA…61, 430, 476 Ulrich, HG…17, 476 Van der Merwe, DG…1, 2, 18, 54, 106, 110, 476 Van der Watt, JG…1, 2, 9, 12, 33, 48, 54, 58, 59, 61, 68, 85, 89, 110, 112, 142, 168, 201, 216, 223, 264, 291, 324, 337, 339, 354, 376, 385, 389, 390, 391, 392, 400, 402, 404, 445, 476, 477 Van Leeuwen, RC…233, 477 Van Wees, H…413, 414, 415, 477 Verhey, A…193, 477 Veyne, P…257, 477 Vincent, MR…106, 108, 109, 477 Visotzky, BL…320, 477 Vogler, W…152, 155, 477 Von Wahlde, UC…1, 9, 185, 214, 219, 220, 224, 241, 337, 421, 478 Walls, D…322, 478 Watson, DF…39, 295, 298, 303, 307, 315, 328, 478 Wendt, HH…304, 338, 341, 478 Wengst, K…25, 31, 37, 41, 42, 117, 119, 124, 132, 144, 159, 164, 193, 337, 390, 391, 422, 423, 478 Westcott, BF…97, 98, 114, 115, 153, 245, 478 Wheeler, SE…48, 148, 478 Whitlark, JA…414, 478 Windisch, H…36, 199, 478 Wischmeyer, O…2, 112, 478 Witherington, B…159, 412, 478 Wolter, M…16, 17, 18, 107, 133, 200, 233, 429, 433, 478 Wurm, A…422, 478 Yarborough, RW…156, 157, 478 Zahn, T…337, 478 Zimmermann, R…16, 53, 68, 478