They Went Out from Us: The Identity of the Opponents in First John 3110247704, 9783110247701

Table of contents :
Foreword
Table of Contents
Introduction
Chapter 1: Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John
I. The Basic Questions
II. Five Views of the Opponents
III. Ultra-Johannine Opponents
A. The Role of the Johannine Community Hypothesis
B. Reconstructions of the Community’s History
C. Weaknesses of the Ultra-Johannine Theory
IV. Gnostic Opponents
A. Exegetical Basis for the Theory of Gnostic Opponents
B. Weaknesses with the Theory of Gnostic Opponents
1. Dating Issues
2. Methodological Issues
3. Gnostic Use of 1 John
4. The Definition Debate
a. Methods of Definition
b. The Messina Definition
c. Two Recent Contributions
d. Earlier Challenges
e. Incipient Gnosticism?
C. Conclusion
V. Docetic Opponents
A. Exegetical Basis for the Theory of Docetic Opponents
1. Explicitly Anti-Docetic Passages
2. Implicitly Anti-Docetic Passages
B. Types of Docetism
1. Monophysite Theories
a. Marcion and Saturninus
b. The Opponents of Ignatius of Antioch
c. The Acts of John
d. Other Texts
2. Ouranosarkic Theories
3. Replacement Theories
C. Origins of Docetism
1. Greek Dualism
2. High Christology
3. Christological Prophecy
D. Weaknesses with the Theory of Docetic Opponents
VI. Cerinthian Opponents
A. Exegetical Basis for the Theory of Cerinthian Opponents
B. Ancient Evidence for Cerinthianism and Johannine Anti-Cerinthianism
1. Epistula Apostolorum
2. Irenaeus
3. Hippolytus
4. Pseudo-Tertullian
5. Victorinus
6. Dionysius of Alexandria
7. Eusebius
8. Epiphanius
C. Scholarly Reconstructions of Cerinthus
1. Cerinthus the Chiliast
2. Cerinthus the Gnostic
3. Cerinthus the Jewish Gnostic
D. Weaknesses of the Theory of Cerinthian Opponents
1. The Dearth of Reliable Ancient Evidence
2. The Questionable Relevance of the Ancient Evidence
3. Other Possible Separationist Opponents
VII. Opponents Who Devalue Jesus
A. Exegetical Basis for the Theory of Opponents who Devalue Jesus
1. Raymond Brown’s Reconstruction
2. Urban Von Wahlde’s Reconstruction
B. Weaknesses of the Theory of Opponents who Devalue Jesus
1. Weaknesses of Brown’s Proposal
2. Weaknesses of Von Wahlde’s Proposal
VIII. Jewish Opponents
A. The Exegetical Basis for the Theory of Jewish Opponents
B. Previous Contributions to the Jewish Apostate View
1. Alois Wurm
2. J. C. O’Neill
3. Hartwig Thyen
4. Dietrich Rusam
5. Terry Griffith
6. Birger Olsson
7. Ben Witherington
C. Objections to the Jewish Apostate View
1. The Opponents are “Christians”
2. The Non-Jewish Context of the Epistles
3. The Lack of Scriptural Citations
IX. Conclusion
Chapter 2: The Methodology of Mirror-Reading
I. The Maximalist Mirror-Reading Approach
A. Kenneth Grayston’s Reconstruction
B. Raymond Brown’s Reconstruction
C. The Interpretive Logic of Maximalist Mirror-Readings of 1 John
II. An Alternative Approach
A. The Limited Role of the Secession in the Letter
B. The Generalized Nature of the Warnings
C. Pastoral Discourse in 1 John 2:18–27
D. The Preventative Nature of the Warnings in 1 John 4:1–6
E. The Reassuring Rhetoric of 1 John 5:6
F. The Pastoral Intent of the Ethical Instruction
G. The Illegitimacy of the Schlagwörter Approach
H. The Use and Misuse of Historical Parallels
I. A Call for Restraint and Realism
III. Conclusion
Chapter 3: 1 John 2:18–27: Jesus is the Messiah
I. Major Interpretations of this Passage
A. Anti-Cerinthian
B. Weaknesses of the Anti-Cerinthian View
C. Anti-Docetist
D. Weaknesses of the Anti-Docetist View
E. Against Devaluation of Jesus
F. Weaknesses of the Anti-Devaluation View
G. Anti-Ebionite
H. Weaknesses of the Anti-Ebionite View
II. An Alternative: Jewish-Christian Apostates
A. The Eschatological Setting of the Secession (v. 18)
B. The Secession and its Purpose (v. 19)
C. Anointing and Knowledge (vv. 20-21)
1. Reassurance of the Audience’s Status
2. The Anointing from the Holy One
D. The Antichrists’ Denial (vv. 22-23)
1. Truth and Falsehood in the Eschatological Crisis
2. Proper Relation to the Father Depends upon Confession of the Son
3. The Main Issue: Jesus’ Messiahship
E. Maintaining the Original Message (vv. 24-25)
1. The Nature of the Message
2. The Beginning
F. Further Reassurance (vv. 26-27)
G. Summary
III. Conclusion
Chapter 4: 1 John 4:1-6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh
I. Opposing Overspiritualized Christianity
II. Opposing Anti-Sacramentalism
III. Opposing Cerinthian Christology
A. Not Confessing “Jesus”
B. The Text-Critical Question in 1 John 4:3
C. Weaknesses of the Anti-Cerinthian Interpretation
1. The Meaning of Xqictoc
2. Could a Cerinthian Confess Inaoüv Xqictov èv aaQKi eAnAuGoxa?
3. Does the Perfect Tense Indicate Permanence?
IV. Opposing Docetic Christology
A. Early Anti-Docetic Interpretation of 1 John 4:2
1. Polycarp
2. Tertullian
3. Third Corinthians
B. Weaknesses of the Anti-Docetic Interpretation
1. Grammatical Issues
2. The Use of “Jesus” in 4:3
3. Methodological Issues
4. The Value of Early Interpretations of 1 John 4:2
5. The Brevity, Lack of Elaboration, and Obscurity of the Confession
6. Docetist Confessions of the Flesh of Jesus Christ
a. Ways of Affirming the Incarnation Docetically
b. The Excerpta ex Theodoto
c. The Gospel of Philip
d. The Tripartite Tractate
e. The Treatise on the Resurrection
f. The Trimorphic Protennoia
g. The Gospel of Thomas
7. A Possible Response
8. Non-Polemical Parallels to 1 John 4:2
a. Romans 1:3–4
b. Romans 8:3
c. Romans 9:5
d. First Timothy 3:16
e. First Peter 3:18, 22
f. Other NT Texts
g. ? Psalmic Source?
h. The Epistle of Barnabas
i. The Testament of Benjamin
j. Gnostic Texts
k. “In Flesh” as Simple Presence
l. Conclusion
V. Opposing the Devaluation of the Earthly Life of Jesus
A. The Meaning of “Flesh”
B. The Meaning of “Coming”
C. Not Confessing Jesus
D. The Johannine Origins of the Opponents’ Error
1. Overemphasis on Pre-Existence
2. Overemphasis on the Spirit
E. The Ethical Byproduct of Devaluing Jesus
VI. Opposing the Devaluation of the Death of Jesus
A. “Coming in the Flesh” as Death
B. Overemphasis on Jesus’ Baptism
C. Ethical Implications
D. Relationship of 1 John 4:2 to Other Opponent Passages in the Letter
E. Weaknesses of the Anti-Devaluation View
1. An Unlikely Interpretation of “Coming in Flesh”
2. “Coming in Flesh” Does Not Refer to Jesus’ Death
3. A Johannine Origin for the Opponents’ View?
4. Is 1 John 4:2 an Expanded Confession?
5. The Use of “Jesus” in 1 John 4:3
VII. An Alternative Interpretation
A. The Immediate Context
B. Testing the Spirits (v. 1)
1. Testing the Spirits in Other Early Christian Texts
2. The Apocalyptic Setting
3. The Mission of the False Prophets
4. The OT Background of Testing the Prophets
C. The Criteria of Testing (vv. 2-3)
D. Assurance of Victory (v. 4)
E. The World’s Reception of the False Prophets (vv. 5-6)
F. The Confession of 4:2-3 in Context
1. The Confession Deals with the Foundational Belief of the Community
2. The Confession is the Community’s Original Confession
3. The Confession is Materially the Same as That of 2:22
G. The Grammar of the Confession
1. The Use of Χριστός
2. Χριστός as a Title
3. The Lack of the Article
a. John 9:22
b. Other Anarthrous Parallels
c. Second-Century Evidence
d. Evidence from Ancient Titulature
e. The Compressed Character of Confessions
4. Where is the Emphasis?
a. The Participial Grammar
b. The Confession of “Jesus”
c. The Role of èv craoKL
5. The Confessional Character of 1 John 4:2
6. The Primitive and Catholic Character of 1 John 4:2
7. The Confession of the Coming Messiah in the Fourth Gospel
H. The Identity of the Opponents in 1 John 4:1-6
1. Methodological Caution in Mirror-Reading 1 John 4:1-6
2. The Opponents as Visiting Jewish Prophets
3. Are the False Prophets Secessionists?
4. The Reuse of the Fourth Gospel’s Polemic
VIII. Conclusion
Chapter 5: 1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah
I. Against Docetism
A. “Water and Blood” Refers to Real Physical Birth
1. Water and Blood in Ancient Reproductive Science
2. A Variation: “Water” = Physical Birth
B. “Water and Blood” Refers to Real Physical Death
C. Weaknesses of the Anti-Docetic Interpretation
1. Problems with the Mandaean Parallel
2. Problems with the Parallel in the Acts of John
3. Blood and Water in Other Docetic Texts
4. Lack of Evidence for “Water and Blood” as Birth
5. Anti-docetism and John 19:34–35
6. The Role of the Spirit
7. Water and Blood as Witnesses
II. Against Anti-Sacramentalism
A. The Symbolic Use of Water and Blood for the Sacraments
B. Polemic against Anti-Sacramentalism
C. Water-only Eucharists in the Early Church
D. Weaknesses of the Sacramental Interpretation
1. The Role of the Spirit
2. The Witnessing Function
3. Are Sacraments an Issue in the Secession?
4. Grammatical Problems
5. Blood as the Eucharist?
6. Invalid Historical Parallels
III. Against Cerinthianism
A. D. A. Carson’s Proposal
B. Does 1 John Partially Support Cerinthus?
C. Weaknesses of the Anti-Cerinthian Reading
1. Does First John Affirm Adoptionism?
2. Problems with Carson’s Proposal
3. The Witness Motif
4. History of Interpretation
5. The Brevity of the Passage
IV. Against the Devaluation of Jesus’ Death
A. The Relationship between Baptism and Death
B. Brown’s Ultra-Johannine Opponents
1. The Author’s Response to the Opponents
C. Jesus as Baptizer
1. The Opponents’ Baptismal Triumphalism
2. The Author’s Reponse to the Opponents
D. Problems with the Anti-Devaluation of Death View
1. Was Jesus’ Death the Central Issue of the Secession?
2. The Testimonial Role of the Water and Blood
3. Does Water Symbolize Baptism in the Holy Spirit?
4. Is the Spirit at Issue in the Secession?
5. Problems with Brown’s View of the Secession
6. Problems with Boer’s View
V. Against Followers of John the Baptist
A. The Existence of a Baptist Sect
B. John Baptized “In Water”
C. Was Messianic Status Claimed for John the Baptist?
D. The Witness Motif and John the Baptist
E. Problems with the Anti-John the Baptist View
1. The Weakness of the Evidence from Acts 19
2. The Lack of Any Explicit Reference to John the Baptist in 1 John
VI. A Non-Polemical, Legal-Messianic Proposal
A. Non-Polemical
1. The Lack of Polemical Features
2. Amplificatio in 1 John 5:6
3. Its Jewish Legal Context
a. Two or Three Witnesses in 1 John 5
b. Two or Three Witnesses in John 8
4. The Non-Polemical Reception of 1 John 5:6
B. The Purpose of the Witnesses
1. A Contextual Reading of the Blood and Water
2. Water, Blood and Spirit as Pointers to Jesus as Messiah
3. The Connection to the Fourth Gospel’s Confessional Core
4. The Witness Motif in the Fourth Gospel
5. The Witness Motif in 1 John
C. The Meaning of the Water, Blood and Spirit
1. A Strategy for Understanding Their Reference
2. The Meaning of the Water
a. The Baptism of Jesus or the Baptism by Jesus?
b. The Important Role of Jesus’ Baptism by John
3. The Meaning of the Blood
a. Blood as a Reference to Death
b. “Blood” as Sacrificial Death
c. Sacrificial Imagery in John 19
d. Jesus as Priest in the Fourth Gospel
e. Blood and Water in Jewish Midrash
4. Jesus’ Sacrificial Death as a Witness to his Messiahship
a. Messianic Titles and Sacrifice in the Fourth Gospel
b. Messianic Prophecies Fulfilled in Jesus’ Sacrificial Death
c. Messiah and Sacrifice Elsewhere in the NT
d. Water and Blood as the Termini of the Messianic Mission
5. The Role of the Spirit
a. The Spirit in First John
b. The Spirit in the Fourth Gospel
c. The Witnessing Spirit in the Rest of the NT
6. The Contrast Between Human and Divine Testimony
a. The Three Witnesses as Human Testimony
b. Blood and Water as Human Testimony, Spirit as Divine Testimony
c. Water as Human Testimony, Blood and Spirit as Divine Testimony
d. The Three Witnesses as Divine Testimony
VII. Conclusion
Chapter 6: 2 John 4-11: The Teaching about the Messiah
I. The Love Commandment (vv. 4-6)
II. The Mission of the Antichrists and Deceivers (v. 7)
A. “Going Out”
B. “Not Confessing”
C. The Meaning of the Present Tense ἐρχόμενον
1. A Chiliastic Controversy?
2. A Present or Future Reference?
3. Interchangeable with the Perfect Tense
4. Formulaic Phraseology
5. Evidence of Translation
III. The Need to Abide (vv. 8-9)
A. The Meaning of ô προάγων
1. “Progressive”
2. Problems with the “Progressive” Reading
3. Other Possible Interpretations
B. ἡ διδαχὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ
1. What Christ Taught
2. The Teaching about the Messiah
IV. Instructions Concerning Visiting Teachers (vv. 10–11)
V. Conclusion
Conclusion
Bibliography
Index
Subjects
Modern Authors
Ancient Sources

Citation preview

Daniel R. Streett They went out from us

Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

Herausgegeben von

James D. G. Dunn · Carl R. Holladay Hermann Lichtenberger · Jens Schröter Gregory E. Sterling · Michael Wolter

Band 177

De Gruyter

Daniel R. Streett

They went out from us The Identity of the Opponents in First John

De Gruyter

ISBN 978-3-11-024770-1 e-ISBN 978-3-11-024771-8 ISSN 0171-6441 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Streett, Daniel R. They went out from us : the Identity of the Opponents in First John / Daniel R. Streett. p. cm. - (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, ISSN 0171-6441 ; Bd. 177) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-3-11-024770-1 (hardcover 23 ¥ 15,5 : alk. paper) 1. Bible. N.T. Epistle of John, 1st - Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Discernment (Christian theology). 3. Spiritual warfare. I. Title. BS2805.52.S77 2010 2271.9406-dc22 2010044275

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. ” 2011 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/New York Printing: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ⬁ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

τῇ γυναικί μου συγκληρονόμῳ χάριτος ζωῆς. γνήσια σύζυγός μοι εἶ σύ.

Foreword The present work is a revised version of my 2008 dissertation. I wish to thank the following people for the part each has played in bringing this work to its present publication: my adviser, Andreas Köstenberger, who modeled the discipline and attention to detail essential to good academic writing, and supported my research even when he may not have been totally convinced; my second examiner, L. Scott Kellum, who offered many helpful suggestions and critiques; Judy Gundry, who has been a constant source of sage professional advice and encouragement, and who recommended that I pursue publication with DeGruyter; Albrecht Döhnert of DeGruyter, who accepted my thesis for publication in the BZNW series; the anonymous readers for the BZNW series, who provided many helpful comments; Jerry Johnson, who hired me in 2005 to teach at Criswell College and graciously arranged a lighter initial teaching load to allow me to complete much of the research for this work; my brother, Andrew Streett, who served as a sounding board for many of the ideas presented below; my parents, Alan and Lynn Streett, who instilled in me from a young age a love of reading and research, and who proofread the entire work; and finally, to my wife, Renée, who lovingly and patiently endured two years of research and writing at the beginning of our marriage, who carefully proofread the entire work and compiled most of the indices, and to whom I joyfully dedicate this book. Daniel R. Streett September 10, 2010

Table of Contents Foreword ................................................................................................... vii Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 1: Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John ............... 5 I. The Basic Questions ................................................................................ 5 II. Five Views of the Opponents ............................................................... 6 III. Ultra-Johannine Opponents ................................................................ 8 A. The Role of the Johannine Community Hypothesis ................ 11 B. Reconstructions of the Community’s History ........................... 13 C. Weaknesses of the Ultra-Johannine Theory .............................. 16 IV. Gnostic Opponents ............................................................................. 19 A. Exegetical Basis for the Theory of Gnostic Opponents ............ 20 B. Weaknesses with the Theory of Gnostic Opponents ................ 22 1. Dating Issues ......................................................................... 22 2. Methodological Issues ......................................................... 23 3. Gnostic Use of 1 John ........................................................... 24 4. The Definition Debate .......................................................... 25 a. Methods of Definition ..................................................... 27 b. The Messina Definition ................................................... 28 c. Two Recent Contributions .............................................. 29 d. Earlier Challenges ........................................................... 32 e. Incipient Gnosticism? ...................................................... 33 C. Conclusion ..................................................................................... 35 V. Docetic Opponents ............................................................................... 35 A. Exegetical Basis for the Theory of Docetic Opponents ............ 37 1. Explicitly Anti-Docetic Passages ........................................ 37 2. Implicitly Anti-Docetic Passages ........................................ 38 B. Types of Docetism ......................................................................... 38 1. Monophysite Theories ......................................................... 38 a. Marcion and Saturninus ................................................. 39 b. The Opponents of Ignatius of Antioch ......................... 40

x

Table of Contents

c. The Acts of John ................................................................. d. Other Texts ....................................................................... 2. Ouranosarkic Theories ......................................................... 3. Replacement Theories .......................................................... C. Origins of Docetism ...................................................................... 1. Greek Dualism ...................................................................... 2. High Christology .................................................................. 3. Christological Prophecy ....................................................... D. Weaknesses with the Theory of Docetic Opponents ................ VI. Cerinthian Opponents ........................................................................ A. Exegetical Basis for the Theory of Cerinthian Opponents ...... B. Ancient Evidence for Cerinthianism and Johannine Anti-Cerinthianism ...................................................................... 1. Epistula Apostolorum ............................................................. 2. Irenaeus .................................................................................. 3. Hippolytus ............................................................................. 4. Pseudo-Tertullian ................................................................. 5. Victorinus .............................................................................. 6. Dionysius of Alexandria ...................................................... 7. Eusebius ................................................................................. 8. Epiphanius ............................................................................. C. Scholarly Reconstructions of Cerinthus ..................................... 1. Cerinthus the Chiliast .......................................................... 2. Cerinthus the Gnostic .......................................................... 3. Cerinthus the Jewish Gnostic .............................................. D. Weaknesses of the Theory of Cerinthian Opponents ............... 1. The Dearth of Reliable Ancient Evidence ......................... 2. The Questionable Relevance of the Ancient Evidence .... 3. Other Possible Separationist Opponents ........................... VII. Opponents Who Devalue Jesus ....................................................... A. Exegetical Basis for the Theory of Opponents who Devalue Jesus ....................................................................... 1. Raymond Brown’s Reconstruction .................................... 2. Urban Von Wahlde’s Reconstruction ................................ B. Weaknesses of the Theory of Opponents who Devalue Jesus . 1. Weaknesses of Brown’s Proposal ....................................... 2. Weaknesses of Von Wahlde’s Proposal ............................. VIII. Jewish Opponents ............................................................................ A. The Exegetical Basis for the Theory of Jewish Opponents ...... B. Previous Contributions to the Jewish Apostate View .............. 1. Alois Wurm ........................................................................... 2. J. C. O’Neill ............................................................................

44 45 46 47 48 49 49 50 50 53 54 56 56 57 59 60 61 62 63 63 65 65 66 67 68 69 72 74 77 79 79 82 86 86 89 90 91 92 92 94

Table of Contents

xi

3. Hartwig Thyen ...................................................................... 96 4. Dietrich Rusam ..................................................................... 96 5. Terry Griffith ......................................................................... 97 6. Birger Olsson ......................................................................... 98 7. Ben Witherington ................................................................ 100 C. Objections to the Jewish Apostate View .................................. 102 1. The Opponents are “Christians” ...................................... 102 2. The Non-Jewish Context of the Epistles .......................... 104 3. The Lack of Scriptural Citations ....................................... 107 IX. Conclusion ......................................................................................... 110 Chapter 2: The Methodology of Mirror-Reading ............................... 112 I. The Maximalist Mirror-Reading Approach ..................................... A. Kenneth Grayston’s Reconstruction ......................................... B. Raymond Brown’s Reconstruction ............................................ C. The Interpretive Logic of Maximalist Mirror-Readings of 1 John ....................................................................................... II. An Alternative Approach ................................................................. A. The Limited Role of the Secession in the Letter ...................... B. The Generalized Nature of the Warnings ................................ C. Pastoral Discourse in 1 John 2:18–27 ........................................ D. The Preventative Nature of the Warnings in 1 John 4:1–6 .... E. The Reassuring Rhetoric of 1 John 5:6 ...................................... F. The Pastoral Intent of the Ethical Instruction .......................... G. The Illegitimacy of the Schlagwörter Approach ..................... H. The Use and Misuse of Historical Parallels ............................. I. A Call for Restraint and Realism ................................................ III. Conclusion .........................................................................................

113 113 114 116 118 118 119 120 122 123 123 126 128 129 131

Chapter 3: 1 John 2:18–27: Jesus is the Messiah .................................. 132 I. Major Interpretations of this Passage ............................................... A. Anti-Cerinthian ........................................................................... B. Weaknesses of the Anti-Cerinthian View ................................ C. Anti-Docetist ................................................................................ D. Weaknesses of the Anti-Docetist View .................................... E. Against Devaluation of Jesus ..................................................... F. Weaknesses of the Anti-Devaluation View .............................. G. Anti-Ebionite ............................................................................... H. Weaknesses of the Anti-Ebionite View .................................... II. An Alternative: Jewish-Christian Apostates .................................. A. The Eschatological Setting of the Secession (v. 18) .................

133 133 134 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 142

xii

Table of Contents

B. The Secession and its Purpose (v. 19) ....................................... C. Anointing and Knowledge (vv. 20–21) .................................... 1. Reassurance of the Audience’s Status .............................. 2. The Anointing from the Holy One ................................... D. The Antichrists’ Denial (vv. 22–23) ........................................... 1. Truth and Falsehood in the Eschatological Crisis .......... 2. Proper Relation to the Father Depends upon Confession of the Son ......................................................... 3. The Main Issue: Jesus’ Messiahship ................................. E. Maintaining the Original Message (vv. 24–25) ........................ 1. The Nature of the Message ................................................ 2. The Beginning ..................................................................... F. Further Reassurance (vv. 26–27) ................................................ G. Summary ...................................................................................... III. Conclusion .........................................................................................

146 150 150 151 155 155 156 157 166 167 168 169 171 171

Chapter 4: 1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh ................. 173 I. Opposing Overspiritualized Christianity ........................................ II. Opposing Anti-Sacramentalism ....................................................... III. Opposing Cerinthian Christology .................................................. A. Not Confessing “Jesus” .............................................................. B. The Text-Critical Question in 1 John 4:3 ................................... C. Weaknesses of the Anti-Cerinthian Interpretation ................. 1. The Meaning of Χριστός .................................................... 2. Could a Cerinthian Confess Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα? ........................................................... 3. Does the Perfect Tense Indicate Permanence? ................ IV. Opposing Docetic Christology ........................................................ A. Early Anti-Docetic Interpretation of 1 John 4:2 ....................... 1. Polycarp ............................................................................... 2. Tertullian ............................................................................. 3. Third Corinthians ................................................................. B. Weaknesses of the Anti-Docetic Interpretation ....................... 1. Grammatical Issues ............................................................ 2. The Use of “Jesus” in 4:3 .................................................... 3. Methodological Issues ....................................................... 4. The Value of Early Interpretations of 1 John 4:2 ............ 5. The Brevity, Lack of Elaboration, and Obscurity of the Confession .......................................................................... 6. Docetist Confessions of the Flesh of Jesus Christ ........... a. Ways of Affirming the Incarnation Docetically .........

174 176 176 178 178 180 180 181 181 183 185 185 187 188 189 189 192 193 194 196 198 198

Table of Contents

b. The Excerpta ex Theodoto ................................................ c. The Gospel of Philip .......................................................... d. The Tripartite Tractate ..................................................... e. The Treatise on the Resurrection ...................................... f. The Trimorphic Protennoia ............................................... g. The Gospel of Thomas ...................................................... 7. A Possible Response ........................................................... 8. Non-Polemical Parallels to 1 John 4:2 .............................. a. Romans 1:3–4 .................................................................. b. Romans 8:3 ..................................................................... c. Romans 9:5 ...................................................................... d. First Timothy 3:16 .......................................................... e. First Peter 3:18, 22 .......................................................... f. Other NT Texts ............................................................... g. Α Psalmic Source? ......................................................... h. The Epistle of Barnabas ................................................... i. The Testament of Benjamin .............................................. j. Gnostic Texts ................................................................... k. “In Flesh” as Simple Presence ...................................... l. Conclusion ....................................................................... V. Opposing the Devaluation of the Earthly Life of Jesus ................ A. The Meaning of “Flesh” ............................................................. B. The Meaning of “Coming” ......................................................... C. Not Confessing Jesus .................................................................. D. The Johannine Origins of the Opponents’ Error ..................... 1. Overemphasis on Pre-Existence ....................................... 2. Overemphasis on the Spirit ............................................... E. The Ethical Byproduct of Devaluing Jesus ............................... VI. Opposing the Devaluation of the Death of Jesus ......................... A. “Coming in the Flesh” as Death ................................................ B. Overemphasis on Jesus’ Baptism .............................................. C. Ethical Implications .................................................................... D. Relationship of 1 John 4:2 to Other Opponent Passages in the Letter ................................................................................ E. Weaknesses of the Anti-Devaluation View .............................. 1. An Unlikely Interpretation of “Coming in Flesh” .......... 2. “Coming in Flesh” Does Not Refer to Jesus’ Death ....... 3. A Johannine Origin for the Opponents’ View? .............. 4. Is 1 John 4:2 an Expanded Confession? ........................... 5. The Use of “Jesus” in 1 John 4:3 ........................................ VII. An Alternative Interpretation ........................................................ A. The Immediate Context ..............................................................

xiii 199 200 200 201 201 202 203 204 204 206 207 207 211 212 213 214 215 216 216 217 218 218 219 219 220 220 221 221 222 222 223 224 224 225 225 226 226 227 227 228 228

xiv

Table of Contents

B. Testing the Spirits (v. 1) .............................................................. 1. Testing the Spirits in Other Early Christian Texts ......... 2. The Apocalyptic Setting ..................................................... 3. The Mission of the False Prophets .................................... 4. The OT Background of Testing the Prophets .................. C. The Criteria of Testing (vv. 2–3) ................................................ D. Assurance of Victory (v. 4) ........................................................ E. The World’s Reception of the False Prophets (vv. 5–6) .......... F. The Confession of 4:2–3 in Context ........................................... 1. The Confession Deals with the Foundational Belief of the Community ............................................................. 2. The Confession is the Community’s Original Confession ......................................................................... 3. The Confession is Materially the Same as That of 2:22 ................................................................................. G. The Grammar of the Confession ............................................... 1. The Use of Χριστός ............................................................. 2. Χριστός as a Title ................................................................ 3. The Lack of the Article ....................................................... a. John 9:22 .......................................................................... b. Other Anarthrous Parallels .......................................... c. Second-Century Evidence ............................................. d. Evidence from Ancient Titulature .............................. e. The Compressed Character of Confessions ................ 4. Where is the Emphasis? ..................................................... a. The Participial Grammar .............................................. b. The Confession of “Jesus” ............................................ c. The Role of ἐν σαρκί ..................................................... 5. The Confessional Character of 1 John 4:2 ........................ 6. The Primitive and Catholic Character of 1 John 4:2 ....... 7. The Confession of the Coming Messiah in the Fourth Gospel ............................................................. H. The Identity of the Opponents in 1 John 4:1–6 ....................... 1. Methodological Caution in Mirror-Reading 1 John 4:1–6 ......................................................................... 2. The Opponents as Visiting Jewish Prophets ................... 3. Are the False Prophets Secessionists? .............................. 4. The Reuse of the Fourth Gospel’s Polemic ...................... VIII. Conclusion ......................................................................................

229 230 231 231 232 234 235 236 238 238 239 239 240 241 241 243 243 244 244 245 246 246 247 247 248 248 249 250 250 251 251 253 254 255

Table of Contents

Chapter 5: 1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah ...... I. Against Docetism ................................................................................ A. “Water and Blood” Refers to Real Physical Birth ................... 1. Water and Blood in Ancient Reproductive Science ....... 2. A Variation: “Water” = Physical Birth ............................. B. “Water and Blood” Refers to Real Physical Death .................. C. Weaknesses of the Anti-Docetic Interpretation ...................... 1. Problems with the Mandaean Parallel ............................. 2. Problems with the Parallel in the Acts of John ................. 3. Blood and Water in Other Docetic Texts ......................... 4. Lack of Evidence for “Water and Blood” as Birth .......... 5. Anti-docetism and John 19:34–35 ..................................... 6. The Role of the Spirit .......................................................... 7. Water and Blood as Witnesses .......................................... II. Against Anti-Sacramentalism ........................................................... A. The Symbolic Use of Water and Blood for the Sacraments ... B. Polemic against Anti-Sacramentalism ...................................... C. Water-only Eucharists in the Early Church ............................. D. Weaknesses of the Sacramental Interpretation ....................... 1. The Role of the Spirit .......................................................... 2. The Witnessing Function ................................................... 3. Are Sacraments an Issue in the Secession? ...................... 4. Grammatical Problems ....................................................... 5. Blood as the Eucharist? ...................................................... 6. Invalid Historical Parallels ................................................ III. Against Cerinthianism ..................................................................... A. D. A. Carson’s Proposal ............................................................. B. Does 1 John Partially Support Cerinthus? ................................ C. Weaknesses of the Anti-Cerinthian Reading ........................... 1. Does First John Affirm Adoptionism? ............................. 2. Problems with Carson’s Proposal ..................................... 3. The Witness Motif ............................................................... 4. History of Interpretation .................................................... 5. The Brevity of the Passage ................................................. IV. Against the Devaluation of Jesus’ Death ....................................... A. The Relationship between Baptism and Death ....................... B. Brown’s Ultra-Johannine Opponents ........................................ 1. The Author’s Response to the Opponents ...................... C. Jesus as Baptizer .......................................................................... 1. The Opponents’ Baptismal Triumphalism ...................... 2. The Author’s Reponse to the Opponents ........................ D. Problems with the Anti-Devaluation of Death View .............

xv 256 258 258 258 260 261 263 263 264 265 266 266 267 268 268 270 270 271 272 272 273 273 274 274 275 276 276 277 279 280 281 282 283 284 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 290

xvi

Table of Contents

1. Was Jesus’ Death the Central Issue of the Secession? .... 2. The Testimonial Role of the Water and Blood ................ 3. Does Water Symbolize Baptism in the Holy Spirit? ...... 4. Is the Spirit at Issue in the Secession? .............................. 5. Problems with Brown’s View of the Secession ............... 6. Problems with Boer’s View ............................................... V. Against Followers of John the Baptist ............................................. A. The Existence of a Baptist Sect .................................................. B. John Baptized “In Water” ........................................................... C. Was Messianic Status Claimed for John the Baptist? ............. D. The Witness Motif and John the Baptist .................................. E. Problems with the Anti-John the Baptist View ....................... 1. The Weakness of the Evidence from Acts 19 .................. 2. The Lack of Any Explicit Reference to John the Baptist in 1 John ................................................................. VI. A Non-Polemical, Legal-Messianic Proposal ................................ A. Non-Polemical ............................................................................. 1. The Lack of Polemical Features ........................................ 2. Amplificatio in 1 John 5:6 .................................................... 3. Its Jewish Legal Context .................................................... a. Two or Three Witnesses in 1 John 5 ............................ b. Two or Three Witnesses in John 8 ............................... 4. The Non-Polemical Reception of 1 John 5:6 .................... B. The Purpose of the Witnesses .................................................... 1. A Contextual Reading of the Blood and Water .............. 2. Water, Blood and Spirit as Pointers to Jesus as Messiah .......................................................................... 3. The Connection to the Fourth Gospel’s Confessional Core .................................................................................... 4. The Witness Motif in the Fourth Gospel ......................... 5. The Witness Motif in 1 John .............................................. C. The Meaning of the Water, Blood and Spirit ........................... 1. A Strategy for Understanding Their Reference .............. 2. The Meaning of the Water ................................................. a. The Baptism of Jesus or the Baptism by Jesus? .......... b. The Important Role of Jesus’ Baptism by John .......... 3. The Meaning of the Blood ................................................. a. Blood as a Reference to Death ...................................... b. “Blood” as Sacrificial Death ......................................... c. Sacrificial Imagery in John 19 ....................................... d. Jesus as Priest in the Fourth Gospel ............................ e. Blood and Water in Jewish Midrash ...........................

290 291 291 292 292 293 294 295 296 297 297 298 298 299 300 300 301 301 302 303 303 304 305 305 306 307 308 309 310 310 311 311 312 314 314 315 317 319 321

Table of Contents

4. Jesus’ Sacrificial Death as a Witness to his Messiahship ...................................................................... a. Messianic Titles and Sacrifice in the Fourth Gospel . b. Messianic Prophecies Fulfilled in Jesus’ Sacrificial Death ............................................................ c. Messiah and Sacrifice Elsewhere in the NT ............... d. Water and Blood as the Termini of the Messianic Mission .......................................................................... 5. The Role of the Spirit .......................................................... a. The Spirit in First John .................................................. b. The Spirit in the Fourth Gospel ................................... c. The Witnessing Spirit in the Rest of the NT ............... 6. The Contrast Between Human and Divine Testimony .......................................................................... a. The Three Witnesses as Human Testimony ............... b. Blood and Water as Human Testimony, Spirit as Divine Testimony ..................................................... c. Water as Human Testimony, Blood and Spirit as Divine Testimony ..................................................... d. The Three Witnesses as Divine Testimony ................ VII. Conclusion ........................................................................................

xvii

322 322 323 325 326 328 328 330 332 333 333 334 334 335 336

Chapter 6: 2 John 4–11: The Teaching about the Messiah ................. 338 I. The Love Commandment (vv. 4–6) ................................................... II. The Mission of the Antichrists and Deceivers (v. 7) ...................... A. “Going Out” ................................................................................ B. “Not Confessing” ......................................................................... C. The Meaning of the Present Tense ἐρχόμενον ....................... 1. A Chiliastic Controversy? ................................................. 2. A Present or Future Reference? ........................................ 3. Interchangeable with the Perfect Tense ........................... 4. Formulaic Phraseology ...................................................... 5. Evidence of Translation ..................................................... III. The Need to Abide (vv. 8–9) ............................................................ A. The Meaning of ὁ προάγων ...................................................... 1. “Progressive” ...................................................................... 2. Problems with the “Progressive” Reading ...................... 3. Other Possible Interpretations .......................................... B. ἡ διδαχὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ................................................................. 1. What Christ Taught ............................................................ 2. The Teaching about the Messiah ......................................

339 340 341 342 343 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 349 350 352 354 354 355

xviii

Table of Contents

IV. Instructions Concerning Visiting Teachers (vv. 10–11) ............... 356 V. Conclusion .......................................................................................... 357 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 358 Bibliography ............................................................................................ 361 Index ......................................................................................................... Subjects .............................................................................................. Modern Authors ............................................................................... Ancient Sources ................................................................................

441 441 443 447

Introduction Perhaps the most basic question that any exegete must address when interpreting 1 John concerns the historical situation of the letter.1 In 1 John 2:18–27 the author2 mentions certain figures, whom he calls “antichrists” and “liars,” who have apparently left the community and denied some of its basic beliefs. Later, in 1 John 4:1–6 (and similarly, in 2 John 7–11), the author warns his audience about “false prophets” who do not confess “that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.” Other passages in the letter may also hint at the presence of opponents 3 (e.g., 1 John 5:6). Many scholars have mined both the Epistle and later patristic evidence for clues to the identity of the opponents. 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.

1

2

3

While it is almost universally acknowledged that 1 John lacks some of the key elements of a conventional letter or epistle, and is therefore perhaps better understood as a “treatise,” “tractate,” or “church order,” I will refer to it by its canonical designation as a letter or epistle, without thereby implying any judgment as to its genre. For discussion of the genre of 1 John, see J. V. Hills, “A Genre for 1 John,” in The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester (ed. B. A. Pearson and A. T. Kraabel; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 367–77; Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John (AB 30; Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1982), 86–92; Georg Strecker, The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John (Hermeneia; trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 3; John Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John (SP 18; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2002), 37–48. Throughout this work, I will refer to the “author” of 1 John or the Fourth Gospel, rather than to “John” or the “Gospel of John.” There are two reasons for this approach. First, it is an attempt to acknowledge the technically anonymous nature of both the Gospel and the Epistles. Second, it is an attempt to avoid the confusion that can result when “John” is used to refer to the Fourth Gospel itself, to the presumed author of that Gospel and the Epistles, and to John the Baptist. Designations for the “opponents” of 1 John abound. They have been called “dissidents,” “secessionists,” “false teachers,” “heretics,” and “apostates.” In this work I will use the general term “opponents,” but will at certain points distinguish between opponents who once belonged to the community but later departed—i.e., secessionists or apostates—and a more undefined group of antagonists whom the author believes may be troubling the community.

2

Introduction

In what follows I propose an alternative explanation of the opponents and the historical situation of 1 John. I argue that 1 John addresses an essentially Jewish situation not substantially different from that typically proposed for the Fourth Gospel.4 The primary boundary marker of the community remains the confession of Jesus as the Messiah (John 20:31; 1 John 2:22; 5:1). Those members of the community who seceded did so not because of their doctrinal innovation, but rather because they reneged upon their initial confession of Jesus as the Messiah, probably in order to return to the relative security of the Jewish synagogue. In order to unpack this argument, I proceed as follows: In Chapter 1, I survey the major approaches to identifying the opponents, summarize the exegetical basis for each approach, and note the historical parallels to the opponents adduced by each approach. I also point out the various problems with each approach that render them inadequate explanations of the textual and historical evidence. I conclude by proposing that the opponents are best identified as Jewish apostates who have returned to the synagogue after a brief sojourn in the Johannine community. In Chapter 2, I summarize and critique the dominant methodology used to reconstruct the opponents and the historical situation: mirrorreading. I note how a subjective and unregulated maximalist mirrorreading misrepresents the purpose of 1 John and leads the interpreter to detect polemic where none is intended. As an alternative to a maximalist mirror-reading, I propose that the purpose of 1 John is primarily pastoral. The author is “preaching to the converted,” as it were, and urging them to remain faithful. The polemical material which does exist in the letter is limited to 2:18–27 and 4:1–6 and is subservient to the overarching pastoral aim. Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6 discuss the four passages that play a major role in almost every scholarly reconstruction of the opponents. Each chapter will follow the same basic pattern: first, a summary of the way that the major views have interpreted the passage; next, the problems with each interpretation; finally, an exegesis of the passage and an argument for an alternative explanation. 4

My argument does not primarily deal with the Fourth Gospel, nor does it require that the Fourth Gospel be set in a specific historical context where conflict with the synagogue is a pressing concern. Though this reconstruction is, in its general contours, agreeable to me, my arguments do not depend on it. My main point is that there is little or nothing that leads us to posit different settings for the Gospel and the Epistles.

Introduction

3

Chapter 3 addresses 1 John 2:18–27, which is the first passage to mention the opponents explicitly. It designates them as “antichrists” who have departed the community. I demonstrate that this passage identifies the key issue behind the secession as the messiahship of Jesus. Those who departed, the author states, have rejected the basic confession of the community: that Jesus is the Messiah. Chapter 4 addresses 1 John 4:1–6, which describes “false prophets” who do not confess that “Jesus Christ has come in flesh.” These false prophets are often identified with the secessionists of 1 John 2. This passage is then taken to be an expanded description that clarifies the true crux of the schism: the flesh of Jesus Christ. Against the view that the opponents advocate a docetizing Christological heresy, I argue that the confession in 1 John 4:1–6 is in fact just another form of the original, foundational confession of the community. That is, there is no special anti-docetic thrust to the confession. The main point is the same: Jesus is the Messiah. In order to demonstrate this, I analyze the grammar of the confession and adduce evidence from other primitive Christian confessions that employ incarnational language. In Chapter 5, I address 1 John 5:6–12, which is often thought to directly quote a key component of the opponents’ teaching: that Christ “came in water only.” While a majority identifies this as an expression of docetic or Cerinthian Christology—or, perhaps, a devaluation of Jesus’ atoning death in favor of a focus on his baptism—I argue that the author is actually employing a rhetorical technique (amplificatio or escalation), with a special Jewish twist. Therefore, he is not refuting opponents with this statement, but is rather assuring his audience that God has provided not one, but two or three witnesses, to confirm that Jesus is the messianic Son, the bearer of eternal life. The first two witnesses, the blood and water, are two past events, Jesus’ baptism and death, which testify to his messianic identity as the one anointed by the Spirit to sacrificially take away the world’s sins. The third witness, the Spirit, continually reminds the believing community of these past events and, by its very presence in the community, testifies to their efficacy in producing fellowship with God and eternal life. In Chapter 6, I address a final passage, 2 John 7–11, which primarily reiterates the main points of 1 John concerning the opponents. Two areas, however, are often thought to supplement the portrait of the opponents. First, some believe that the confessional criterion of 2 John 7, with grammar subtly different from that of 1 John 4:2, indicates that 2 John deals with a slightly different theological problem, perhaps one involving a denial of Jesus’ physical second coming. The second issue revolves around 2 John 9, which many believe portrays the opponents

4

Introduction

as “progressives” who have pursued gnostic or docetic innovations and therefore rejected the community’s tradition. I argue, however, that the grammatical change in 2 John 7 is not significant, and that the “progressive” interpretation of 2 John 9 lacks a firm lexicographical basis. 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.

Chapter 1

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John I. The Basic Questions Most historical reconstructions of the opponents in 1 John follow three basic steps. First, one must decide which passages in the epistle should be used to reconstruct the opponents. Should the interpreter depend only on those statements that explicitly mention the opponents, or is a more aggressive “mirror-reading” appropriate? Among the passages deemed polemical, which should be considered the most important for describing the opponents? Second, the interpreter must determine what the selected passages actually say about the opponents. What do the various descriptions of the opponents mean? How accurate or trustworthy are they? How literally should they be taken? Third, the interpreter must try to find religio-historical parallels to the opponents and their views that will further clarify their teachings and their position within the early church. Are there other figures, movements, or teachings in early Christianity with which the opponents can be identified, compared, or somehow genetically connected? Do the Johannine opponents appear in other NT texts? Do the church fathers oppose the same group or similar groups? Can we find any evidence of the opponents’ intellectual descendants, or movements or schools of thought spawned by them? It should not be supposed that these three questions are pursued in a simple linear fashion. Rather, each interpreter adopts a hypothesis, tests it against the text and historical context, and then revises the hypothesis to account better for both elements. Good interpreters, as a rule, also compare the explanatory power of their hypotheses to that of competing hypotheses. The process of reconstructing the historical situation of a text is thus both art and science. It involves both rigorous analysis and imagination. It is not so much linear as it is circular (or spiraling).

6

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

The goal of this chapter is to discuss how each of the major reconstructions of the opponents addresses these issues. 1 Which passages do they find relevant in their reconstruction? How do they interpret those passages? How do they relate the opponents to other groups in early Christianity? Along the way, I will note some of the problems confronting each view, especially with regard to the use of historical parallels. The discussion is lengthy by necessity. While it may seem excessive to devote so much space to an overview of the scholarship on this matter, it is essential to uncover the origins and assumptions of the major views. In their finished state, well-presented scholarly reconstructions can be quite compelling at first blush. It is only when we look more closely at each interpretive step, each conjecture, each assumption, that we may begin to suspect the scholar’s reconstruction is a true tour de force, convincing less because of the evidence presented than the imagination, stature, and charisma of the scholar himself.

II. Five Views of the Opponents Most scholarly reconstructions of the secessionists fit into one of five categories:2 1 2

This chapter will not discuss in detail the exegetical arguments of each of these views. That discussion will take place in Chapters 3 through 6. For a helpful discussion of recent debate on the opponents in 1 John see John Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John (SP 18; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2002), 21–26. For an overview of older scholarship on the issue consult Wilhelm M. de Wette, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die Bibel Alten und Neuen Testaments (8th ed.; edited by Eberhard Schrader; 2 vols.; Berlin: Reimer, 1869), 2:400–401. In addition to the five categories above, some believe that 1 John addressed more than one group or category of secessionists. Tertullian, Praescr. 33, reflects this interpretation when he identifies Marcion as the target of 1 John 4:2 and Ebion as the target of 2:22–23. This used to be a common position among scholars. See, e.g., Augustus Neander, The First Epistle of John Practically Explained (translated by H. C. Conant; New York: Colby, 1852), 12, who found polemic against Ebionite, docetic, and Cerinthian errors. James MacKnight, A New Literal Translation from the Original Greek of All the Apostolical Epistles (Philadelphia: Wardle, 1841), 648–53, likewise saw all three being opposed, but also posited Nicolaitan opponents to account for the libertinism evident in the claims of chs. 1 and 2. Cf. Alan E. Brooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles (ICC; New York: Scribners, 1912), xli, who argues that “the Epistle is directed against various forms of teaching,” but thinks that there was one specific false teaching that actually prompted the writing of 1 John. Recently, however, the theory of multiple groups has found few defenders. Among them, Stephen Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John (rev. ed.; WBC 51; Waco: Word, 2007),

Five Views of the Opponents

7

1. The secessionists are gnostics, who stress their advanced knowledge, regard matter as evil, and advocate libertinism and/or perfectionism.3 2. The secessionists are docetists, who hold that Jesus Christ was not truly a flesh-and-blood human being, but only appeared to be so. 3. The secessionists hold to a separation Christology (commonly associated with Cerinthus), which distinguishes the human being Jesus from the Christ, a divine spirit-being or power. Separation Christology teaches that the Christ descended upon Jesus at his baptism and departed sometime prior to his death. Thus, Jesus and the Christ are not to be identified. 4. The secessionists deemphasize or devalue Jesus’ historical ministry and atoning death, while emphasizing the Son’s glory and pre-existence, as well as his roles as revealer and dispenser of the Holy Spirit. In many cases, the secessionists display

3

xxi—xxii, finds both high, or docetic, and low, or Jewish, Christological errors opposed, as does Georg Richter, “Blut und Wasser aus der durchbohrten Seite Jesu (Joh 19,34b),” in Studien zum Johannesevangelium (ed. J. Hainz; BU 13; Regensburg: Pustet, 1977), 126, who holds that 2:22 and 5:1, 5 merely repeat the polemic of the Fourth Gospel, while 4:1–3 and 5:5–6 oppose the new docetic teachers. Cf. Paul N. Anderson, “The Sitz im Leben of the Johannine Bread of Life Discourse and Its Evolving Context,” in Critical Readings of John 6 (edited by R. Alan Culpepper; BibInt 22; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 46–47, who thinks that ch. 2 addresses a Jewish denial of Jesus as the Messiah, while ch. 4 attacks a docetic denial of Jesus’ humanity; similarly, see Seán Freyne, “Christological Debates among Johannine Christians,” Concilium (2002): 59–67; W. F. A. Besser, Die Briefe St. Johannis in Bibelstunden für die Gemeinde ausgelegt (Halle: Mühlmann, 1893), 144–46. The position has fallen out of favor because a) in the two most important opponent passages (2:18–27; 4:1–6) similar language is used to describe the opponents (“antichrists,” “going out”), b) most exegetes detect a conceptual unity to the views of the opponents as they find them represented in the various polemical passages, and c) there is no single passage in 1 John that speaks of two distinct groups. Ockham’s Razor, in this case, means that there is no need unnecessarily to multiply opponents. See the discussion in Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John (AB 30; Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1982), 49–50, 490; John Painter, “The ‘Opponents’ in 1 John,” NTS 32 (1986), 50; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Johannine Epistles: Introduction and Commentary (trans. R. Fuller, I. Fuller; New York: Crossroad, 1992), 17; Robert Law, The Tests of Life: A Study of the First Epistle of John (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1909), 35–36; H. Thyen, “Johannesbriefe,” TRE, 17:193. Many of the other views also attribute libertine or antinomian ethical teaching to the opponents. Almost without exception, scholars who believe that 1 John combats ethical errors hold that the opponents’ ethics flow from an aberrant Christology.

8

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

enthusiastic or pneumatic tendencies that amplify these differences. 5. The secessionists are apostate Jews or Judaizers (i.e., Judaizing Gentiles)4 who advocate either a lower (perhaps Ebionite) Christology, or who have forsaken their confession of Jesus as the Messiah and have left the community to return to Judaism.5

III. Ultra-Johannine Opponents Before I discuss the details of the five basic views, it will be helpful to analyze a trend which many Johannine scholars have embraced and which figures prominently into many of the proposed reconstructions, namely the belief that the secessionists of 1 John are “ultra-Johannine” Christians, or progressives.6 The most notable proponent of this theory has been Raymond Brown, who made it the basis of his magisterial commentary on the Johannine Epistles in the Anchor Bible series.7 The 4 5

6

7

“Judaizing” is here used in its proper intransitive sense to speak of a person who follows Jewish practices. These categories, broad as they are, can function only as general groupings. In some cases, they may be either too precise or too broad. For example, some commentators do not distinguish between docetism, gnosticism, separation Christology, and progressive enthusiasm. Their views could be placed in more than one camp. Thus, the categories are somewhat subjective and should be taken as a heuristic device that will allow grouping according to similarity. The term “ultra-Johannine” was coined by Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975), 472. Otto Schwankl, “Aspekte der johanneischen Christologie,” in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by the Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar (ed. G. van Belle, J. G. Van der Watt, and P. Maritz; BETL 184; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 369, calls them “johanneische Extremisten.” The term “progressives” has become popular on the basis of προάγων in 2 John 9. See Chapter 6 for my analysis of the term. Brown, Epistles, 69–115. Both J. L Houlden, A Commentary on the Johannine Epistles (HNTC; New York: Harper and Row, 1973), and Klaus Wengst, Der erste, zweite und dritte Brief des Johannes (ÖTKNT 16; Würzburg: Echter, 1978), preceded Brown in this approach, but neither applied it as thoroughly. In 1909, Robert Law, had posited that 1 John was a defense of the Fourth Gospel’s meaning against gnostic misinterpretation (Tests, 26–34). Even earlier, in the late nineteenth century, Carl Heinrich von Weizsäcker, The Apostolic Age of the Christian Church (2nd ed; trans. J. Millar; New York: Putnam, 1895), 2:238–39, had likewise seen it aimed at a Gnosticism which drew support from the Johannine writings: “The Johannine tradition was now [in 1 John] defending itself with all its energy against this phase of a speculation which had drawn its support from its own teaching.” More recently, a similar approach has been adopted by Urban C. Von Wahlde, The Johannine

Ultra-Johannine Opponents

9

theory holds that the secessionists were initially members of the Johannine Community and adherents to the Johannine tradition, which has been substantially preserved in the Fourth Gospel. At some point, the secessionists began to develop their interpretation of the Johannine tradition in a direction that put them at odds with the rest of the community and the rest of the Grosskirche. As a result, the Johannine community split—the schism to which 1 John testifies. The central tenet of the “Ultra-Johannine” theory is that the secessionists developed their theology out of the original Johannine tradition. That is, they did not arrive at their beliefs by way of an influx of foreign teachings. 8 Thus, in

8

Commandments: 1 John and the Struggle for the Johannine Tradition (New York: Paulist, 1990), 1–8, 105; Michael Theobald, “Der Streit um Jesus als Testfall des Glaubens: Christologie im ersten Johannesbrief,” Bibel und Kirche 53 (1998): 183–89, who believes that 1 John was written as a cover letter for the Fourth Gospel in order to guide its interpretation. Similarly, Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, xxv; Norman K. Bakken, “The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Study of Their Relationship in the PreCanonical Period” (Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary, 1963); Pierre Bonnard, Les Épitres Johanniques (CNT 2.13c; Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1983), 13; R. Alan Culpepper, The Gospel and Letters of John (IBT; Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 253; Paul Trebilco, The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius (WUNT 166; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 290; Theo K. Heckel, “Die Historisierung der johanneischen Theologie im Ersten Johannesbrief,” NTS 50 (2004): 425–43; Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament (2 vols; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 2:194; Jean Zumstein, “Zur Geschichte des johanneischen Christentums,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 122 (1997): 417–28; Michèle Morgen, “L’Évangile interprété par l’épître: Jean et I Jean,” Foi et Vie 86 (1987): 59–70; Hans-Josef Klauck, “Internal Opponents: The Treatment of the Secessionists in the First Epistle of John,” in Truth and Its Victims (eds. W. Beuken, S. Freyne and A. Weiler; Concilium 200; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 57–58, summarizes: “The dispute thus centres on the joint Johannine heritage and how it should be maintained, continued, and developed.” Hans Conzelmann, “‘Was von Anfang an war,’” in Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann (ed. W. Eltester; BZNW 21; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1954), 201, described 1 John as having the same relation to the Fourth Gospel as the Pastoral Epistles had to the genuine Pauline letters, i.e., to regulate the tradition by providing an “orthodox” interpretation of it and combating unorthodox trajectories. Richard I. Pervo, “Johannine Trajectories in the Acts of John,” Apocrypha 3 (1992), 62, observes that “Most reconstructions of the opponents of the writer of 1 John now regard them as ‘Johannine’ in inspiration.” Brown, Epistles, 71, argues that if there were an outside influence at work on the secessionists, the author of 1 John would mention that influence and attack it. Cf. P. J. Hartin, “A Community in Crisis: The Christology of the Johannine Community as the Point at Issue,” Neotestamentica 19 (1985), 43; Houlden, Epistles, 36. For the view that the secessionists’ theology resulted from an influx of Gentiles, see John Bogart, Orthodox and Heretical Perfectionism in the Johannine Community as Evident in the First Epistle of John (SBLDS 33; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977), 134–35. Culpepper, Gospel, 51, believes the opponents derived their views from a combination of Greek dualism and the Fourth Gospel’s high Christology. Painter, “Opponents,” 49–50, thinks the opponents were mainly Gentiles who entered the community after it left

10

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

order to understand the secessionists’ views, we must analyze how they were developed from the Fourth Gospel. Likewise, in order to understand 1 John, we must recognize that it represents an intraJohannine battle over the community’s tradition. The author of 1 John is disputing the secessionist interpretation of the tradition and providing his own “conservative” take on the message. He appeals back to the “beginning,” perhaps to older strands of the Johannine tradition that received less emphasis in the Fourth Gospel. The theory of ultra-Johannine opponents can be incorporated into several of the traditional identifications of the secessionists. Some see the Johannine progressives as taking the tradition in a “Gnosticizing” direction and propose that the Johannine schism gave birth to the gnostic sects that produced works such as the Apocryphon of John and the Acts of John.9 Others think the secessionists took the high Christology of the Fourth Gospel, with its emphasis on the divine Son’s pre-existence and glory, in a docetic direction and denied the true humanity and suffering of Jesus. 10 Many, though, do not believe that by the time of 1 John the secessionists had arrived at full-blown docetism but had begun to relativize and marginalize the life, earthly ministry, and death of Jesus, perhaps by emphasizing the present ministry of the Holy Spirit.11 Others think that the Fourth Gospel was being

9

10

11

the synagogue and therefore lacked the Jewish context in which to make sense of John’s Christology. Birger Olsson, “The History of the Johannine Movement,” in Aspects of the Johannine Literature (ed. L. Hartman and B. Olsson; Uppsala: Almquist, 1987), 32, sees the secession occurring after the community moved to Asia Minor. Pervo, “Trajectories,” 48, 68; Wengst, Brief, 25; Houlden, Epistles, 17–18. Koester, Introduction, 2:198, believes the “crude docetism” of the Acts of John was “clearly a later development of the earlier Logos Christology to which the Gospel of John was closely related.” Cf. Harold Attridge, “Johannine Christianity,” in Cambridge History of Christianity: Volume 1, Origins to Constantine (ed. M. Mitchell and F. M. Young; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 125–44. Jean Zumstein, “La Communauté johannique et son histoire,” in La Communauté johannique et son histoire (ed. J.-D. Kaestli, J.-M. Poffet, and J. Zumstein; Paris: Labor et Fides, 1990), 364, speaks also of a gnosticizing trajectory. Cf. Olsson, “History,” 27–42; Pieter J. Lalleman, The Acts of John: A Two-Stage Initiation into Johannine Gnosticism (Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 111–22; Titus Nagel, “Zur Gnostisierung der johanneischen Tradition: Das ‘Geheime Evangelium nach Johannes’ (Apokryphon Johannis) als gnostische Zusatzoffenbarung zum vierten Evangelium,” in Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Das vierte Evangelium in religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive (ed. J. Frey and U. Schnelle; WUNT 175; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 675–93. Culpepper, Gospel, 253; Josef Blank, Krisis: Untersuchungen zur johanneischen Christologie und Eschatologie (Freiburg: Lambertus, 1964), 174–77, thinks that the dispute is over Johannine Shekinah Christology which has been taken in a docetic direction by the opponents. See below, p. 83.

Ultra-Johannine Opponents

11

interpreted in terms of a temporary-possession Christology, which would later be associated with Cerinthus.12 Proponents of this view are usually careful to distinguish the Johannine tradition (upon which the secessionists built) from the Fourth Gospel.13 In its present state, the Fourth Gospel contains elements that would not be agreeable to the secessionists. These elements, it is supposed, must have been added to the Gospel in the wake of the secessionist controversy by one of the “orthodox” members who remained with the community.

A. The Role of the Johannine Community Hypothesis A major contributor to the “ultra-Johannine” theory has been the Johannine Community Hypothesis. The development of the Community Hypothesis is well known and has been rehearsed so many times that it need only be summarized here.14 Four basic tenets 12

13

14

Charles H. Talbert, Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles (New York: Crossroad, 1992), 76; Pamela E. Kinlaw, The Christ is Jesus: Metamorphosis, Possession, and Johannine Christology (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 85. Brown is a notable exception. In order to avoid circular argumentation in his reconstruction, he methodologically identifies the Fourth Gospel with the Johannine tradition: “Every idea of the secessionists (as reconstructed from the polemic of I and II John) can be plausibly explained as derivative from the Johannine tradition as preserved for us in GJohn” (Epistles, 72; italics original). According to Robert Kysar, “The Whence and Whither of the Johannine Community,” in Life in Abundance: Studies of John’s Gospel in Tribute to Raymond E. Brown (ed. John R. Donahue; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2005), 67, the first to use the term “Johannine community” as it is used today was Jan A. Bühner, Der Gesandte und sein Weg im vierten Evangelium: Die kultur- und religionsgeschichtliche Grundlagen der johanneischen Sendungschristologie sowie ihre traditionsgeschichtliche Entwicklung (WUNT 2.2; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1977), 1. Kysar, “Whence,” 67–70, identifies four events that he calls “originating events” that birthed the community concept in Johannine scholarship: 1) Raymond Brown’s commentary on the Fourth Gospel (1966) and monograph on the Johannine community (1979), both of which provided a history of the community and traced the Gospel’s composition along that timeline. Brown’s commentary on the Epistles (1982) provided the most developed form of his theory. 2) J. L. Martyn’s two-level hypothesis, formulated in his 1968 work, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel, (3rd ed.; Louisville: Westminster, 2003 [1st ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1968]). Martyn argued that the community’s expulsion from the synagogue was the defining moment in the community’s history. He used that event to show how the community’s history was transposed back upon its narrative of Jesus. John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), 107, calls Martyn’s History “the most important single work on the Gospel since Bultmann’s commentary.” 3) Wayne Meeks’ social-scientific analysis of

12

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

constitute the Community Hypothesis in its classic form:15 1) The Fourth Gospel is the product of a multi-stage process of composition that likely included several authors or groups. These literary levels can be detected, in the first place, by the presence of redactional “seams” or “aporias.” 2) The community which produced the Gospel is best characterized as a sect or a sectarian group separate from mainstream early Christianity that possesses its own distinct tradition. The closest parallel may be the Qumran community. 3) The community’s history corresponds to the compositional process of the Gospel. The stages of the community’s history are parallel to the stages of the Gospel’s composition. As the community encountered new challenges, the tradition grew to reflect and address those challenges. 4) Because the Fourth Gospel was written for the community and addresses community issues, the community’s history may be read out of the

15

the Johannine community in “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism,” Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972): 44–72. Meeks contended that the community was best understood as a minority sect or a sectarian counter-cultural group. 4) The discoveries at Qumran and subsequent analyses supported the community hypothesis by providing a historical parallel. Qumran, like the Johannine community, was a sectarian group that produced literature for their community that reflected its own history. Richard Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 9–12, outlines seven characteristics of what he calls the “dominant approach,” which he attempts to refute in his work: 1) Rejection of early church testimony (i.e., external evidence) in favor of internal evidence regarding questions of authorship and location. 2) Rejection of the Fourth Gospel’s historicity in favor of its sociohistorical or sociological character. 3) The attempt to reconstruct the Fourth Gospel’s literary prehistory through the detection of aporias. 4) The belief that the Johannine community was a small, sectarian and idiosyncratic group that produced, and was the intended audience for, the Fourth Gospel. Bauckham attributes the popularity of this point to the existence of the Johannine letters, which have allowed reconstruction of the community in a way that is not possible for the Synoptic Gospels. 5) The belief that the developments in the community’s history can be deduced from the examination of the literary and compositional history of the Gospel. For example, M. de Boer, Johannine Perspectives on the Death of Jesus (CBET 17; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996), 44, asserts that “communal history and composition history are inseparable.” 6) The use of a two-level reading technique whereby the story of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel is read as a coded history of the community. 7) The belief that the Fourth Gospel should be situated in a Jewish context and should be read against the backdrop of the community’s expulsion from the synagogue. For other summaries of the dominant approach, see Olsson, “History,” 28–29; R. Kysar, The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel: An Examination of Contemporary Scholarship (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1975), 267–76.

Ultra-Johannine Opponents

13

Fourth Gospel’s story of Jesus.16 In its strongest form, proposed by J. L. Martyn, this tenet holds that the Fourth Gospel’s story of Jesus is a “two-level drama” where the story of the community has been temporally transposed back into the story of Jesus.17

B. Reconstructions of the Community’s History The Community Hypothesis naturally lends itself to detailed reconstruction of the community’s history. Most reconstructions,

16

17

R. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple: The Life, Loves, and Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times (New York: Paulist, 1979), 7, reads “the Gospel as a key to church life thirty to sixty years after Jesus’ lifetime.” He is able to find in the Fourth Gospel coded references to no fewer than six groups: 1) Jews who expelled Johannine Christians from the synagogue, 2) “crypto-Christians” who remain in the synagogue, 3) followers of John the Baptist, 4) Jewish Christians who have a low Christology and anti-sacramental tendencies, 5) Apostolic Christians who follow Peter and the Twelve and do not belong to a Johannine church, 6) Johannine Christians. See Community, 59–91. In his History, 35–68, he summarizes his theory: “The text presents its witness on two levels: (1) It is a witness to an einmalig event during Jesus’ earthly lifetime .… (2) The text is also a witness to Jesus’ powerful presence in actual events experienced by the Johannine church” (p. 40). Martyn uses John 9 as his primary example: “Presented as a formal drama, and allowed to mount its actors, so to speak, on a two-level stage so that each is actually a pair of actors playing two parts simultaneously, John 9 impresses upon us its immediacy in such a way as to strongly suggest that some of its element reflect actual experiences of the Johannine community” (p. 46). Martyn is careful to nuance his theory at this point: “John was neither playing a kind of codegame, nor trying to instruct members of his church about points of correspondence between the Jewish hierarchy of Jesus’ day and that of their own day. One may be confident that he did not intend his readers to analyze the dramatis personae in the way in which we have done it. Indeed, I doubt that he was himself analytically conscious of what I have termed the two-level drama” (89). According to Martyn, the Gospel inherited the two-level schema from Jewish apocalypticism, which sees history as a two-level drama taking place in heaven and on earth (130–32). The Fourth Gospel has, of course, modified this schema in that a) both his levels are on earth, b) one level is temporally past (i.e., the two levels are not simultaneous as in apocalyptic literature), and c) “John does not in any overt way indicate to his reader a distinction between the two stages” (131). More importantly, however, the twolevel drama springs from the work of the Paraclete, as it continues Jesus’ work and recreates Jesus’ experiences on earth through the community. “It is, therefore, precisely the Paraclete who creates the two-level drama.” (140, italics original). For further examples of the application of a two-level reading, see Kevin B. Quast, Peter and the Beloved Disciple: Figures for a Community in Crisis (JSNTSup 32; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989). See below, fn. 2828, for a discussion of recent critiques of the theory of a two-level drama.

14

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

though, can be boiled down to three or four basic stages: 18 1) Pre-Gospel. During this period, the Johannine community (led by the Beloved Disciple) was a Jewish messianic sect that included Samaritans and followers of John the Baptist. Rising tensions with the Jews due to the group’s increasingly higher Christology led to expulsion from the synagogue (possibly through the Birkhat Ha-Minim, ca. 85 CE),19 2) Gospel. The Fourth Gospel was written ca. 90 CE as a response to the expulsion from the synagogue. It was based on the testimony of the Beloved Disciple. 3) Letters. After breaking with the synagogue, divergent interpretations of the Johannine tradition caused rising tensions within the community and eventually led to a schism when the more progressive group seceded from the community. The Johannine Epistles are a response to this secession. 4) Post-Letters. In the wake of the schism, those remaining in the Johannine community edited the Fourth Gospel, adding elements to clarify its meaning and ward off the secessionists’ errors.20 They gradually moved closer to the 18

19

20

For overviews of community history see Brown, Community, 171–82; J. L. Martyn, “Glimpses into the History of the Johannine Community,” in L’ Évangile de Jean: Sources, redaction, théologie (ed. M. de Jonge; Leuven: Duculot, 1977), 150–75; Culpepper, Gospel, 55–61; Hartin, “Community,” 37–49; Olsson, “History,” 30–32; Zumstein, “Communauté,” 359–74; G. Richter, “Die Fleischwerdung des Logos im Johannesevangelium,” in Studien zum Johannesevangelium (ed. Josef Hainz; BU 13; Regensburg: Pustet, 1977), 149–98. Martyn saw the Birkhat reflected in the Gospel’s references to followers of Jesus being put out of the synagogue (9:22; 12:42; 16:2; ἀποσυνάγωγος), which he took as a “formal separation between church and synagogue” (Martyn, History, 56). Most frequently identified as redactional are John 15–17, the sacramental imagery throughout the Gospel (e.g. 6:51–58; 19:34–35), the prologue (1:1–18) and epilogue (ch. 21), and various passages which contain future eschatology. See Richter, “Fleischwerdung,” 149–98; Jürgen Becker, “Die Abschiedsreden Jesu im Johannesevangelium,” ZNW 61 (1970): 215–46; Painter “Christology and the History of the Johannine Community in the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel,” NTS 30 (1984): 460–74, who focuses on the anti-docetic redaction of the Prologue. While he does believe that the Fourth Gospel was substantially redacted, Brown, Epistles, 73, does not appeal to redaction of the Fourth Gospel in his exposition of the Epistles because he does not want to engage in a circular argument by claiming that every passage in John which seems to be anti-secessionist was added by an anti-secessionist redactor. He prefers to argue that such passages were instead downplayed by the secessionists. Indeed, Brown finds divergences in theology between the redactor of John and the author of 1 John (e.g., the ecclesiastical authoritarianism of John 21, missing in 1 John). He concludes that the redactor of the Fourth Gospel is a different figure from the epistolary author. A significant minority of scholars take a different route and believe that the Fourth Gospel was originally (that is, not as a result of later redaction) anti-docetic. See, e.g., Udo Schnelle, Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John: An Investigation of the Place of the Fourth Gospel in the Johannine School (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 52–53, who believes that 1 John was written before the

Ultra-Johannine Opponents

15

mainstream church and eventually joined it.21 The secessionists, on the other hand, freed from the conservative influence of the community, became progressively more “gnostic” or “docetic” and eventually merged with movements such as the Montanists, Cerinthians, Valentinians, or Sethians.22 For the purposes of our discussion, the most important point is that the Epistles are assigned to a later stage than the Gospel and are thought to respond to a different situation from the one faced by the earlier community. While the Gospel is aimed at external opponents (the Jews) and shows no sign that secession has occurred, the Letters address an internal opposition and primarily deal with the secession.23

21 22

23

Gospel; Talbert, Reading John, 56–57; Wolfram Uebele, Viele Verführer sind in die Welt ausgegangen: Die Gegner in den Briefen des Ignatius von Antiochien und in den Johannesbriefen (BWANT 151; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001). Brown, Epistles, 103. Some believe that the “secessionists” may actually have been in the majority in the community. Hans-Josef Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief (EKKNT 23.1; Zürich: Benziger, 1991), 32–33, does not believe that the secessionists were ever officially excommunicated; in fact, it may have been the author and his group who were expelled. He further theorizes on the basis of 1 John 4:5 that the secessionists were enjoying great success in their new endeavors. So also Brown, Community, 145–149; Epistles, 70. On the eventual merger with Gnosticism, see Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, xxviii; Attridge, “Johannine,” 125. Oscar Cullmann, The Johannine Circle: Its Place in Judaism, Among the Disciples of Jesus and in Early Christianity, A Study in the Origin of the Gospel of John (trans. John Bowden; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 61, believed that Ignatius was a successor to the Johannine circle and that Ignatius’s opponents were the remnants of the secessionists. It is common now to contrast the frequent use of John by second-century Gnostics with its relative disuse by the “orthodox” church, and to hold that this is the result of the Johannine secessionists’ merger with gnostic streams of Christianity. When the secessionists took the Johannine tradition into the emerging Gnosticism, the mainstream church became hesitant to make use of John— this may be called “orthodox Johannophobia.” See Brown, Epistles, 34–36; Rodney Whitacre, Johannine Polemic: The Role of Tradition and Theology, (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982), 4, who notes as evidence the prevalence of appeals to the OT in John, but their absence in 1 John. There are no clear indications of the precise dates the Letters were written, or how long after the Fourth Gospel, but Brown, Epistles, 101, theorizes that 1 John must have been written long enough after the Fourth Gospel for a debate to have arisen over the interpretation of that work. Cf. Rudolf Bultmann, The Johannine Epistles: A Commentary on the Johannine Epistles. (Hermeneia; trans. R. Philip O’Hara; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973) 1; Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 21.

16

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

C. Weaknesses of the Ultra-Johannine Theory At this point there is no need to discuss in precise detail the weaknesses of the Ultra-Johannine Opponents theory. I will enumerate them below when I deal with the way each view makes use of the theory. Some general observations, however, may be offered here. First, such an approach requires a lot of speculation. The secessionists’ understanding of the Fourth Gospel must be reconstructed by way of an intensive mirror-reading of 1 John which assumes that virtually every statement in the epistle is polemical and can therefore be used to reconstruct the opponents. This type of mirror-reading results in a detailed picture of the secessionists that has very little hard evidence to support it.24 In fact, as Julian Hills observes, almost all reconstructions of the community’s history with the secessionists are ultimately founded upon a single piece of evidence in 1 John 2:19.25 Second, scholars are increasingly questioning the overly confident reconstructions of the Johannine community.26 Many have begun to doubt the assumption that the Fourth Gospel reflects a “sect” or an esoteric group whose writings are narrowly aimed at insiders only.27 24

25

26

27

Brown, Community, 7, admirably cautions that his views “claim at most probability” and “if sixty percent of my detective work is accepted, I shall be happy indeed.” Those who have followed in Brown’s footsteps, however, have been less modest in their assessments and have more or less written as if Brown’s theories are established fact. J. Hills, “A Genre for 1 John,” in The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester (ed. B. A. Pearson and A. T. Kraabel; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 375. See R. Bauckham, “For Whom Were the Gospels Written?” in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (ed. R. Bauckham; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 9–48; R. Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007); Colleen M. Conway, “The Production of the Johannine Community: A New Historicist Perspective,” JBL 121 (2002): 479–95; E. W. Klink, “The Gospel Community Debate: State of the Question,” CurBS 3 (2004): 60–85; R. Kysar, “Whence and Whither,” 65– 81; A. Reinhartz, “The Johannine Community and Its Jewish Neighbors: A Reappraisal,” in “What Is John?” Vol. 2, Literary and Social Readings of the Fourth Gospel (ed. F. F. Segovia. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 111–38. M. Hengel, Die johanneische Frage: Ein Lösungsversuch (WUNT 67; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), also offers a detailed challenge to the hypothesis. See Kåre Sigvald Fuglseth, Johannine Sectarianism in Perspective: A Sociological, Historical, and Comparative Analysis of Temple and Social Relationships in the Gospel of John, Philo, and Qumran (NovTSup 119; Leiden: Brill, 2005); Bauckham, “For Whom,” 9–48. For critiques of Bauckham, see D. C. Sim, “The Gospels for All Christians? A Response to Richard Bauckham,” JSNT 84 (2001): 3–27; P. F. Esler, “Community and Gospel in Early Christianity: A Response to Richard Bauckham’s Gospels for all

Ultra-Johannine Opponents

17

Even more, the two-level reading has suffered enormously upon closer inspection, as scholars have become more cognizant of the imagination and speculation involved in mirror-reading a narrative.28 Third, there is little external evidence that a Johannine “school” ever flourished, much less merged with gnostic sects. As M. Hengel notes, in the letters of Ignatius and Polycarp, the two Apostolic Fathers considered most “Johannine” in their theology, there is no trace of a Johannine “school.”29 While certain gnostic texts did use John, son of Zebedee, as their “gnostic” apostle, this does not demonstrate the existence of a Johannine school any more than the Gospel of Thomas proves the existence of a “Thomasine school.” Gnostic writers made use of all twelve apostles at one time or another to establish the antiquity of their teachings. P. Lallemann, in his investigation of the Acts of John, remarks, “The absence of evidence for a Johannine community in the AJ is most remarkable: if anywhere, then it is in the AJ that one would expect to find evidence for its existence in the second century.”30 The scholars who claim that the early church suffered from “orthodox Johannophobia” because gnostics preferred the Gospel have significantly overstated the extent of gnostic use of the

28

29

30

Christians,” SJT 51 (1998): 235–48; Margaret M. Mitchell, “Patristic Counter-Evidence to the Claim that ‘The Gospels Were Written for All Christians,’” NTS 51 (2005): 36– 79; E. Van Eck, “A Sitz for the Gospel of Mark? A Critical Reaction to Bauckham’s Theory on the Universality of the Gospels,” HvTSt 56 (2000): 973–1008. See the early critique of L. T. Johnson, “On Finding Lukan Community: A Cautious Cautionary Essay,” SBLSP (1979): 87–100. More recent critiques include D. A. Carson, “The Challenge of the Balkanization of Johannine Studies,” in John, Jesus, and History, Volume 1 (ed. Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just, and Tom Thatcher. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 133–64; A. Köstenberger, “The Destruction of the Second Temple and the Composition of the Fourth Gospel,” TrinJ 26 (2005): 208–14; Tobias Hägerland, “John’s Gospel: A Two-Level Drama?” JSNT 25 (2003): 309–22; E. W. Klink, “Expulsion from the Syngague? Rethinking a Johannine Anachronism,” TynBul 59 (2008): 99–118; Kysar, “Whence and Whither,” 65–81; R. Kysar, “The Expulsion from the Synagogue: The Tale of a Theory,” in Voyages with John: Charting the Fourth Gospel (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2005), 237–46; Reinhartz, “Johannine Community,” 111–38. For a similar critique of a mirror-reading approach to Mark, see Dwight N. Peterson, The Origins of Mark: The Markan Community in Current Debate (BibInt 48; Leiden: Brill, 2000). Hengel, Frage, 97–99, 221–22, 248–52, 325. Cf. C. Cebulj, “Johannesevangelium und Johannesbriefe,” in Schulen im Neuen Testament? Zur Stellung des Urchristentums in der Bildungswelt seiner Zeit, mit einem Beitrag zur johanneischen Schule von Christian Cebulj (ed. Thomas Schmeller; HBS 30; Freiburg: Herder, 2001), 254–342. Lalleman, Acts, 246. Cf. K. Schäferdiek, “Herkunft und Interesse der alten Johannesakten,” ZNW 74 (1983), 247–67, who finds the Acts late (third century) and “anti-Johannine.”

18

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

Fourth Gospel and understated the evidence for orthodox use.31 Thus, the idea that one can clearly trace the post-history of the secessionists is proving less than convincing. Fourth, if the crisis in the Johannine community centered on the interpretation of the Fourth Gospel or Johannine tradition, it is impossible to explain why 1 John contains no explicit allusions to, or quotations from, the Gospel.32 Brown admits that 1 John does not explicitly quote the Fourth Gospel, but claims that this is because the author draws on an earlier stratum (“the beginning”) of Johannine tradition not preserved in the Fourth Gospel to refute the progressives.33 Jean Zumstein similarly proposes that the Fourth Gospel is never explicitly used in the Epistles because it was also used by the opponents and “ils n’ont donc plus la capacité d’arbitrer le conflit.”34 This, however, would be like a Supreme Court opinion which never explicitly spoke about or quoted from the Constitution, even though the very issue before the court was the interpretation of that Constitution. Finally, and most importantly, as I will demonstrate in the following chapters, the reconstruction of the secessionists and their supposed views lacks a defensible exegetical basis in the Johannine 31

32

33 34

See Charles E. Hill, The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), for a recent forceful challenge to the theory of “orthodox Johannophobia.” What is particularly striking in debate between gnostic and Orthodox theologians in the second and third centuries is the fact that the gnostics never employ (and are never accused of employing) the Fourth Gospel in the way the ultra-Johannine theory suggests they might. For example, Origen, in his work against Heracleon’s late second-century commentary on the Gospel, primarily attacks Heracleon’s demiurgical views and his deterministic anthropology, for which Heracleon claimed support from the Gospel. In Origen’s rebuttal there is no indication that Heracleon appealed to the Fourth Gospel to support a docetic Christology or a denial of the value of Jesus’ earthly life or death. See Harold W. Attridge, “Heracleon and John: Reassessment of an Early Christian Hermeneutical Debate,” in Biblical Interpretation: History, Context, and Reality (ed. C. Helmer and T. Petrey; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 57–72; cf. J.-D. Kaestli, “Remarques sur le rapport du quatriéme Êvangile avec la gnose et sa réception au IIe siècle,” in La Communauté johannique et son histoire (ed. J.-D. Kaestli, J.-M. Poffet, and J. Zumstein; Paris: Labor et Fides, 1990), 351–56, for a discussion of gnostic interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the second century. Cf. also Elaine H. Pagels, The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis: Heracleon’s Commentary on John (SBLMS 17; Nashville: Abingdon, 1973). My point here is not that echoes of the Fourth Gospel are completely absent from 1– 3 John, but that if the central issue in the community’s dispute is the interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, one would certainly expect more than echoes. Brown, Epistles, 71–72. Zumstein, “Communauté,” 364.

Gnostic Opponents

19

Epistles. Upon a close reading, it will become evident that the key passages in 1 and 2 John do not refer to Johannine progressives who have taken the tradition in an extreme direction.

IV. Gnostic Opponents A longstanding and venerable interpretation of 1 John holds that it was intended to address the gnostic heresy.35 This view can trace its pedigree back as far as Irenaeus, who used 1 John to refute Cerinthus and other gnostics, and Tertullian, who used the epistle to combat the teachings of Marcion.36 For the purposes of our discussion, though, I will distinguish Gnosticism from separation Christology (associated with Cerinthus) and docetism. While these two beliefs were often part of a broader gnostic framework, some scholars believe that when 1 John addressed them, they were not both part of that larger framework. In modern scholarship, an anti-gnostic reading was pursued in earnest by the history-of-religions school, especially Michaelis,37 Pfleiderer,38 Weizsäcker,39 Holtzmann,40 Hilgenfeld,41 Windisch and Preisker,42 and

35

36

37 38

39 40 41

Those who take 1 John as an anti-gnostic polemic include Bogart, Orthodox, 131, who finds the opponents close to Valentinianism; Alfred Plummer, The Epistles of St. John (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1894), 17–21; Law, Tests, 26–34; Adolf Jülicher, An Introduction to the New Testament (trans. Janet Penrose Ward; New York: Putnam, 1904), 429; J. Moffatt, An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (New York: Scribners, 1911), 586; W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (trans. Paul Feine; Nashville: Abingdon, 1975), 441–42, who sees a gnostic enthusiasm with a docetic Christology and antinomian ethic. Because the Gnosticism was manifesting itself in a Christological form, as opposed to the merely ethical one Kümmel finds in Colossians, the Pastoral Epistles, Jude, and 2 Peter, he believes that it is a developed form of Gnosticism. For Irenaeus, see Haer. 3.16. For Tertullian, see his De carne Christi and Adversus Marcionem. Later, Epiphanius would also make extensive use of 1 John in his polemic against a variety of gnostic sects in his Panarion. Johann David Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament (2nd ed; trans. H. Marsh; London: Rivington, 1802), 4:402–3. Otto Pfleiderer, Primitive Christianity: Its Writings and Teachings in their Historical Connections (trans. W. Montgomery; New York: Putnam, 1911), 4:81, 154–64, thought the opponents were closest to Basilidean thought. Weizsäcker, Apostolic Age, 2:238–39. H. J. Holtzmann, Briefe und Offenbarung des Johannes (HKNT 4; Freiburg: Mohr, 1893), 268, 272, considered Saturninus’s teaching the closest parallel. A. Hilgenfeld, Historisch-kritisch Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Leipzig: Fues, 1875), 682–94.

20

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

later Bultmann.43 In English scholarship, Robert Law, in his influential Tests of Faith, adopted the same explanation.44 C. H. Dodd conjectured that the Hermetic mystical tradition may have been in the background.45 In more recent years, J. Bogart identified the opponents as Valentinian gnostics, and W. Schmithals46 has also fiercely advocated Gnosticism as the proper backdrop for the Epistles.47 As recently as 1963 A. Wikenhauser could write, “at the present day there is hardly any further doubt that it was a gnostic error.”48

A. Exegetical Basis for the Theory of Gnostic Opponents These scholars all drew primarily on the ancient heresiologists (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Epiphanius) for their understanding of Gnosticism. In their interpretation of 1 John they depended both on those statements which explicitly referred to 42

43

44

45 46

47

48

Hans Windisch and Herbert Preisker, Die katholischen Briefe (3rd ed; HNT 15; Tübingen: Mohr, 1951), 127–28. Cf. W. Lütgert, Die johanneische Christologie (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1916), 1–49. Bultmann, Epistles, 8, 11, 38–39. He calls them “gnosticizing Christians” (11) and theorizes that the entire letter is a polemic against them. “The doctrine of the heretics is rooted in the dualism of Gnosticism, which asserts the exclusive antithesis between God and the sensible world” (38). “Gnostic thought cannot comprehend the offense which the Christian idea of revelation offers, namely, the paradox that a historical event (or historical form) is the eschatological event (or form)” (38). Law, Tests, 26–34. He concludes: “all the authentic features of Gnosticism, its false estimate of knowledge, its loveless and unbrotherly spirit, its Docetic Christology, its exaltation of the illuminated above moral obligations, are clearly reflected.” C. H. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles (MNTC 19; New York: Harper, 1946), xix. Walter Schmithals, Das Neue Testament und Gnosis (EdF 208; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984), 104–10; Walter Schmithals, Johannesevangelium und Johannesbriefe: Forschungsgeschichte und Analyse (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1992), 277–89; cf. Walter Schmithals, The Theology of the First Christians (trans. O. C. Dean; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 306–7, where he hints that Marcionite thought may be the target of the Epistles. Cf. Koester, Introduction, 2:195–96; Harold S. Songer, “The Life Situation of the Johannine Epistles,” RevExp 67 (1970): 399–409; Josef Blank, “Die Irrlehrer des ersten Johannesbriefes,” Kairos 26 (1984), 167; J. Beutler, “Krise und Untergang der johanneischen Gemeinde: Das Zeugnis der Johannesbriefe,” in Studien zu den johanneischen Schriften (SBAB 25; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1998), 100; F. V. Filson, “I John: Purpose and Message,” Int 23 (1969): 259–76; see also K. Weiss, “Die ‘Gnosis’ im Hintergrund und im Spiegel der Johannesbriefe,” in Gnosis und Neues Testament (ed. K. W. Tröger; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1973), 341–56, for a discussion of gnostic elements in the opponents’ theology. Alfred Wikenhauser, New Testament Introduction (trans. Joseph Cunningham; New York: Herder and Herder, 1958), 523.

Gnostic Opponents

21

opponents (2:22–23; 4:2–3; 2 John 7) as well as those which implied opposition, such as the antitheses of the first two chapters. Even more, they detected in many of the positive emphases of 1 John attacks upon gnostic opponents. A survey of the passages identified as anti-gnostic in the epistle yields the following profile of the opponents:49 1) They were docetists who denied either the physicality of Jesus (1:1; 4:2–3), the fullness of the incarnation (by advocating a temporary possession model à la Cerinthus; 2:22), or the reality of his death (5:6–7).50 2) They were libertines or antinomians who claimed that because they were the spiritual seed of God, and because they knew God, they did not need to keep the commandments or to express love in tangible ways (1:6; 2:1–6, 9–11; 2:29–3:10; 5:17).51 3) As the spiritual seed of God, they claimed to be sinlessly perfect (1:8, 10).52 4) They taught that the Godhead was composed of a plurality of aeons so that there was both light and darkness in God (1:5).53 5) They viewed reception of knowledge 49

50

51

52

53

For summaries, see Weizsäcker, Apostolic Age, 2:239; Pfleiderer, Primitive Christianity, 4:154–64; Law, Tests, 26–34; Plummer, Epistles, 17–21; Bogart, Orthodox, 25–26, 123– 26; Weiss, “Gnosis,” 341–56. G. W. MacRae, “Gnosticism and the Church of John’s Gospel,” in Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity (ed. Charles W. Hedrick and Robert Hodgson, Jr.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1986), 95, argues on the basis of the supposed docetism in 1 John that the opponents are not merely proto-gnostics, but full-fledged gnostics, because there are no forms of docetism in the 2nd century which are not gnostic. Law, Tests, 29, calls the “if we say” statements “almost verbal quotations of current forms of Gnostic profession.” R. Bultmann, “Analyse des ersten Johannesbriefes,” in Festgabe für Adolf Jülicher (Tübingen: Mohr, 1927), 138–58, likewise thought that the “seed” terminology of 1 John derived from a gnostic source. Cf. Michaelis, Introduction, 4:404. The most extensive treatment of this idea against a gnostic background is Bogart, Orthodox and Heretical Perfectionism. He distinguishes heretical perfectionism, which is combated in 1 John, from orthodox perfectionism, which was taught in the Fourth Gospel and modified slightly in 1 John (2). Orthodox perfectionism as taught in 1 John incorporates the doctrine of expiation through Jesus’ atoning death and the distinction between mortal and non-mortal sins. It also advocates gradual improvement toward sinlessness. Heretical perfectionism, on the other hand, “arose out of a gnostic view of creation and man radically foreign to that found in the Gospel of John.” It likely entered the community via an influx of Gentiles. This gnostic anthropology taught that humans were part of the divine essence (34). Cf. Harry C. Swadling, “Sin and Sinlessness in 1 John,” SJT 35 (1982), 206–09, who addresses 1 John 3:6, 9 in light of Gnosticism. Cf. Michaelis, Introduction, 4:405, who finds the use of τελειόω a mark of gnostic perfectionism. Weizsäcker, Apostolic Age, 2:239, speaks of “the thought of a darkness in the Godhead.” Cf. Michaelis, Introduction, 4:408–9, who reads 1:5 in the same way, and adds that 2:23 probably points to a demiurgical conception on the part of the opponents.

22

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

(γνῶσις) as the means of salvation, rather than the atoning death of Jesus (1:6–7; 2:2).54 6) They were enthusiasts who emphasized charismatic experience over the historical teachings of Jesus, claimed elite status because of their special anointing (2:20, 27; 3:24; 4:1–6; 5:6– 8),55 and pushed a progressive version of the faith (2 John 9).56 7) Because of their enthusiasm they taught an over-realized eschatology and denied a future judgment (2:28).57 8) They charged the Apostles with corrupting the teaching of Jesus (hence the emphasis on the “beginning” in 1 John 1:1–3; 2:13–14, 24).58

B. Weaknesses with the Theory of Gnostic Opponents 1. Dating Issues The first major weakness with the gnostic opponent theory is that Gnosticism most likely belongs to a later historical period than that of the Johannine Epistles. It is thus anachronistic to call the opponents 54

55

56 57 58

As B. F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John: The Greek Text with Notes (London: Macmillan, 1902), 140, puts it, the Epistle opposes gnostics who attempted “to separate the ‘ideas’ of the Faith from the facts of the historic Redemption.” Weiss, “Gnosis,” 343, argues similarly that the opponents confessed a gnostic Christ of “äonischen Charakters” and “sie lehnen eine Heilsgeschichte ab.” Pheme Perkins, “Gnostic Revelation and Johannine Sectarianism: Reading 1 John from the Perspective of Nag Hammadi,” in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by the Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminary (ed. G. Van Belle, J. G. van der Watt, and P. Maritz; BETL 184; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 245–76, discusses how gnostic texts such as the Trimorphic Protennoia diminished the importance of the earthly career of Jesus and identified the salvific locus as Jesus’ ascension to the archons, at which point he took his position as revealer of the truth. Cf. also P. Perkins, Gnosticism and the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 161, where she argues that the debate between the author of 1 John and the opponents centered on whether Jesus’ death had atoning significance. She sees the opponents’ position paralleled in Valentinus, who viewed the cross mainly as a revelation. J. D. Turner, “Sethian Gnosticism and Johannine Christianity,” in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by the Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminary (ed. G. Van Belle, J. G. van der Watt, and P. Maritz; BETL 184; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 399– 434, argues for a parallel from Sethian Gnosticism which downplayed the earthly life of Jesus, his sacrificial death, and the traditional Christological titles, while depicting Jesus primarily as a revealer. See C. K. Barrett, “Johannine Christianity,” in Christian Beginnings: Word and Community from Jesus to Post-Apostolic Times (ed. Jürgen Becker; trans. Annemarie Kidder and Reinhard Krauss; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1987), 339. For a discussion of 2 John 9, see ch. 6. Weiss, “Gnosis,” 343. Michaelis, Introduction, 4:403.

Gnostic Opponents

23

“Gnostics.” While there have been numerous attempts to find evidence of pre-Christian Gnosticism (including Jewish forms),59 it is generally agreed that there are no texts which clearly pre-date the NT.60 The earlier German critics named above were able to identify Gnosticism as the problem in the Epistles only by dating the letters to the mid- second century.61

2. Methodological Issues Second, the evidence adduced from the Epistles is methodologically suspect. The thought process of interpreters who favor the gnostic hypothesis is as follows: first, it is deduced from the clearly explicit passages (1 John 2:22–23; 4:2–3; 5:6–7 and 2 John 7) that some form of docetism or separation-Christology is in view. Second, it is assumed 59

60

61

See, e.g. E. Haenchen, “Gab es eine vorchristliche Gnosis?” ZTK (1952): 316–49, who used the traditions about Simon Magus as one of his foundational pieces of evidence. See below, p. 26, for further discussion of Simon. B. Pearson is a major proponent of the theory that Gnosticism arose from pre-Christian apocalyptic Judaism. See Birger A. Pearson, Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity, Studies in Antiquity and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990); idem, Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions and Literature (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007). James M. Robinson has been the primary advocate for the view that pre-Christian Gnosticism was a source for Christianity. See J. M. Robinson, “Sethians and Johannine Thought: The Trimorphic Protennoia and the Prologue of the Gospel of John,” in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Volume 2: Sethian Gnosticism (ed. Bentley Layton; SHR 41; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 643–61; idem, Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971). See Edwin Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidences (rev. ed; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983); idem, “Pre-Christian Gnosticism, the New Testament and Nag Hammadi in Recent Debate,” Them 10 (1984): 22–27; idem, “The Issue of Pre-Christian Gnosticism Reviewed in the Light of the Nag Hammadi Texts,” in The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration (ed. J. D. Turner and A. McGuire; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 72–88. Cf. J.-M. Sevrin, “Le Quatrième Évangile et le gnosticisme: Questions de Méthode,” in La Communauté johannique et son histoire (Paris: Labor et Fides, 1990), 262; F. C. Burkitt, Church and Gnosis: A Study of Christian Thought and Speculation in the Second Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932); R. McL. Wilson, “Gnosis at Corinth,” in Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honor of C. K. Barrett (ed. M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson; London: SPCK, 1982), 102–19; Brown, Epistles, 63, notes that many of the gnostic texts show clear dependence on the Fourth Gospel. It has been argued by U. Bianchi, “Le gnosticisme et les origines du christianisme,” in Gnosticisme et monde hellénistique (ed. Julien Ries; Lovain-la-Neuve: Institut Orientaliste, 1982), 228, that the primary doctrine of Gnosticism, the demonization of the Creator god, could have arisen only from Christianity, in which Christ was seen as divine, and could thus be placed in opposition to the OT God. E.g., Pfleiderer: AD 140–150; Weizsäcker: AD 130–140.

24

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

that such docetism or separation-Christology must be part of a larger gnostic system. Third, the rest of the epistle (that is, statements which are not explicitly polemical) is mined for possible references to gnostic belief or behavior. Lastly, a full description of the opponents is formed which portrays them as fitting at each point the traditional picture of Gnosticism. This process is flawed at two key points. First, even if we grant that the opponents are in some way docetic or Cerinthian, it by no means follows that they were full gnostics. Many types of docetism and separation Christology in the ancient world required no broader gnostic framework.62 In keeping with this, there are no explicitly polemical statements in the Letters that indicate distinctively gnostic beliefs on the part of the opponents. Most striking is the complete lack of evidence for the trademark tenet of Gnosticism, demiurgical cosmogony. There is not even a hint in 1 John that the secessionists oppose the OT Creator to the NT Father of Christ.63 The second flaw in the process is its thoroughgoing mirror-reading, in which any positive statement made by the author may be reversed to obtain the views of the opponents. This is the only way that gnostic opponents can be derived from the text of 1 John. As I argue in the next chapter, such mirror-reading is highly questionable.

3. Gnostic Use of 1 John Third, there is some evidence that 1 John was actually used by gnostic sects. The Valentinian Gospel of Truth (I,3) has several possible references.64 1) “When they had seen him and had heard him, he 62

63 64

See N. Brox, “‘Doketismus’—eine Problemanzeige,” ZKG 95 (1984): 313. He thinks (pp. 313–14) that docetism may have originated from a desire to avoid compromising Jewish monotheism. Gnostic docetists, on the other hand, developed their views from Hellenistic dualistic presuppositions and a philosophical scorn for the flesh. Weiss, “Gnosis,” 354; Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 39; A. Wurm, Die Irrlehrer im ersten Johannesbrief (Freiburg: Herder, 1903), 3. See J. A. Williams, Biblical Interpretation in the Gnostic Gospel of Truth from Nag Hammadi. (SBLDS 79; Decatur: Scholars Press, 1988), for further discussion. Cf. R. McL. Wilson, “The New Testament in the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Philip,” NTS 9 (1962/63): 291–94; Judith Lieu, The Second and Third Epistles of John: History and Background (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 10. It is interesting to note that François Vouga, Die Johannesbriefe (Tübingen: Mohr, 1990), 29–31, 46–48, actually holds that 1 John is itself gnostic. That it can be read in such a way should go a long way towards refuting the view that its purpose is anti-gnostic.

Gnostic Opponents

25

granted to them to taste him and to smell him and to touch the beloved Son” (30.26–32). This allusion to 1 John 1:1–2 is all the more striking when one considers how that passage has often been understood as a cornerstone of 1 John’s anti-gnostic polemic.65 2) “While their hope, for which they are waiting, is in waiting—they whose image is light with no shadow in it” (35.2–6).66 This may echo the description of God in 1 John 1:5 (“God is light and there is no darkness in him”) and its application to believers who walk in the light. 3) The Gospel mentions an “ointment” brought by Christ with which he anoints believers and makes them “perfect” (36.13–20).67 This may allude to 1 John 2:20, 27 where the anointing from the Holy One gives believers all knowledge. If 1 John were intended to be anti-gnostic, it is difficult to explain why the Valentinians would positively quote from it—the very text meant to refute them—without substantial comment.68

4. The Definition Debate Perhaps the most devastating criticism of the gnostic hypothesis, however, deals with the matter of definition. What is “Gnosticism,” or what are the essential defining characteristics that mark out a group or individual in the early centuries of our era as “gnostic?” For a long time, scholars were more or less content to rely on the opponents of the gnostics—mainly the great heresiologists of the church, like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius—for their answer to those questions. The heresiologists, however, were more interested in rhetorically characterizing their opponents than in historically and objectively defining them. Irenaeus, for example, uses 65 66 67 68

Williams, Biblical, 106–86. Ibid., 144–46. Ibid., 150–52. Irenaeus refers to the way that gnostics used Scripture: “they appear to be like us, by what they say in public, repeating the same words as we do; but inwardly they are wolves” (Haer. 3.16.8). This indicates that both the “gnostics” and the “orthodox” were both at least ostensibly basing their beliefs on the OT and the same early Christian texts. There is no hint that either side would see certain books of the NT as originally intended to be anti-gnostic. Similar allusions to 1 John may be found in the Gospel of Philip (II,3). In 74.12–20, the text speaks of an anointing received from Christ which gives its recipients “everything”; cf. 1 John 2:20, 27. The same idea also appears in 69.7–8. See Lieu, Second, 10; Wilson, “New Testament,” 291–94. For further references to the Johannine Epistles in the Nag Hammadi Corpus, see Craig A. Evans, Robert L. Webb and Richard A. Wiebe, eds., Nag Hammadi Texts and the Bible: A Synopsis and Index (NTTS 18; Leiden: Brill, 1993), 535–36.

26

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

the terminology of “gnosis falsely so-called,” drawn from 1 Tim 6:20, as a catch-all for virtually every variety of teaching he deems unorthodox, no matter how diverse. He posits a single origin for all heresies: Simon Magus and his consort Helen, through whom Satan brought forth the multitude of deceivers with their demonic doctrines.69 He does so because he wants to stress the heretics’ basic genetic similarity.70 Irenaeus’s strategy lessens the usefulness of his work because it leads him to group very diverse teachings under the same heading, “gnosis,” thus emptying the term of its classifying power. It also leads him to tailor his descriptions of the various sects in order to stress their similarity to one another, thus diminishing the accuracy of his descriptions. Because of these shortcomings, while Irenaeus’s work provides a helpful witness to the diversity in early Christianity, it is less useful for clarifying the definition of “Gnosticism.” The discovery in 1945 of a large cache of documents in the Egyptian town of Nag Hammadi completely changed the face of gnostic studies.71 The twelve Coptic codices contained works that clearly 69

70

71

Haer. 1.23–28. Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 1.26, 1.56, also describes Simon the Samaritan as a teacher to Menander and perhaps related in some way to Marcion. Haenchen, “Gnosis,” 316–49, argued for the existence of pre-Christian Gnosticism on the basis of the Simon Magus traditions. K. Beyschlag, Simon Magus und die christliche Gnosis (WUNT 16; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1974), aims to refute Haenchen, as does R. Bergmeier, “Die Gestalt des Simon Magus in Act 8 und in der simonianischen Gnosis—Aporien einer Gesamtdeutung,” ZNW 77 (1986): 267–75. On the question of Simon and his role in the early church and the development of Gnosticism, see W. Meeks, “Simon Magus in Recent Research,” Religious Studies Review 3.3 (July 1977): 137–42, who concludes, “The use of reports about Simon Magus as evidence for a pre-Christian Gnosticism has been effectively refuted” (141); Tamás Adamik, “The Image of Simon Magus in the Christian Tradition,” in The Apocryphal Acts of Peter: Magic, Miracles and Gnosticism (ed. Jan N. Bremmer; SAAA 3; Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 52–64; K. Berger, “Propaganda und Gegenpropaganda im frühen Christentum: Simon Magus als Gestalt des Samaritanischen Christentums,” in Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World: Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi (ed. Lukas Bormann, et al; NovTSup 74; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 313–17; Stephen Haar, Simon Magus: The First Gnostic? (BZNW 119; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003); K. Rudolph, “Simon—Magus oder Gnosticus? Zum Stand der Debatte,” TRu 42 (1977): 279–359; G. Theissen, “Simon Magus—die Entwicklung seines Bildes vom Charismatiker zum gnostischen Erlöser: ein Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte der Gnosis,” in Religionsgeschichte des Neuen Testaments: Festschrift für Klaus Berger zum 60. Geburtstag (ed. Axel von Dobbeler, et al; Tübingen: Francke, 2000), 407–32. On the other hand, however, he also wants to insist that the vast diversity of the heretics’ beliefs proves them to be purveyors of falsehood, since for Irenaeus orthodoxy is unified and uniform (see Haer. preface, 2). For introductions to the Nag Hammadi library, see James M. Robinson, ed., The Nag Hammadi Library in English (3rd ed; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 1–26; B. Layton, Gnostic Scriptures. (Garden City: Doubleday, 1987), xv–xxiii.

Gnostic Opponents

27

originated from the circles Irenaeus and the other Fathers had attacked, including the Valentians and Sethians. For the first time, scholars had access to the “gnostics” in their own words. While Nag Hammadi decisively moved the discussion beyond simple reliance on the heresiologists, it introduced a host of new problems. Nag Hammadi made it clear that Irenaeus’s descriptions and classifications were inadequate but it did not produce a new consensus on how to define “gnostic” or “Gnosticism.”

a. Methods of Definition In the wake of the Nag Hammadi discoveries, three basic definitional strategies have emerged. First, one might seek a neutral starting point by beginning with those groups that used the term gnostic to describe themselves. The most vocal proponent of this method has been B. Layton.72 Unfortunately, the term gnostikos (or its Coptic equivalent) does not appear in the Nag Hammadi texts, but only in the testimonia collected by the heresiologists. Therefore, it may not have been a common or distinctive self-designation used by the sects.73 The use of the term by the heresiologists is not much help at this point, either, since they did not apply the term consistently or in such a way that matches the common modern idea of Gnosticism. For example, Irenaeus labels as gnostic both the Ebionites and the Encratites, groups that have little in common with sects more traditionally thought to be gnostic, such as Valentinians or Sethians.74 A second method of definition is genealogical. This method seeks to define Gnosticism and delineate its various sects according to their 72

73

74

B. Layton, “Prolegomena to the Study of Ancient Gnosticism,” in The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks (ed. L. Michael White et al; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 334–50. For a critique of Layton, see Michael Allen Williams, Rethinking ‘Gnosticism’: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 30–40. B. Pearson, Gnosticism and Christianity in Roman and Coptic Egypt (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 214–16, supports Layton’s argumentation. Layton, “Prolegomena,” 344, argues to the contrary that gnostikos was “the name par excellence of the members of the hairesis, their most proper name” and that one should not expect to find it in the Nag Hammadi texts because those works are pseudepigraphic and mythic. Williams, Rethinking, 33, though, notes that the heresiologists do not state that the term was claimed by very many groups—the opposite of what we would expect if gnostikos was in fact the standard selfdesignation. Williams, Rethinking, 40.

28

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

origins. H. Jonas advocated this method, believing that origins could help define essence.75 The diversity within Gnosticism could be explained by the fact that it emerged in several locations simultaneously, with each variation reflecting its local color. The difficulty of reconstructing such a genealogy on the basis of the fragmentary evidence preserved in the historical record has led many to question this method’s usefulness. Others have questioned it at a deeper level, challenging its assumption that origin determines essence.76 The third, and most widely accepted, method is typological. Also known as the phenomenological method, it seeks to classify texts and sects based on their common characteristics. Through inductive study, scholars may arrive at a list of characteristics common to all gnostic sects. This list would constitute the essence of Gnosticism. The difficulty with this method is that the data to be classified is so diverse that it resists the extraction of a common core or essence. The typologies produced by various scholars differ widely from one another, and how certain texts should be classifed remains a perennial problem.77 Proposed categories of Sethian, Valentinian, Hermetic and Thomasine Gnosticism have done little to settle the issue.

b. The Messina Definition The 1966 Messina conference on the Origins of Gnosticism was a landmark in the study of Gnosticism in the post-Nag Hammadi era and provides a good example of the typological method.78 It produced a consensus definition of Gnosticism in four parts: gnosis, gnosticism, pre-gnosticism, and proto-gnosticism.79 Gnosis was “knowledge of divine mysteries reserved for an elite.” Gnosticism was a secondcentury group of systems held together by a series of characteristics cohering around “the idea of a divine spark in man, deriving from the divine realm, fallen into this world of fate, birth and death, and

75 76 77 78 79

Hans Jonas, The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity (Boston: Beacon, 1963). See Karen King, What is Gnosticism? (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003), 11–13. See Williams, Rethinking, 46–51. Ugo Bianchi, ed., Le origini dello Gnosticismo: Colloquio di Messina 13–18 Aprile 1966 (SHR 12. Leiden: Brill, 1967). Ibid., xxvi–xxvii.

Gnostic Opponents

29

needing to be awakened by the divine counterpart of the self in order to be finally reintegrated.” Pre-Gnosticism included Jewish apocalypticism, Qumran, and certain elements of Christian theology which contained the “different themes and motifs constituting such a ‘pre-’ but not yet involving Gnosticism.” Proto-Gnosticism should be used for cases where the “the essence of Gnosticism” was present prior to the second century. The Messina conference failed to solve the definitional debate, though, and in many cases merely led to further confusion, since there were now four terms about which to argue rather than one.

c. Two Recent Contributions Two recent contributions to the debate have gone so far as to propose doing away with the term “Gnosticism” altogether. The first, Rethinking ‘Gnosticism’: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category, by Michael Williams, argues, as the title suggests, that the term “Gnosticism” is simply too broad and ambiguous to be helpful. For support he addresses several common misconceptions or caricatures about Gnosticism: 1) Gnostics engaged in “protest exegesis” that reversed the values of the OT in the name of deeper knowledge, thus portraying the serpent, Cain, or Balaam as good, while vilifying the Creator.80 Williams disputes that such exegesis was actually engaged in “protest.” He believes that the goal was instead to solve sticky exegetical problems with which both Jews and Christians had long wrestled, such as anthropomorphic language, textual contradictions, indications of plurality within the divine, and the suggestion that the OT God had limited knowledge. He also notes that the various gnostic texts are not at all uniform in their solutions.81 2) Gnosticism was not an independent entity, but essentially parasitic in the sense that it attached to a host religion and fed off of it.82 Williams responds that this is a value judgment which cannot be established historically. Are not also Christianity and Islam in some sense parasites on Judaism? Perhaps, he suggests, it is better to

80 81 82

Williams, Rethinking, 54–79. “It is no longer possible to identify among these sources one distinctive method of interpretation or attitude toward Scripture” (Ibid., 59). Ibid., 80–95.

30

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

understand Gnosticism as an innovation (like Islam and Christianity) that did not succeed in the long term (unlike Islam and Christianity). 3) Gnostics were anti-cosmos or “world-rejecters” because they believed the world was created by a lower god; therefore they remained apolitical and uninterested in the wider culture.83 Williams rebuts this by demonstrating that in many cases Gnostics were actually more socially integrated and culturally influenced than “orthodox” Christians, and that they sometimes tended in their ethics to lessen the tension between them and the larger society. 4) Gnostics fostered hatred of the body because it was the product of the archons, or cosmic rulers.84 Williams’s discussion demonstrates that in most cases gnostic views were more nuanced. Some Gnostics believed exactly the opposite because they viewed the body positively as the mirror of the divine, “the best visible trace of the divine in the material world.”85 5) Gnostics were ascetic with regard to food and sexuality.86 Williams acknowledges that this is generally accurate, as Gnostics tended to view sexuality as the plot hatched by the demiurge in order to dilute the divine seed. Enough exceptions to this understanding exist, though, to urge caution in making sweeping statements. 6) Gnostics were libertine.87 This stereotype arises from the lack of emphasis on charity in the Gnostics’ discussions of ethics, and the accusations of the heresiologists who wished to portray the Gnostics as immoral. In almost every case, though, the belief that Gnostics were libertine is based upon misinformation, faulty inference, or simply imagination run wild (one might recall that the “orthodox” themselves were often accused of engaging in drunken incestuous orgies, infant sacrifice, and cannabalism).88 In fact, only one clear instance of libertine behavior is directly attested. Epiphanes, son of Carpocrates, appears to have advocated free love, but he did so not out of flagrant disregard for God’s law, but based on his belief in the goodness of creation—a very ungnostic view.89

83 84 85 86 87 88 89

Ibid., 96–115 Ibid., 116–138. Ibid., 117. Ibid., 139–62. Ibid., 163–88. See Minucius Felix, Octavius, 9. Clement, Strom. 3.6.1–3.9.3, is the source for the description of Epiphanes.

Gnostic Opponents

31

7) Gnostics were deterministic or elitist because of their dualism between pneumatic and psychic people.90 Williams responds that when deterministic ideas are present among gnostic sects, they are not inherently elitist, but apologetic; that is, they do not function to prevent the willing from joining the sect, but instead function to explain why those outside the sect refuse to receive the truth. In the end, Williams argues that all is not lost in the struggle for definition. Certainly the old stereotypes and generalizations must go, but the attempt to define Gnosticism is not itself futile. Williams proposes a combination of genealogical and typological approaches to the problem.91 He does not believe that Gnosticism has one origin, but several. These emerged as different streams of thought (Valentinian, Sethian, etc.) and can be categorized according to their respective origins.92 Williams suggests that the term “Gnosticism” be replaced by the more descriptive “biblical demiurgical traditions.” This label excludes many texts that have often been labeled gnostic because of their supposedly ascetic or enthusiastic tendencies, and also serves to identify the basic belief common to the major streams of Gnosticism— the ascription of the creation to a lower entity. The second recent contribution to the debate over the definition of Gnosticism comes from Karen King, whose What is Gnosticism?93 adopts an even more polemical tone than Williams’s work. King believes that the confusion over how to define “Gnosticism” is the fault of modern scholars who have uncritically taken over the heresiologists’ classifications. These classifications were theological, rhetorical, and polemical, and did not aim at objective description. By building upon the heresiologists’ portrait scholars have “unwittingly reified a rhetorical category into a historical entity.”94 The problem was only exacerbated when the newly discovered Nag Hammadi texts were forced into the same problematic categories. King, like Williams, questions many of the supposed “essential characteristics” of Gnosticism. She focuses on three “staples of summary definitions of Gnosticism”95: dualism, asceticism/libertinism, and docetism.96 In each

90 91 92 93 94 95 96

Williams, Rethinking, 189–212. Ibid., 51. Ibid., 213–34. Karen L. King, What is Gnosticism? (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003). Ibid., 52. Ibid., 201. Ibid., 191.

32

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

case, she finds numerous works often thought to be gnostic which do not fit the typologies. Worse, several of the works have been victims of tortuous exegesis that tried to force them to fit the typology. Given the inherent flaws in the traditional approach to defining Gnosticism, King speculates that the term will be abandoned in the future, or at least substantially modified to speak of smaller groups of texts or sects.97 She urges that scholars stop searching for the historical origins of Gnosticism and for a definition of its “essence” in terms of typological description. Instead, she advocates a postmodern approach, informed by the critical theories of Foucault and Ricoeur, to explore how the texts and the groups that produced them constructed their identity, community, and tradition.

d. Earlier Challenges King and Williams are not the first to question the adequacy of Gnosticism as a category. As long ago as 1935, R. P. Casey declared after a survey of the relevant ancient literature, “There is no trace in early Christianity of ‘Gnosticism’ as a broad historical category, and the modern use of ‘gnostic’ and ‘Gnosticism’ to describe a large but illdefined religious movement, having a special scope and character, is wholly unknown in the early Christian period.”98 Casey concluded, that the category of Gnosticism “has frequently obscured more than it has illuminated the picture of early Christianity.” 99 Half a century later, in 1978, Morton Smith presented “The History of the Term Gnostikos” at the 1978 Yale Conference on “The Rediscovery of Gnosticism.”100 He urged that the terms “gnostic” and “Gnosticism” should be limited to the meaning they carried in the ancient literature, where they are uniformly used in a polemical sense to designate “a phenomenon of later Platonism.” Since modern critical scholarship ought not to engage in religious polemics, Smith was effectively counseling that the term be dropped from scholarly discourse.

97 98 99 100

Ibid., 218. R. P. Casey, “The Study of Gnosticism,” JTS 36 (1935), 55. Ibid., 54–55. Morton Smith, “The History of the Term Gnostikos,” in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Volume 2: Sethian Gnosticism (ed. Bentley Layton; SHR 41; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 796– 807.

Gnostic Opponents

33

e. Incipient Gnosticism? Because of the lack of evidence for Gnosticism in the first century, many scholars prefer to speak of the opponents as “incipient Gnostics” or “proto-Gnostics,” as opposed to full-fledged Gnostics, who appear only in the second century and later.101 But in light of how difficult it is to define Gnosticism, it should not be surprising that “protoGnosticism” does not fare much better. 102 There are two key problems with such an identification. 1) It is too broad and undefinable. When scholars call a religous phenomenon or belief “proto-gnostic,” what they usually mean is that such a belief, or a close parallel, also appears later in full-fledged Gnosticism. But, as J. M. Robinson observes, such a meaning is “so broad as to include almost anything and hence to say almost

101 Those who describe the opponents in terms of proto-Gnosticism include Dodd, Epistles, xix; I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 15; Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 27; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, xxiii; D. Moody Smith, First, Second, and Third John (IBC; Louisville: John Knox, 1991), 68; John Polhill, “First, Second, and Third John,” in Mercer Commentary on the New Testament (ed. W. E. Mills et al; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 2003), 1311; Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John (NAC 38; Nashville: Broadman & Holman ),195; Craig Blomberg, From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts through Revelation (Nashville: Broadman, 2006), 487–88; D. A. Carson, “1–3 John, Jude,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 1064, speaks of “incipient Gnosticism”; Schnackenburg, Epistles, 18 says that the errors “show a gnostic tendency.” One might also include in this category all those scholars who believe that the secessionist movement blossomed into a gnostic sect. 102 The Messina Conference (for the definitions and discussions, see Bianchi, Le origini, xxviii) attempted to introduce some definitional clarity but must be judged as a failure. It dated the emergence of Gnosticism proper no earlier than the second century. For earlier phenomena it provided two classifications: pre-Gnosticism and proto-Gnosticism. A religion, sect, or text characterized by themes or motifs which would later be prominent in Gnosticism could be described as pre-gnostic. This is in fact what many scholars who speak of “proto-Gnosticism” are actually referring to. Messina, however, distinguished pre-Gnosticism from proto-Gnosticism, and defined the latter as the existence of the “essence” of Gnosticism prior to the second century. Several problems emerge from this: 1) First, as I note above, the idea of preGnosticism is both anachronistic and overly broad. 2) The definition of protoGnosticism is not coherent. If a religious phenomenon contains the “essence” of Gnosticism, it logically follows on any usual meaning of “essence” that such a phenomenon should not be called proto-gnostic but simply gnostic. 3) The definition of proto-Gnosticism as the “essence” of Gnosticism assumes that what constitutes the “essence” of Gnosticism is known and agreed upon. But, of course, this is hardly the case.

34

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

nothing.”103 Virtually the entire Jewish and Christian tradition, not to mention the Platonic and Orphic traditions, could be described as containing ideas and teachings which would later figure prominently in Gnosticism.104 Paul, Philo and John have commonly been identified as “proto-Gnostics.”105 How many “gnostic” motifs must be present in an author or text to make that text proto-gnostic?106 2) It introduces anachronism into the exegetical process. To call a phenomenon “proto-gnostic” is to define that phenomenon in terms of what is chronologically subsequent to it. But this is not at all helpful because it does nothing to illuminate the phenomenon’s origin or nature. Just as it is not helpful for the purposes of historical description to call Plato or Philo a “proto-Christian,” so it is not fruitful to label the opponents in 1 John “proto-Gnostics.” R. McL. Wilson, in his discussion of the related question of whether Paul’s opponents at Corinth were proto-Gnostics, wisely remarks: “All too often a ‘preChristian gnosis’ is postulated on the basis of the evidence we have, then to provide further contours and give it substance the main features of second-century Gnosticism are projected into the first century, and we end with the hypothetical influence upon Paul and early Christianity of a ‘pre-Christian gnosticism’ for which there is no real evidence and which results from reading first-century documents with second-century spectacles.”107

103 J. M. Robinson, “On Bridging the Gulf from Q to The Gospel of Thomas (or vice versa),” in The Sayings Gospel Q (ed. J. M. Robinson, et al; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 208. Cf. Brown, Epistles, 59: “In speaking of ‘proto-gnostics’ one has introduced the truly indefinable.” 104 Sevrin, “Quatrième Évangile,” 261, speaks of Gnosticism’s proclivity to syncretism and pastiche and remarks: “Dans la mesure où le gnosticisme prend son bien où il le trouve, bien des choses peuvent être dites ‘prégnostiques.’” 105 See David T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey (CRINT; Leiden: Brill, 1993), 70–71, for examples and discussion. Cf. Ruth B. Edwards, The Johannine Epistles (NTG; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 63. It is helpful at this point to note that both Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria used “gnosis” and “gnostic” in a very positive sense and only objected to what they saw as γνῶσις ψευδώνυμος. 106 Brown, Epistles, 59. Certainly, if one agrees with Michael Williams that the essence of Gnosticism is the demonization of the creator (i.e. demiurgism), then one cannot see the opponents in 1 John as holding to the essential tenet of Gnosticism. As discussed above, docetism does not a gnostic make. 107 Wilson, “Gnosis at Corinth,” 109.

Docetic Opponents

35

C. Conclusion In summary, it is no longer viable to speak of the opponents of 1 John as “Gnostics” or “proto-Gnostics.” To do so requires that the interpreter force polemical intent onto every passage through a speculative mirror-reading and ignore the great historical difficulties and terminological unclarity in the labels “gnostic” and “protognostic.” There was a time when a “pan-gnostic” theory of Christian origins was dominant in NT scholarship, but the folly of finding a gnostic behind every bush has slowly become evident. Most contemporary commentators on the Johannine Epistles therefore prefer to be more specific in their identification of the opponents and to focus on what they see as the defining quality of the opponents, namely some form of docetism or separation Christology.

V. Docetic Opponents As noted above, the opponents’ apparent docetism led many scholars to identify them as gnostics.108 Docetism, loosely defined, is the denial, in some way, of Jesus Christ’s humanity, physicality, or suffering. Attempts to define the term more specifically will be discussed below. The term first appears in our literature when Serapion, bishop of Antioch in the late second-century, denounces the Gospel of Peter as the product of the δοκηταί.109 The term appears to have been used in the early church (and up to the present) to describe those who relegated the humanity, physicality, or suffering of Jesus to the realm of appearance, or δόκησις.110 Justin Martyr likely refers to such a view 108 It will become clear in my discussion below that not all docetists were associated with gnostic movements. 109 The episode is preserved in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.12, who reports that Serapion denounced the Gospel as containing the heresy of Marcion. 110 Clement of Alexandria is also an early witness to the term. He locates the origin of δόκησις in Julius Cassianus, an Encratite who believed birth was evil. He also uses the term to describe the views of Marcion and Valentinus: Εἰ δὲ ἡ γένεσις κακόν, ἐν κακῷ λεγόντων οἱ βλάσφημοι τὸν γενέσεως μετειληφότα κύριον, ἐν κακῷ τὴν γεννήσασαν παρθένον. Οἴμοι τῶν κακῶν, βλασφημοῦσι τὸ βούλημα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὸ μυστήριον τῆς κτίσεως, τὴν γένεσιν διαβάλλοντες. Διὰ ταῦτα ἡ δόκησις Κασσιανῷ, διὰ ταῦτα καὶ Μαρκίωνι, ναὶ μὴν καὶ Οὐαλεντίνῳ τὸ σῶμα τὸ ψυχικόν, ὅτι φασίν (Strom, 3.17.102). Hippolytus, Haer. 8.1–4; 10.12, also mentions the Docetae as a gnostic sect.

36

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

when he writes, “There are some who maintain that even Jesus Himself appeared only as spiritual, and not in flesh, but presented merely the appearance of flesh.”111 The belief that 1 John addresses a docetic Christology is very popular among contemporary commentators. D. Moody Smith goes so far as to say that it is “at least a predominant point of view, if not a complete consensus” that the opponents somehow deny the humanity of Jesus or its salvific significance.112 George MacRae is even bolder, 111 De Resurrectione 2. Eἰσὶ δέ τινες οἳ λέγουσι καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν Ἰησοῦν πνευματικὸν μόνον παρεῖναι, μηκέτι ἐν σαρκί, φαντασίαν δὲ σαρκὸς παρεσχηκέναι. It is not completely clear from the context that Justin is referring to those who deny the incarnation or simply that in his post-resurrection state Jesus did not have a fleshly body. The authenticity of this text is under question. John of Damascus was the first to attribute the text to Justin. See Eric Francis Osborn, Justin Martyr (BHT 47; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1973), 13; L. W. Barnard, Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought (London: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 172; P. Prigent, Justin et l’Ancien testament; l’argumentation scripturaire du traité de Justin contre toutes les hérésies comme source principale du Dialogue avec Tryphon et de la première Apologie (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1964), 28–67. 112 Smith, First, Second, and Third John, 131–32. See also his more recent survey of the interpretation of the Johannine Epistles (“The Epistles of John: What’s New Since Brooke’s ICC in 1912?” ExpT 120 [2009]: 373–84), where he reaffirms the docetic interpretation and emphasizes especially the importance of the tangibility language in 1 John 1:1 for such a reading (377). Others who believe the opponents were docetic include P. R. Jones, 1,2 & 3 John (SHBC; Macon, Ga.: Smith & Helwys, 2009), 166–67, 211–14, 257–59, tentatively; Schnackenburg, Epistles, 20–21; Uebele, Verführer, 147–52; Kruse, Letters, 27, 147; Bultmann, Epistles, 38, 62; Bart D. Ehrman, “1 Joh 4.3 and the Orthodox Corruption of Scripture,” ZNW 79 (1988), 235, 237; Culpepper, Gospel, 51, 268; J. C. Thomas, The Pentecostal Commentary on 1 John, 2 John, 3 John (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2004), 132, 201; D. M. Smith, “The Historical Figure of Jesus in 1 John,” in The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays (ed. J. Ross Wagner, C. Kavin Rowe, and A. Katherine Grieb; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 310–24; Georg Strecker, The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John (Hermeneia; trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 73–74; idem, “Chiliasm and Docetism in the Johannine School,” ABR 38 (1990): 45–61; Plummer, Epistles, 19–21, 113; H. Braun “Literar-Analyse und theologische Schichtung im ersten Johannesbrief,” in Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt (ed. H. Braun; 3rd ed; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971), 210–42; Blank, Krisis, 174–77; Koester “La Trajectoire” 278; Richter, “Blut,” 120–42; Hilgenfeld, Einleitung, 682–94; Hans H. Wendt, Die Johannesbriefe und das johanneische Christentum (Halle: Buchhandlung des Waiserhauses, 1925), 13; Polhill, “First, Second, and Third John,” 1311–18; Jülicher, Introduction, 429; Friedrich Lücke, Commentary on the Epistles of St. John (trans. T. Gudmundson; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1837), 80; Wengst, Brief, 169; W. S. Vorster, “Heterodoxy in 1 John,” Neot 9 (1975): 87–97; Schnelle, Antidocetic, 67–68; Vernon H. Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions (Leiden: Brill, 1963), 85, speaks of a “crude form of docetism”; M. de Jonge, Christology in Context: The Earliest Christian Response to Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 144; J. G. Davies, “The Origins of Docetism,” Studia Patristica 6 (1962), 18; P. J. Lalleman, “The Adversaries

Docetic Opponents

37

claiming that “everyone is agreed” that 1 John combats docetic opponents.113

A. Exegetical Basis for the Theory of Docetic Opponents 1. Explicitly Anti-Docetic Passages Advocates of this theory usually find supporting evidence in three key passages: 1) First John 4:2 denounces as false prophets those who deny “Jesus Christ having come in flesh” (Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα).114 2) Second John 7 contains virtually the same statement, naming as the deceiver and the antichrist the one who does not confess “Jesus Christ coming in the flesh” (Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί).115 3) First John 5:6 identifies Jesus as the “one who came through water and blood…not in the water only, but in the water and the blood” (ὁ ἐλθὼν δι᾽ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος…οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ αἵματι). In this description water and blood are thought to refer to either Christ’s physical birth or his death, against those who would deny them. These three passages are taken as explicit rebuttals of the opponents’ teachings.116

113

114

115

116

Envisaged in the Johannine Epistles,” NedTT (1999): 17–24; K. A. Morland, “Om a avslore og avsondre vranglaerere: En eksegese av 1 Joh 4,1–6 pa grunnlag av tekstintern analyse og en droftelse av lignende kristologiske brytninger i den tidlige kirke,” TTKi 63 (1992): 95–112; Peter Weigandt, “Der Doketismus im Urchristentum und in der theologischen Entwicklung des zweiten Jahrhunderts,” (D.Theol. diss., Heidelberg, 1961), 1:22; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 212, takes 4:2 as aimed at docetists; similarly, Neander, First Epistle, 12. See Brown, Epistles, 58, for a list of older commentators who supported a docetic identification of the opponents. This view can be traced back as far as Tertullian, Praescr. 33.11; Carn. Chr. 1, 214, although some find it even earlier in Polycarp. See discussion below, p. 186. MacRae, “Gnosticism,” 95. More specifically, he believes that the opponents are reading the Fourth Gospel docetically. He also thinks that the docetism of the opponents was merely a function of their full-fledged Gnosticism. Nota bene that the verse is actually phrased positively: one can discern the spirit from God by its confession of Jesus Christ having come in flesh. Only in 1 John 4:3 do we encounter the negative form. The only difference between 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7 is the shift from the perfect tense ἐληλυθότα to the present tense ἐρχόμενον. Most commentators understand these passages to be making the same point. See ch. 6 below for discussion. The polemical statements in 2:22–23—central to so many historical reconstructions— are difficult to interpret as statements against docetism. Some, however, have seen in the statement, “Jesus is the Messiah,” an implication that “Messiah” entails true humanity. See Westcott, Epistles, 70; Ehrman, “1 Joh 4,3,” 240. On this reading, to deny that Jesus is the Messiah would be to say that while he is a divine

38

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

2. Implicitly Anti-Docetic Passages Several other passages are also commonly thought to have docetic opponents in view. These passages do not, however, explicitly mention the opponents or cite their views. Instead, by their emphasis on key points denied by the opponents, they implicitly rebut the false teachings. Perhaps the most often cited is 1 John 1:1–2, which, because of its position at the opening of the letter, may provide insight into the central issue to be addressed. Its language seems to stress the physicality, visibility and tangibility of the Word’s incarnation (ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, ὃ ἐθεασάμεθα καὶ αἱ χεῖρες ἡμῶν ἐψηλάφησαν; ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη).117 Along similar lines, passages such as 1 John 1:7 and 2:2, which speak of Jesus’ atoning death in terms of his blood, may, like 5:6, be meant to combat a denial that Jesus truly suffered or died.

B. Types of Docetism Docetism, like Gnosticism, is difficult to define. In the early centuries of the church there were many different ways of explaining Jesus’ physicality or suffering as δόκησις. It will be helpful to distinguish at least three types of docetism and to summarize the early evidence for them:118

1. Monophysite Theories Monophysite docetism held that Jesus did not truly possess human nature, but only appeared to be human. He was in reality divine and manifestation, he is not the Messiah of OT expectation, who would be a merely human figure (this was perhaps Marcion’s view). See below, p. 136, for discussion. 117 See Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 7–8; David K. Rensberger, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John (ANTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 1997), 47. It is not clear, however, that 1:1–3 conceives of a personal Word, nor that it depicts the Word as being from the beginning and as being the object of the physical activity described (touching, seeing, etc.). 118 For discussion of how to define docetism, see Weigandt, “Doketismus,” 1:4–19; Davies, “Origins,” 13–35; K. W. Tröger, “Doketistische Christologie in NagHammadi-Texten: Ein Beitrag zum Doketismus in frühchristlicher Zeit,” Kairos 19 (1977): 45–52; A. Grillmeier, “Doketismus,” LTK 3 (1959): 470–71; Brox, “Doketismus,” 301–14; Michael Slusser, “Docetism: A Historical Definition,” SecCent 1 (1981): 163–72; Strecker, Letters, 72; Kinlaw, Christ, 79.

Docetic Opponents

39

possessed only that divine nature, which was impassible and immaterial.119 Monophysite doctrine therefore denied the reality of Jesus’ suffering and death.

a. Marcion and Saturninus Several examples of monophysite doctrine may be found among the writings of the heresiologists. Perhaps the most well known is Marcion (b. 110), who is known primarily from the writings of the early heresiologists.120 Tertullian devoted an entire work to refuting him (Adversus Marcionem). Marcion is best known for opposing the creator, or the demiurge, of the OT to the higher, unknown God revealed by Jesus.121 Matter and flesh were the products of the demiurge, but Jesus was the unborn manifestation of God. Marcion therefore began his Gospel not with an infancy narrative but with the sudden appearance of Jesus in Capernaum.122 His body was one of mere appearance,123 119 P. Weigandt, in his unpublished Heidelberg dissertation (“Doketismus”), argued that modern scholarship should restrict its use of the term “docetism” solely to monophysite Christology. He holds that the church fathers’ use of the term to describe numerous different kinds of beliefs has muddied the water (“Doketismus,” 76–82). Slusser, “Docetism,” 163–72, on the other hand, argues for a broader definition of the term based on its historical use. The various types of docetism, he proposes, share a common core, as recognized by the early heresiologists, namely the denial that Christ really entered into the situation and plight of Adam’s race (168). “Docetism” may therefore be legitimately used to describe monophysite, polymorphic and separation Christologies. Cf. Davies “Origins,” 13–35, who appears also to support a broader definition than Weigandt. 120 Cf. Origen, Cels. 6.53; Tertullian, Praescr. 33.11; Irenaeus, Haer. 1.27; 4.8; 4.34; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 3.3–4; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.11, 29; Epiphanius, Pan. 42. 121 For summaries of Marcion’s teaching, see Adolf von Harnack, Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God (trans. John E. Steely and Lyle D. Bierma; Durham: Labyrinth, 1990); John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History of the Canon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942), 7; Peter Head, “The Foreign God and the Sudden Christ: Theology and Christology in Marcion’s Gospel Redaction,” TynB 44 (1993): 307–21. 122 Tertullian, Marc. 4.7; cf. 4.21.11: “He [Jesus] was brought to birth out of heaven, at once full-grown, at once complete, Christ with no delay, spirit, and power, and god—and nothing more.” Cf. Hippolytus, Haer. 7.19: “independent of birth, (the Logos) Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar.” 123 Irenaeus says that Marcion believed Jesus was “a man merely in appearance” (Haer. 4.33.2); Tertullian frequently uses the term “phantasm” in his summary of Marcion’s teaching (Carn. Chr. 1, 2; Marc. 3.8.1; 3.10–11; 4.7.1–5; 5.8.3; 5.20.3). See J. Christiaan Beker, “Christologies and Anthropologies of Paul, Luke-Acts and Marcion,” in From

40

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

comparable to that of the angels who visited and ate with Abraham (Genesis 18).124 Romans 8:3 provided Marcion with a crucial prooftext: Jesus came only in the “appearance” of sinful flesh.125 Marcion’s soteriology accorded with his Christology; salvation was of the soul only and the resurrection of the flesh was rejected on the basis of 1 Cor 15:50.126 Like Marcion, Saturninus, who worked in Syrian Antioch in the early second century (ca. 125), also appears to have championed a monophysite Christology within a demiurgical framework. Irenaeus presents him as teaching “that the Savior was without birth, without body, and without figure, but was, by supposition, a visible man.”127

b. The Opponents of Ignatius of Antioch The opponents of Ignatius of Antioch, mentioned throughout his seven extant letters,128 have also often been understood as monophysite docetists.129 While there is much dispute about the number and precise

124 125

126 127

128

129

Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge (ed. M. C. de Boer; JSNTSup 84; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 180, for the connection between Marcion’s demiurgism and docetism. Reported by Tertullian, Marc. 3.9; cf. Carn. Chr. 3. Tertullian, Marc. 5.14. Surprisingly, however, Marcion did not deny that Jesus was crucified, suffered, and died. See R. Joseph Hoffmann, Marcion: On the Restitution of Christianity. An Essay on the Development of Radical Paulinist Theology in the Second Century (AARDS 46; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984), 179. According to Irenaeus, Haer. 1.27.3. Haer. 1.24.2. According to Irenaeus, Simon Magus also held to a form of monophysitism, as he claimed to be himself the Great Power, the unknown Father, who descended in various places at various times, including as the man Jesus in Judea, “and that thus he was thought to have suffered in Judea, when he had not suffered” (Haer. 1.23.3). Scholarly consensus now holds to the authenticity of the middle recension of the seven letters. See William R. Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1990), 4–7. Several scholars have even proposed that Ignatius’s opponents are the very same group targeted by the Johannine letters; in support of this, it appears that both groups may be located in Asia Minor. See Strecker, Letters, 70–76; Allen Brent, “Ignatius and Polycarp: The Transformation of New Testament Traditions in the Context of Mystery Cults,” in Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers (ed. Andrew F. Gregory and C. M. Tuckett; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 326; S. E. Johnson, “Parallels Between the Letters of Ignatius and the Johannine Epistles,” in Perspectives on Language and Text: Essays and Poems in Honor of Francis I. Andersen’s Sixtieth Birthday (ed. Edgar W. Conrad and Edward G. Newing; Winona Lake, Minn.: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 327–38, does not think Ignatius knew the Johannine Epistles (he places 1 John later than Ignatius, ca. 118–20), but believes they

Docetic Opponents

41

nature of his opponents, it is generally accepted that in at least a few passages Ignatius clearly refers to advocates of a docetic Christology. In his letter To the Smyrnaeans Ignatius recites the basic facts of the gospel in his opening thanksgiving (1:1–2). He stresses both the factuality of these events (through the repeated use of ἀληθῶς)130 and the fleshly nature of these facts (by using σάρξ three times): I know that you have been perfected in an immoveable faith, as if you were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and have been established in love in the blood of Christ, and have been fully persuaded with regard to our Lord, that he was truly from the line of David according to the flesh, and Son of God according to the will and power of God; that he was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him; and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed to the cross for us in the flesh. Of this fruit we are by his divinely-blessed suffering, that he might set up a standard for all ages, through his resurrection, to all his holy and faithful ones, whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of his Church (1:1–2).

In chapter 2, he attacks certain people who appear to espouse a form of docetism. In describing their beliefs he uses the word δοκέω and implies that just as such people believe that Jesus was a bodiless phantom (ἀσώματος δαιμονικός), so they will become upon their death: Now, all these things he suffered for us, that we might be saved. And he suffered truly, even as he also truly raised himself up, not, as certain unbelievers say, that he only seemed to suffer (τὸ δοκεῖν αὐτὸν πεπονθέναι), as they themselves only seem to be (τὸ δοκεῖν ὄντες). And as they think, so shall it happen unto them: they will become bodiless (ἀσωμάτοις), and apparitional (δαιμονικοῖς).

According to Ignatius, these opponents claim that the key events of the gospel were done by Jesus only in appearance (τὸ δοκεῖν ταῦτα ἐπράχθη ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, 4:2). They deny that the Lord had a both address basically the same situation. Rensberger, 1 John, 22, believes the opponents of 1 John are on the way to the same beliefs as Ignatius’s docetists. Similarly, Uebele, Verführer, 158–63, believes that the Ignatian docetists were the heirs of the Johannine secessionists who likely came into contact with Saturninus or his predecessors. Cf. Trebilco, Early Christians, 695; Schnackenburg, Epistles, 21–23; Kruse, Letters, 27; P. T. Camelot, Ignace d’Antioche: Lettres (SC; 2nd ed; Paris: Cerf, 1951), 27. 130 J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (3 vols; New York: Macmillan, 1889), 2:173, calls ἀληθῶς the “watchword against Docetism.” Cf. Daniel L. Hoffmann, “Ignatius and Early Anti-Docetic Realism in the Eucharist,” Fides et Historia 30 (1998), 78.

42

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

body (σαρκοφόρος, 5:2) and suffered (5:3). They do not believe in the blood of Christ (6:1) and they abstain from the Eucharist because they do not believe it is the flesh of Jesus (7:1–2). All of these beliefs fit within a monophysite framework.131 Similar statements appear in Ignatius’s other epistles. In his letter To the Magnesians he speaks of some who deny Jesus’ death (9:1).132 In his letter To the Trallians he writes of certain ἄθεοι and ἄπιστοι who claim that Jesus only seemed to suffer (λέγουσιν τὸ δοκεῖν πεπονθέναι αὐτόν αὐτοὶ ὄντες τὸ δοκεῖν, 10:1).133 Ignatius’s other letters appear to have primarily Judaizing opponents in view,134 but because several passages in his letters juxtapose references to docetists and Judaizers, the relationship between the two parties is difficult to determine.135 A slight majority of 131 C. Trevett, A Study of Ignatius of Antioch in Syria and Asia (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1992), 160, 166–68, regards the beliefs of Ignatius’s opponents to have their closest parallel in the teachings of Saturninus, whom Irenaeus places in Antioch around the time of Ignatius. Uebele, Verführer, 158–63, also defends this linkage. Matti Myllykoski, “Wild Beasts and Rabid Dogs: The Riddle of the Heretics in the Letters of Ignatius,” in The Formation of the Early Church (ed. Jostein Ådna; WUNT 183; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 367, is skeptical. He notes several differences between the docetism in Ignatius and the docetism of Saturninus. He also notes that Saturninus and other gnostics denied both the OT scriptures and the OT god. If this were the case with Ignatius’s opponents, Myllykoski reasons, he certainly would have said something in response. Cf. Schoedel, Ignatius, 16. 132 The grammar is not clear, however: ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν ἀνέτειλεν δι᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ ὅν τινες ἀρνοῦνται. Here the relative pronoun ὅν may have as its antecedent αὐτοῦ (i.e., Jesus), not θανάτου. Thus, the opponents would not be denying Jesus’ death, but Jesus himself. The statement is taken as anti-docetic by W. Schoedel, “Ignatius and the Archives,” HTR 71 (1978), 102, but see Jerry L. Sumney, “Those Who ‘Ignorantly Deny Him’: The Opponents of Ignatius of Antioch,” JECS 1 (1993), 363, for another reading. Another passage in the letter sometimes thought to be anti-docetic is 11:1, where Ignatius reiterates and reassures his audience of the truth of the historical facts of the Gospel. There is no explicitly anti-docetic element in this passage, however. For an anti-docetic reading, see Hoffmann, “Ignatius,” 80. 133 This passage follows on Ignatius’s restatement of the traditional creedal statements: “Stop your ears, therefore, when any one speaks to you at variance with Jesus Christ, who was descended from David, and was also of Mary; who was truly born, and ate and drank. He was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate; he was truly crucified and died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. He was also truly raised from the dead, his Father quickening him. In the same way his Father will also raise up us who believe in him, by Christ Jesus, apart from whom we do not possess the true life” (9:1–2). 134 There are, though, a few passages sometimes thought to contain implied anti-docetic polemic. See Eph. 7:2; 20:2; Pol. 3:2. 135 For summaries of the various positions, see Myllykoski, “Wild Beasts,” 341–77; Schoedel, Ignatius, 118–25, 152–58.

Docetic Opponents

43

scholars holds that Ignatius is fighting on two distinct fronts, one Jewish and one docetic.136 Many, however, believe that only one group, which mixed Judaism and docetism, is in view.137 Others have doubted whether there was actually any kind of docetism threatening the churches.138 H.-W. Bartsch, for example, thought that Ignatius was merely arguing ad absurdum against Christians who were attempting to live Jewishly: to continue to keep the Sabbath would be to deny that Jesus truly died and was resurrected.139 More popular has been the position that Ignatius’s opponents did not actually advocate monophysite docetism but something closer to a Cerinthian or Ebionite possessionist Christology, which taught that the Christ was a heavenly 136 Schoedel, Ignatius, and Virginia Corwin, St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960), 52, have been the great advocates for the twofront/two-group theory. They are followed in this by Joachim Rohde, “Häresie und Schism im Ersten Clemensbrief und in den Ignatius-Briefen,” NovT 10 (1968): 217– 33; P. J. Donahue, “Jewish Christianity in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch,” VC 32 (1978),82–83; Charles Thomas Brown, The Gospel and Ignatius of Antioch (SBL 12; New York: Lang, 2000), 173–97; Sumney, “Opponents,” 365; Myllykoski, “Wild Beasts,” 344; C. P. H. Bammel, “Ignatian Problems,” JTS 33 (1982), 83, proposes that the confusion over whether there was one or two groups arises because Ignatius uses the same rhetoric against both his Judaizing opponents and his docetic opponents. To Ignatius they were both guilty of denying the basic truths of the faith: Christ’s passion and resurrection. Cf. John Lawson, A Theological and Historical Introduction to the Apostolic Fathers (New York: Macmillan, 1961), 124. C. Trevett, “Prophecy and Anti-Episcopal Activity: A Third Error Combatted by Ignatius,” JEH 34 (1983): 1–18, thinks that a third group is also present, which she labels “charismatic antiepiscopals.” 137 For example, Theodor Zahn, Ignatius von Antiochien (Gotha: Perthes, 1873), 356–99, theorized that they were docetists who were friendly towards Judaism. Cf. C. K. Barrett, “Jews and Judaizers in the Epistles of Ignatius,” in Jews, Greeks and Christians, Essays in Honor of W. D. Davies (ed. R. Hamerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 225, 239; L. W. Barnard, Studies in the Apostolic Fathers and their Background (New York: Schocken, 1966), 24–26, finds a Gnosticism which appealed to the OT to support its docetic or gnostic views; similarly, Pierre Prigent, “L’Hérésie Asiate et l’église confessante de l’Apocalypse à Ignace,” VC 31 (1977), 1–7; Uebele, Verführer, 150–51. Some see the opponents’ docetic views springing from their Jewish convictions about the transcendance of God and the impossibility of a crucified Messiah. See Davies, “Origins,” 18; I. A. Saliba, “The Bishop of Antioch and the Heretics: A Study of a Primitive Christology,” EvQ 54 (1982): 65–75; Einar Molland, “The Heretics Combatted by Ignatius of Antioch,” JEH 5 (1954): 1–6. Similarly, John Marshall, “The Objects of Ignatius’ Wrath and Angelic Mediators,” JEH 56 (2005): 1–23, thinks that the docetists were Jews who held to an angelic Christology. 138 Schoedel thought that Ignatius sometimes mistook Judaistic groups for docetists, as in Magnesia. 139 Hans Werner Bartsch, Gnostisches Gut und Gemeindetradition bei Ignatius von Antiochien (BFCT 44; Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1940), 37–39.

44

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

spirit being that possessed Jesus temporarily—much like the OT prophets—coming at his baptism/anointing and departing prior to his death.140 Thus, a possessionist Christology does not dispute that Jesus was born and crucified, but rather that the divine Christ-spirit was born and crucified, since such actions are not possible for an immaterial spirit. Michael Goulder, a prominent proponent of this view, asserts that this is why Ignatius is careful to use the double name “Jesus Christ” in all his confessional statements.141

c. The Acts of John Monophysite docetism is also evidenced in the Apocryphal Acts of John, a second-century (ca. 150–200) work.142 The Acts depict a Jesus who is not truly human, but “immaterial and incorporeal” (93). He neither eats nor leaves footprints (93), and he is able to change his appearance at will (89, 104).143 During the crucifixion he appears to John in a cave 140 See especially Michael Goulder, “Ignatius’ Docetists,” VC 53 (1999): 16–30, who claims that “‘docetism’ is a modern misunderstanding for a form of Ebionism” (16). Cf. Johnson, “Parallels,” 332; Bammel, “Ignatian Problems,” 86; Myllykoski, “Wild Beasts,” 367. See Trevett, Study, 160, 166–68, for critique. 141 Goulder, “Ignatius’ Docetists,” 30. 142 See Pervo, “Trajectories,” 47–68; David Cartlidge, “Transfigurations of Metamorphosis Traditions in the Acts of John, Thomas, and Peter,” Semeia 38 (1986) 53–66; Schäferdiek, “Herkunft,” 247–67; P. G. Schneider, “The Gnostic Transformation of a Christian Community,” in Hellenization Revisited: Shaping a Christian Response within the Greco-Roman World (ed. by W. Helleman; Lanham: University Press of America, 1994), 241–269; Edwin Yamauchi, “The Crucifixion and Docetic Christology,” CTQ 46 (1982), 8, speaks of it as “quite explicit in its advanced docetism.” Much of the docetic material appears in sections thought to be added later (chs. 94–102, 109). For essays on the Acts of John, see Jan Bremmer, ed., The Apocryphal Acts of John (Kampen: Kok, 1995). The standard edition of the text of the Acts can be found in E. Junod, and J.-D. Kaestli, Acta Iohannis, (2 vols; Turnhout: Brepols, 1983). An English translation of the Acts is available in Knut Schäferdiek, “The Acts of John,” in New Testament Apocrypha, Volume Two: Writings Related to the Apostles; Apocalypses and Related Subjects (rev. ed.; ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher; trans. and ed. by R. McL. Wilson; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 152–209. 143 Such “polymorphic” Christology is simply the narrative representation of a monophysite concept (so Lalleman, Acts, 204). For a helpful discussion of both orthodox (e.g. Origen, Cels. 2.64) and non-orthodox uses of the polymorphic motif, see Paul Foster, “Polymorphic Christology: Its Origins and Development in Early Christianity,” JTS 58 (2007): 66–99; cf. Cf. H. Garcia, “La polymorphie du Christ. Remarques sur quelques définitions et sur de multiples enjeux,” Apocrypha 10 (1999) 16–55; Eric Junod, “Polymorphie du Dieu sauveur,” in Gnosticisme et monde hellénistique: Actes du Colloque de Louvain-la-Neuve (11–14 mars 1980) (ed. Julien Ries, et al; Louvain-la-Neuve: Université catholique de Louvain, 1982), 38–46.

Docetic Opponents

45

above the city and explains that to the crowd in Jerusalem he appears to be pierced and crucified, but in reality he is not the man on the cross and is actually suffering none of those things (97, cf. 101).144 Some scholars have conjectured that the Johannine secessionists are the group responsible for composing the Acts. R. Pervo, for example, believes the group took the traditions of the Johannine community in a docetic trajectory and did “to John something similar to what Marcion did to Paul.”145 P. Lallemann, likewise, identifies the group that composed the Acts with both the opponents of 1 John and the opponents of Ignatius.146

d. Other Texts Several other apocryphal texts depict Jesus in terms that are possibly docetic.147 For instance, the Latin Infancy Gospel from the Arundel Manuscript depicts Jesus as a baby who is weightless and never cries. 148 In the Ascension of Isaiah, Jesus appears as a small child without any process of labor or birth (11:7–14). The Acts of Peter reasons that although Jesus ate and drank, he did so not out of physical need but for the sake of appearance for his disciples (ch. 20). Finally, as mentioned above, Eusebius tells how Serapion forbade the public reading of the Gospel of Peter because of its alleged docetism.149 The only passage, however, that would suggest a docetic Christology is in ch. 4, which recounts that during the crucifixion Jesus expressed no pain but remained silent (ἐσιώπα ὡς μηδὲν πόνον ἔχων).150

144 See the discussion of this passage below, pp. 262–265. It is possible to take Jesus’ statement as implying a replacement theory, examples of which are discussed below. 145 Pervo, “Trajectories,” 65. 146 Lalleman, Acts of John, 247–55. cf. Lalleman, “Adversaries,” 17–24. 147 See discussion in Yamauchi, “Crucifixion,” 7–9. 148 The text may be found in O. Cullmann, “Infancy Gospels,” in New Testament Apocrypha (rev. ed.; ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher; trans. and ed. by R. McL. Wilson; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 1:466. 149 Hist. eccl. 6.12.2–6. 150 Occasionally, Gos. Pet. 5, “My power, O power, you have forsaken me,” is thought to imply a Cerinthian separationist Christology. See Jerry W. McCant, “The Gospel of Peter: Docetism Reconsidered,” NTS 30 (1984): 258–73, for a challenge to the view that the Gospel is docetic; cf. P. Head, “On the Christology of the Gospel of Peter,” VC 46 (1992): 209–24, who also argues against a simple docetic identification for the work.

46

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

2. Ouranosarkic Theories Instead of claiming that Jesus’ body was a phantom, some early teachers took a different route. They accepted the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ embodiment but nuanced the doctrine of Jesus’ body to prevent the misconception that Jesus took part in the sinful flesh inherited by the offspring of Adam. For example, Apelles, a disciple of Marcion,151 argued that Jesus had indeed possessed a real body, but not one received from Mary through birth. Rather, it was composed of cosmic material: “He borrowed his flesh from the stars, and from the substances of the higher world.”152 During his ascension he once again shed his cosmic body, returning the elements to the stars. The most prominent advocate of ouranosarkic Christology was Valentinus, who led a very influential school in Rome (ca. 136–60). Valentinus, like Apelles, taught that Christ possessed a body of heavenly or spiritual flesh not received from Mary.153 In the Extracts from Theodotus, Valentinus is said to teach that “A body, therefore, was spun for him [Jesus] out of invisible psychic substance, and arrived in the world of sense with power from a divine preparation” (59). Valentinus depicted Jesus in his birth as passing “through the Virgin Mary as water through a pipe, neither receiving nor borrowing anything from her.”154 Valentinians would, like Marcion, appeal to Rom 8:3 to support their doctrine, and would stress that the Apostle states only that Christ came “in the likeness of sinful flesh,” not in sinful flesh itself.155 According to Clement of Alexandria, Valentinus taught that Jesus’ body did not function in the typically human way: “He was continent, enduring all things. Jesus digested divinity; he ate and drank in a special way, without excreting his solids. He had such a great

151 According to Rhodo apud Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.13.2–7, though, he appears to have parted ways with Marcion’s demiurgical views, while still maintaining a low regard for the OT. 152 Tertullian, Carn. Chr. 6: de sideribus et de substantiis superioris mundi mutuatus est carnem. It appears from Tertullian’s account that Apelles followed Marcion in denying the nativity accounts of the Gospels. Christ, then, would have taken on this cosmic body during his initial descent to earth, as a fully formed adult. 153 Tertullian, Carn. Chr. 1, 15. Cf. Irenaeus, Haer. 1.6.1; Hippolytus, Haer. 6.35.5–7. For a similar idea, see Clement of Alexandria, Exc. 1.1–2. See Einar Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed: The Church of the “Valentinians” (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 30, 41–42. 154 Pseudo-Tertullian, Haer. 4; cf. Irenaeus, Haer. 3.11.3. 155 This is attributed to Alexander, a disciple of Valentinus, in Tertullian, Carn. Chr. 16.

Docetic Opponents

47

capacity for continence that the nourishment within him was not corrupted, for he did not experience corruption.”156

3. Replacement Theories In perhaps the crudest form of docetism, some averred that it only seemed to be Jesus who died on the cross; he was in reality replaced at the last minute, unbeknownst to the onlookers.157 According to Irenaeus, Basilides, who led a gnostic school in early second-century (ca. 120–140) Alexandria, held such a view.158 He taught that Christ was the manifestation of Nous, the firstborn of the Unknown Father, sent to deliver humans from the angelic powers who created and ruled the world. Christ appeared to observers to be a man and to have died, but neither was true. Irenaeus summarizes: “He [Jesus] did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter, being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them. For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous (mind) of the unborn father, he transfigured himself as he pleased.”159 Basilides therefore appears to combine monophysite docetism with a replacement theory.160 The replacement theory may also be witnessed in the Second Treatise of the Great Seth (VII,2), where Jesus speaks of his death, “which they think happened.” In reality, “they nailed their man up to their death. For their minds did not see me.”161 It is not clear who “their 156 Strom. 3.59.3. Interestingly, Clement seems to approve of Valentinus’s belief and uses Jesus as an example for believers, whom he urges to remain continent and sanctify “the temple of the Spirit.” 157 See Tröger, “Doketistische Christologie,” 51, for discussion of the Nag Hammadi evidence for such a view. 158 Haer. 1.24.3–4. 159 Haer. 1.24.4. 160 It is tempting to describe Basilides as teaching polymorphic docetism. While it is true that for him Jesus changes appearance, the fact that Simon’s appearance is also changed makes it appear that this event was thought to be more of a miraculous deception than an actual change in form. See the discussion of Basilidean Christology in Wold-Dieter Hauschild, “Christologie und Humanismus bei dem ‘Gnostiker’ Basilides,” ZNW 68 (1977): 67–92; Winrich Alfried Löhr, Basilides und seine Schule. Eine Studie zur Theologie- und Kirchengeschichte des zweiten Jahrhunderts (WUNT 83; Tübingen: Mohr, 1996). 161 55.30–56.19.

48

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

man” is. Simon is explicitly named in the text, but it is difficult to discern whether he merely bears the cross in his traditional role,162 or trades places with Jesus, as in the Basilidean scheme. 163 The Nag Hammadi Apocalypse of Peter (VII,3), which famously depicts a laughing Jesus, also suggests some kind of substitution: “He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness.”164

C. Origins of Docetism Another way to define docetism is to describe its origin. What motivated its advocates to describe Christ’s physicality or suffering as δόκησις? The question is much debated. At a very general level, we may distinguish those who posit a Greek philosophical origin165 from those who think it more likely to have arisen from Jewish convictions.166 More specifically, we may delineate three possible motivating factors.

162 G. Riley, whose translation appears in Nag Hammadi Codex VII (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 137–38, thinks that the “other man” is the body of Christ as opposed to his spirit. 163 See Gedaliahu A. Stroumsa, “Christ’s Laughter: Docetic Origins Reconsidered,” JECS 12 (2004): 267–88; Joseph A. Gibbons, Robert A. Bullard, and Frederik Wisse, “The Second Treatise of the Great Seth (VII, 2),” The Nag Hammadi Library in English (3rd ed.; ed. James M. Robinson; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 329–338. 164 81.15–24; cf. 82.27–83.8. 165 M. Hengel, The Cross of the Son of God (London: SCM, 1986), 107–113; Attridge, “Johannine Christianity,” 132. 166 See, e.g. Weigandt, “Doketismus,” 29; Brox,” Doketismus,” 313–14; Stroumsa, “Christ’s Laughter,” 270. Docetism, of course, need not have had only one origin. While its roots may be Jewish, its flowering may have taken place in Hellenistic soil. For a discussion of ideas of incarnation in the ancient world, see E. J. Hamori, “When Gods Were Men”: The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature (BZAW 384; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008).

Docetic Opponents

49

1. Greek Dualism Docetism is commonly attributed to a Greek dualism where matter or flesh is evil.167 In gnostic systems matter was the creation of the demiurge and thus unredeemable. Thus, as M. Hengel explains, docetic Christology may have tried to “remove the ‘folly’ of the cross” by drawing on Greek depictions of gods who suffered only in appearance.168

2. High Christology Another common theory is that docetism sprang from a high Christology that held firmly to Jesus’ divinity but was unable to reconcile that with a belief in his true humanity. 169 Jesus’ manifestation as a human was therefore explained along the lines of OT theophanies.170 Because divine nature is necessarily immutable, incarnation is ruled out, and the human appearance of Jesus is held to be merely an illusion. Furthermore, because God is by nature impassible, the suffering of Jesus must also have been merely δόκησις.171

167 See Davies, “Origins,” 14–29, who discusses how Hippolytus connected docetism to Greek philosophy. Davies believes that the docetism of both Basilides and Saturninus had a Greek origin. Cf. Culpepper, Gospel, 51; Yamauchi, “Pre-Christian Gnosticism, the New Testament and Nag Hammadi in Recent Debate,” 23. 168 Hengel, Cross, 107–113. He cites examples from Greek and Roman literature where an appearance or image of the heroes or gods suffers while the god himself or herself is actually safely elsewhere. For example, Julius Caesar was said to have been rescued by Vesta and taken to Jupiter’s heavenly home just prior to his assassination. Cassius and Brutus, unbeknownst to them, attacked a mere phantom. 169 Many times such a docetism is thought to have been derived from the Fourth Gospel’s own high Christology. See, e.g., Pervo, “Trajectories,” 61–62; Attridge, “Johannine Christianity,” 132; Blank, Krisis, 174–77. 170 Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 39; Blank, Krisis, 174–77; Brox, “Doketismus,” 313–14; Ben Witherington, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Vol. 1: A SocioRhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1–2 Timothy and 1–3 John (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2006), 494; Pervo, “Trajectories,” 61–62; Dodd, Epistles, xxx; Houlden, Epistles, 20, 35–37. 171 See Morland, “Om a avslore og avsondre vranglaerere,” 95–112.

50

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

3. Christological Prophecy H. Attridge makes the intriguing proposal that denials of Christ’s suffering may have stemmed from a traditional reading of the Isaianic Servant Songs, which figured significantly in early Christian understandings of Christ’s passion.172 The exegetical tradition is found in Wis 3:1–2, which clearly echoes the Servant Songs and was interpreted messianically throughout the patristic era. The text proclaims that the righteous only appear to suffer and die, but in reality no torment will ever touch them: δικαίων δὲ ψυχαὶ ἐν χειρὶ θεοῦ καὶ οὐ μὴ ἅψηται αὐτῶν βάσανος. ἔδοξαν ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς ἀφρόνων τεθνάναι καὶ ἐλογίσθη κάκωσις ἡ ἔξοδος αὐτῶν. Similarly, G. Stroumsa theorizes that a typological reading of the story of Isaac and the Akedah may have contributed to docetic theories.173 In that story, Isaac, often thought in the early church to foreshadow Christ, is replaced at the last moment, just before he is to be sacrificed. Perhaps Basilidean replacement theories were spawned by such a reading. Stroumsa also speculates that the gnostic picture of the laughing Savior in the Apocalypse of Peter may have come from etymological exegesis of the name, Isaac, “he will laugh.” 174

D. Weaknesses with the Theory of Docetic Opponents The theory of docetic opponents must be dealt with primarily on an exegetical level. I will do so in chs. 3, 4, 5, and 6. At this juncture, it is necessary only to offer some preliminary critiques of the theory’s methodology and use of historical parallels. At the outset, it should be stated that of the types of docetism outlined above, only one is a candidate for describing the opponents of 1 John. There is no reason to think that 1 John has a Basilidean replacement model in view. It is also unlikely that a Valentinian ouranosarkic teaching is the target. As we have seen, Valentinians could affirm the formula of 1 John 4:2 (“coming

172 Attridge’s theory may be found in the panel discussion in E. Pagels, “Gnostic and Orthodox Views of Christ’s Passion: Paradigms for the Christian’s Response to Persecution?” in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism. Volume One: The School of Valentinus (ed. Bentley Layton; SHR 41; Leiden: Brill, 198), 288. 173 Stroumsa, “Christ’s Laughter,” 267–70. 174 Robert M. Grant, “Gnostic Origins and the Basilidians of Irenaeus,” VC 13 (1959): 121–25, more plausibly suggests that the laughing savior motif came from Psalm 2:4: “He who sits in the heavens laughs.”

Docetic Opponents

51

in flesh”), although they would nuance it so as to protect Jesus’ flesh from the corruption of sin. The only kind of docetism against which 1 John could be directed is monophysitism, but even here care is needed to distinguish between those monophysite views which derived from demiurgism (such as Marcion’s and Saturninus’s), of which there is no indication in 1 John, and those which depicted Jesus as divine and therefore without true flesh and body (such as those of Ignatius’s opponents, and 3 Corinthians). The following points weigh against the theory that 1 John addresses such a docetism. 1) Of the passages in 1 John usually thought to be polemical, only 4:2–3 (repeated in 2 John 7) can plausibly be taken as anti-docetic.175 The first clearly polemical passage, 2:22–23, contains no sign that docetism is in the picture.176 To accept the anti-docetic view, then, one must hold that the main issue that occasioned the epistle is not actually addressed until the last fourth of the letter, and is not addressed in the first clearly polemical section of the letter. 2) Unlike Ignatius’s letters and the refutations of docetism by Irenaeus and Tertullian, 1 John lacks any clear or specific statements describing the nature of the opponents’ docetic teaching.177 We have no statements which clearly emphasize the reality of the physical birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Indeed, “flesh” is hardly a key word in 1 John—it appears only once in connection with Jesus (4:2).178 As J. Lieu 175 Terry Griffith, Keep Yourselves from Idols: A New Look at 1 John (JSNTSup 233; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 179, notes that 4:2–3 is the “sole foundation” for all docetic reconstructions of the opponents. 176 For an (unsuccessful) attempt to read 1 John 2:22–23 as anti-docetic, see below, p. 136. 177 Schnackenburg, Epistles, 23; Brown, Epistles, 58–59; Trebilco, Early Christians, 287. R. Edwards, Epistles, 62: “If our author is seeking to refute Docetism, he seems to be doing it very obscurely. One would have expected much more explicit references to Jesus’ birth, death, and resurrection, such as are found in Ignatius.” D. Neufeld, Reconceiving Texts as Speech Acts: An Analysis of I John (BibInt 7; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 119, writes, “If the confession [of 1 John 4:2] were the direct result of a Docetic heresy would the author not need to give more context?”; Johnson, “Parallels,” 332, also admits that “Ignatius is much more specific than Polycarp and the Johannine Epistles.” See Witherington, Letters, 597 for other key differences between the Johannine Letters and the Ignatian Epistles that suggest a significant temporal distance between the two (twenty years or more, if a traditional dating of 1 John in the 90s is accepted) that would account for the rise of docetism in the intervening period. 178 M. de Boer, “The Death of Jesus Christ and His Coming in the Flesh (1 John 4:2),” NovT 33 (1991), 328: “Apart from 4:2, in fact, there is precious little indication of the humanity of Jesus Christ as such and certainly no discernible emphasis on it.”

52

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

notes, references to “Jesus” and his life in 1 John are “surprisingly meagre” if the author in fact has an anti-docetic intent.179 This contrasts starkly with Ignatius who repeatedly stresses the key events of Jesus’ earthly ministry. Furthermore, the key term δοκεῖν, with which Ignatius summarizes his opponents’ claims, is not to be found in 1 John.180 This term, or an equivalent, is essential, because docetists could in fact confess that Jesus came in the flesh—they simply relegated that flesh to the level of appearance (often with reference to Rom 8:3).181 3) The mirror-reading offered by the anti-docetic view is not persuasive. This is especially the case with those passages designated as implicitly anti-docetic. For example, the prologue of 1 John (1:1–3) is often thought to stress Jesus’ physicality over against a docetic teaching. A close reading of the text, however, shows that it simply cannot bear such weight. As Boer observes, the passage does not in fact speak of Jesus as such, but rather of the eternal life revealed by God and the word or message which describes that life.182 Hence, a neuter pronoun (ὅ) is used instead of a masculine pronoun (ὅς). Even if 1:1–3 does speak of Jesus and his visibility and tangibility, this would not necessarily be inimical to docetism, which affirmed that Jesus was both visible and tangible—that is, he was able to affect the sensory perception of those around him.183 In fact, as Lieu observes, the terms of 1 John 1:2, ἡ ζωὴ ἐφανερώθη, could be “congenial to docetics”184 who claimed precisely that Jesus “appeared” or “was made visible.” Likewise, I will argue in chs. 4 and 5 against a simplistic mirrorreading of two key passages for the anti-docetic view: 1 John 4:2–3 and 5:6–7. With regard to 4:2–3, I will dispute the common assumption that the mention of Jesus’ “flesh” is really the focus of the polemic against the “false prophets.” With regard to 5:6–7, I will argue that it is not intended to be polemical and that its key terms (water and blood) do 179 J. Lieu, “‘Authority to Become Children of God’: A Study of I John,” NovT 23 (1981), 220. 180 Ulrich Wilckens, “Die Gegner im 1. und 2. Johannesbrief, ‘die Juden’ im Johannesevangelium und die Gegner in den Ignatiusbriefen und den Sendschreiben der Apokalypse,” in Der Sohn Gottes und seine Gemeinde: Studien zur Theologie der Johanneischen Schriften (FRLANT 200; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), 116–17. 181 See above, p. 47. 182 Boer, “Death.” 328; cf. Westcott, Epistles, 6–7; Dodd, Epistles, 4–5; H. H. Wendt, “Der ‘Anfang’ am Beginne des I Johannesbriefes,” ZNW 21 (1922): 38–42; Brooke, Epistles, 1. 183 See, e.g., the discussion of the Acts of John above, p. 45. 184 Lieu, “Authority,” 214. She concludes, “The passage has less force as an antidocetic polemic than at first sight.”

Cerinthian Opponents

53

not address the issue of Jesus’ physicality. Without these two passages, an anti-docetic reading of 1 John has no basis.

VI. Cerinthian Opponents A very popular view, with many ancient and contemporary defenders, is that the opponents of 1 John are best understood as advocating a separation Christology.185 Such a Christology is most commonly associated with the figure of Cerinthus, known from several ancient sources as an heretical opponent of orthodox theology. On this theory, the opponents taught a separation between two beings, Jesus and the Christ. Jesus was the first century Jew—purely human. The Christ, on the other hand, was the divine Son of God, a purely spiritual and preexistent being. These two were united for a season as the Christ descended upon Jesus at his baptism and empowered him throughout his ministry. Prior to Jesus’ death on the cross, the Christ departed and

185 Supporters include Michaelis, Introduction, 4:401–02; Theodor Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament (3 vols; trans. J. M. Trout, et al; New York: Scribner’s, 1909,) 3:368– 69, 374; Robert McL. Wilson, Gnosis and the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), 40; D. A. Carson, “The Three Witnesses and the Eschatology of 1 John,” in To Tell the Mystery: Essays on New Testament Eschatology in Honor of Robert H. Gundry (ed. T. E. Schmidt and M. Silva; JSNTSup 100; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 230, speaks of “a Cerinthian-like gnosticism”; Rensberger, 1 John, 23; Neander, First Epistle, 12; Kinlaw, Christ, 69, 86, 101, 110; Charles E. Hill, “Cerinthus: Gnostic or Chiliast? A New Solution to an Old Problem,” JECS 8 (2000): 135–72; Johnson, “Parallels,” 332; Bultmann, Epistles, 38, 80; Neil Alexander, The Epistles of John: Introduction and Commentary (London: SCM, 1962), 118–19; Klaus Wengst, Häresie und Orthodoxie im Spiegel des ersten Johannesbriefes (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1976), 34, 61; Wengst, Brief, 24–34; Painter, “Opponents,” 58, 64; Blank, “Irrlehrer,” 75–76; John A. T. Robinson, “The Destination and Purpose of the Johannine Epistles,” in Twelve New Testament Studies (London: SCM, 1962), 126–38; Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, 28–29; Westcott, Epistles, xxxiv; Gerd Theissen, Fortress Introduction to the New Testament (trans. John Bowden; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 161; Beutler, “Krise,” 100; John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary (2nd ed; TNTC 19; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 111; Charles Gore, The Epistles of St. John (New York: Scribner, 1920), 108–16; Hengel, Frage, 176–77; Michael Theobald, Die Fleischwerdung des Logos: Studien zum Verhältnis des Johannesprologs zum Corpus des Evangeliums und zu 1 Joh (Münster: Aschendorff, 1988), 412, 419–20; Michael Goulder, “A Poor Man’s Christology,” NTS 45 (1999): 332–48; Robert W. Yarbrough, 1–3 John (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 35, 38; W. Grundmann, “χρίω, κτλ,” TDNT 9:570–71. Brooke, Johannine Epistles, xlvi, asserts that “there can be little doubt that it is the most probable view.” See Brown, Epistles, 65, for a list of older commentators who held to this identification.

54

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

returned to heaven without suffering. Thus, Cerinthians taught, it is incorrect to say that Jesus is the Christ or the Son of God. It is very common for scholars who identify the opponents as Cerinthian also to include the label “gnostic” or “docetic” in their description. Separation Christology often appears under various guises in gnostic texts and Cerinthus was often grouped with gnostic theologians by the early heresiologists, who described his Christ-spirit as an “aeon.” Separation Christology is sometimes labeled “docetic” because it holds that the divine element did not suffer and was not incarnated but only joined temporarily and partially to the human flesh of Jesus.186 This is clearly different in principle, though, from the three types of docetism discussed above. 187 Indeed, in its more moderate form, it is very difficult to differentiate from orthodox Christology, which attempts to preserve the impassibility of God by distinguishing the divine nature from the human nature in the hypostatic union.

A. Exegetical Basis for the Theory of Cerinthian Opponents Three key passages form the basis for the Cerinthian identification of the opponents. I will discuss them in order of importance. First, 1 John 2:22 is clearly polemical, referring to antichrists who have “gone out from us.” The identifying trait of these antichrists is their denial that “Jesus is the Christ.” According to the anti-Cerinthian view, this denial reflects precisely the sentiment propounded by Cerinthus and his followers. It denies the permanent unity and identification of Jesus of Nazareth with the Christ.188 While 1 John 2:22 repeats the confession that stood at the climax of the Fourth Gospel (John 20:31), the context and thus the meaning of the confession have changed. While the Fourth Gospel focused on the conflict with Jews who denied that Jesus was the expected Messiah, 1 John comes later when the issue is no longer the messiahship of Jesus, but the unity of the human and divine

186 For example, Strecker, Letters, 71, calls Cerinthus a “subordinationist Docetist.” Cf. Westcott, Epistles, xxxiv. 187 For the case against applying the label “docetic” to Cerinthian Christology, see Ehrman, “1 Joh 4,3,” 237; Weigandt, “Doketismus,” 76–82; Grillmeier, “Doketismus,” 470; Gore, Epistles, 108–16; Johnson, “Parallels,” 332, who believes that the docetists Ignatius was combating were Cerinthian in their Christology. 188 See below, p. 134.

Cerinthian Opponents

55

elements. As B. F. Westcott puts it, “the theme of the Epistle is, ‘the Christ is Jesus’; the theme of the Gospel is, ‘Jesus is the Christ.’”189 The second key passage, 1 John 5:6–7, declares that Jesus Christ “came through water and blood…not in water only but in the water and the blood.” This is taken to be a direct refutation of Cerinthian teaching.190 “Water” and “blood” are understood as references to Jesus’ baptism and death. Cerinthus taught that the Christ came in the water, i.e., at Jesus’ baptism, but he denied that the Christ came in the blood— that is, he denied that the Christ suffered, teaching instead that it departed from Jesus prior to death. The author of 1 John insists to the contrary that Jesus Christ—the use of the double name emphasizes the unity of Jesus and the Christ—came in both the water and the blood. Third, 1 John 4:2–3 (and its parallel in 2 John 7) is thought to describe the same opponents attacked in 2:22. This passage, though, elaborates upon their denial that Jesus is the Christ. Now it is stated that they do not confess “Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh.” Cerinthus, it is proposed, fits the bill, as he denied the incarnation and the inseparability of Jesus from the Christ, and devalued the flesh of Jesus in its redemptive role. This proposal is verified by 4:3, which accuses the opponents of denying “Jesus.” The use of the simple “Jesus” highlights the way Cerinthian Christology downplayed the human element (Jesus) in favor of the divine element (the Christ). That is, the Cerinthians denied Jesus in the sense that they relegated him to the role of mere temporary vessel for the divine spiritual redeemer. In addition to these three key passages, there are several places in 1 John where the author’s statements or phraseology are not explicitly aimed at the Cerinthian opponents but nevertheless implicitly rebut them. These include several statements that Jesus is the Christ or Son of God. For example, in 4:15, the confession that Jesus is the Son of God is the prerequisite for divine indwelling. Similarly, in 5:1, belief that Jesus is the Christ is the mark of those who are “born of God.” Finally, in 5:5, those who overcome the world do so by their faith that Jesus is the Son of God. Many advocates of the anti-Cerinthian view also point to the repeated use of the double name, “Jesus Christ” (1:3; 2:1; 3:23; 4:2; 5:6, 20; 2 John 3, 7) as a strike against Cerinthian separationism.191

189 Westcott, Epistles, xliv. 190 See below, p. 276. 191 See, e.g., Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 96–97, 302–303; Grundmann, “Grundmann, “χρίω,” TDNT 9:571.

56

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

B. Ancient Evidence for Cerinthianism and Johannine Anti-Cerinthianism Numerous ancient sources mention or discuss Cerinthus and his doctrines. Some of these sources hold that the Johannine writings were aimed at Cerinthus. I will survey these sources in roughly chronological order.192

1. Epistula Apostolorum The oldest extant work that mentions Cerinthus is the Epistula Apostolorum, composed ca. 140–50 in the name of the twelve apostles.193 This work subversively mimics the revelatory discourse genre of the gnostic sects whose theology it opposes. It names Simon Magus and Cerinthus twice as the “false apostles” who “lead men to destruction” by perverting “the word and the truth.” 194 While the text does not specifically describe what the false teachings of Simon and Cerinthus were, it may be possible to speculate on the basis of the doctrines emphasized in the Epistula. Much of the work is devoted to recounting the virgin birth, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Special emphasis is given to Jesus’ fleshly state after the resurrection and to the reality both of future judgment for unbelievers and resurrection of the flesh for believers. The Epistula could thus be taken to suggest the following about Cerinthus: a) that he, like Simon Magus, was a contemporary of the apostles (this is required for the fictive setting of the letter to work),

192 For discussions of the ancient evidence, see Brown, Epistles, 766–71; Hill, “Cerinthus,” 135–72; Gunnar Hällstrom and Oskar Skarsaune, “Cerinthus, Elxai, and Other Alleged Jewish Christian Teachers or Groups,” in Jewish Believers in Jewish Believers in Jesus (ed. O. Skarsaune and R. Hvalvik; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007), 488–503; Matti Myllykoski, “Cerinthus,” in A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics” (ed. Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen; VCSup 76; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 213–46. 193 The date is deduced from the prediction in the Coptic version (ch. 17) that the world would end 120 years after Pentecost (ca. 150). Presumably, the text was composed shortly before that date. For discussions of the setting, purpose, and content of the Epistula, see C. Hill, “The Epistula Apostolorum: An Asian Tract from the Time of Polycarp,” JECS 7 (1999): 1–53; Manfred Hornschuh, Studien zur Epistula Apostolorum (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1965); J. Hills, Tradition and Composition in the Epistula Apostolorum (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990). 194 1; 7.

Cerinthian Opponents

57

and may thus be dated to the late first century;195 b) that he denied some aspect of the flesh of Jesus, most likely his post-resurrection enfleshment; c) that he denied some aspect of the Parousia, most likely the resurrection of the flesh.

2. Irenaeus The most important source for reconstructing Cerinthus’s doctrine is Irenaeus’s Adversus Haereses (ca. 180). His summary of the relevant facts concerning Cerinthus appears in Book I: Cerinthus, again, a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him, and at a distance from that Principality who is supreme over the universe, and ignorant of him who is above all. He represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men. Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles. But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being.196

In this summary, Irenaeus portrays Cerinthus as holding views very similar to those of the Gnostics he discusses earlier, including Simon, Menander, Saturninus, and Basilides.197 Cerinthus advocates demiurgism, teaches that a spiritual Christ (presumably an emanation from the highest God) possessed Jesus, and depicts Christ’s ministry as one of revealing the unknown highest God. Irenaeus also includes, though, several elements traditionally thought of as more Jewish, including a denial of the virgin birth and a belief that Jesus was a normal, although very righteous and wise, human being who died and was resurrected. Thus, Cerinthus appears to be a mixture of gnostic demiurgism with a lower “Jewish” Christology. He forms a conceptual bridge between the gnostic Carpocrates, who precedes him in 195 Hill, Corpus, 229–30. 196 Haer. 1.26.1. 197 Haer. 1.23–28. In 3.2.1, he again classifies Cerinthus as a gnostic, naming him along with Valentinus, Marcion and Basilides as those whom the gnostics claim to have possessed the extra-Scriptural secret wisdom tradition.

58

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

Irenaeus’s heresiology, and the Jewish Ebionites who follow.198 It is notable that unlike the Carpocratians and the Ebionites, there is no school of followers (the “Cerinthians”) attached to Cerinthus. Later in his work, Irenaeus indicates that Cerinthus was a contemporary of the Apostle John and worked in Asia Minor at the same time as John.199 He recounts a story attributed to Polycarp, the Asian bishop said to have been instructed by the Apostles, about an encounter between John and Cerinthus: There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, Let us flee, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.200

In another section of Book III, Irenaeus elaborates on the link between the Apostle John and Cerinthus, stating that John wrote his Gospel with the intention of refuting the Cerinthian error, which Irenaeus describes as a demiurgical distinction between the Creator and the highest God, combined with a distinction between Jesus, called the Son of the Creator, and Christ, the aeon who descended upon Jesus from the Pleroma and returned prior to the Passion. 201 Irenaeus refutes this view, which he also associates with Valentinus and Marcion, by quoting John 1:10: “the world was made by him.”202 He likewise points out that John 1:14, “The Word became flesh,” refutes the heretics’ view that the Word, Christ, or Savior was an impassible aeon which descended upon Jesus, but did not actually become flesh.203 In Book III, chapter 16, Irenaeus presumably again refers to Cerinthus and those who accept his Christological teaching when he speaks of “some who say that Jesus was merely a receptacle of Christ, upon whom the Christ, as a dove, descended from above, and that when he had declared the unnamable Father he entered into the Pleroma in an incomprehensible and invisible manner.”204 He cites both 198 On the Ebionites, see Haer. 1.26.2. Some of the apparently Jewish low Christology of the Ebionites is also shared by the Carpocratians, e.g. the denial of the virgin birth and the concomitant belief that Jesus was simply human. 199 Corroborating this may be Haer. 3.2.1, where Irenaeus seems to place Basilides after Cerinthus in time. Basilides’s career is usually dated ca. 120. 200 3.3.4. 201 3.11.1. See discussion in H. Gladder, “Cerinth und unsere Evangelien,” BZ 14 (1917): 317–32. 202 3.11.2. 203 3.11.3. 204 3.16.1.

Cerinthian Opponents

59

John 20:31 and 1 John 2:18–22 in order to refute the separation of Jesus and Christ, and suggests that John wrote these passages because he foresaw that heretical systems would attempt to divide the Lord into “two different substances.”205

3. Hippolytus Hippolytus (d. 236), a presbyter and then bishop of Rome during the early third century, composed his Refutation of All Heresies in the heresiological tradition of Irenaeus, upon whom he depends heavily for his information.206 Hippolytus’s strategy in refuting the various heresies was to demonstrate that each had its origin in pagan philosophy, not in the Scriptures. Cerinthus, he claims, derived his ideas from the “teachings of the Egyptians.”207 He asserted that the world was not made by the primal Deity, but by some virtue which was an offshoot from that Power which is above all things, and which is ignorant of the God that is above all. And he supposed that Jesus was not generated from a virgin, but that he was born son of Joseph and Mary, just in a manner similar with the rest of men, and that Jesus was more just and more wise than all the human race. And Cerinthus alleges that, after the baptism of our Lord, Christ in the form of a dove came down upon him from that absolute sovereignty which is above all things. And then, according to this heretic, Jesus proceeded to preach the unknown Father, and in attestation of his mission to work miracles. It was, however, the opinion of Cerinthus, that ultimately Christ departed from Jesus, and that Jesus suffered and rose again; whereas that Christ, being spiritual, remained beyond the possibility of suffering.208

In this, there is no significant departure from Irenaeus’s description. There are, however, indications that a lost work by Hippolytus may have supplied a different picture of Cerinthus that emphasized the Jewish elements of his teaching more. In his commentary on

205 3.16.5. 206 See A. F. J. Klijn and G. J. Reinink, Patristic Evidence for Jewish Christian Sects (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 4. Like Irenaeus, Hippolytus discusses Cerinthus after Carpocrates and before the Ebionites. 207 7.21; cf. 10.17, where he says more specifically that Cerinthus was trained in Egypt. 208 7.21. In a later summary (10.17), Hippolytus repeats much of this information, but supplies two clarifications: according to Cerinthus a) the Creator was an angelic power, and b) the Christ “flew away” from Jesus at the end of the Passion.

60

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

Revelation,209 Dionysius Bar Salibi (d. 1171) refers to a work by Hippolytus that recounted how Gaius (a late second-century Roman bishop) denied Johannine authorship of both the Fourth Gospel and Revelation, attributing them instead to Cerinthus. Dionysius indicates that Hippolytus refuted Gaius’s contention by demonstrating that the Fourth Gospel actually opposed Cerinthian ideas and could not therefore have been authored by Cerinthus. According to Dionysius, Cerinthus advocated circumcision (he opposed Paul for refusing to circumcise Titus), taught that the world was created by angels, denied the virgin birth, upheld the Jewish food laws, and wrote letters opposing Paul. This information provides a much more Jewish (and less gnostic) picture of Cerinthus, but it is not clear from Dionysius’s text how much of his information on Cerinthus he has actually derived from Hippolytus and how much he has culled from other sources.210

4. Pseudo-Tertullian The third-century (ca. 210–220) work, Refutation of All Heresies, whose author is unknown, appears to borrow extensively from the Syntagma, a lost treatise of Hippolytus that was itself dependent upon Irenaeus.211 Like Irenaeus, Pseudo-Tertullian places Cerinthus between Carpocrates and Ebion, but seems to locate him here not only conceptually but temporally.212 Likewise, he makes Ebion the successor to Cerinthus.213 His summary reads: 209 Dionysius bar Salibi, In Apocalypsim, Actus et Epistulas Catholicas (2 vols; trans. and ed. I. Sedlacek; CSCO 53, 60; Durbecq: Louvain, 1954), 2–3. 210 If Dionysius is solely dependent upon Hippolytus, it may be that the portrait of Cerinthus differs so dramatically from that in the Refutation of All Heresies because there he wished to stress Cerinthus’s dependence on Greek philosophy and thus decided not to mention the more Judaizing elements of Cerinthus’s doctrine. For the view that Dionysius’s material is not helpful for reconstructing Hippolytus’s account of Cerinthus, see Matti Myllykoski, “Cerinthus,” in A Companion to SecondCentury Christian “Heretics” (ed. Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen; VCSup 76; Leiden: Brill, 2005), 217, who believes that Dionysius is only quoting Hippolytus in his first sentence, where he speaks of Gaius denying Johannine authorship of John and Revelation. The further elaboration on the teachings of Cerinthus is derived from other sources. Klijn, Patristic, 5–6, believes that Dionysius’s summary of Hippolytus is simply inaccurate, given its radical divergence from the information in the Refutation of All Heresies. 211 R. M. Grant, Second-Century Christianity: A Collection of Fragments (2nd ed; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 86–94; cf. Myllykoski, “Cerinthus,” 216; G. Bardy, “Cérinthe,” RB 30 (1921), 353. 212 3.1–3.

Cerinthian Opponents

61

After him [Carpocrates], the heretic Cerinthus broke out, teaching similarly. For he, too, says that the world was originated by those angels; and sets forth Christ as born of the seed of Joseph, contending that he was merely human, without divinity; affirming also that the Law was given by angels; representing the God of the Jews as not the Lord, but an angel.214

While Pseudo-Tertullian does describe Cerinthus as holding to demiurgism, he gives no indication at all that Cerinthus divided Jesus from the Christ or taught that the Christ was an aeon who descended upon Jesus and eventually departed. 215 Indeed, Cerinthus appears in many ways indistinguishable from the Judaizing Ebionites.216

5. Victorinus Victorinus (d. 304), a bishop of Pettau, wrote a commentary on Revelation ca. 260. In his exposition of Revelation 11:1, he explains that the reed given to John with which to measure the temple represents the Apocalypse which he subsequently exhibited to the churches; for the Gospel of the complete faith he subsequently wrote for the sake of our salvation. For when Valentinus, and Cerinthus, and Ebion, and others of the school of Satan, were scattered abroad throughout the world, there assembled together to him from the neighboring provinces all the bishops, and compelled him himself also to draw up his testimony.217

Here Victorinus portrays the composition of the Fourth Gospel as a response to (and thus subsequent to) the teachings of Valentinus, Cerinthus, Ebion, and others. Like Irenaeus, Victorinus appears to believe that John combated such teachers by stressing that the Father of Jesus was the Creator and that Christ was the pre-existent and divine promised one of the Scriptures, incarnated, crucified, and resurrected bodily.218 Notably, he does not mention the separation Christology which Irenaeus associated with Cerinthus. 213 3.3. 214 3.2. 215 Note that according to Pseudo-Tertullian it was “Christ” not merely “Jesus” who was born of Joseph. 216 For a skeptical treatment of Pseudo-Tertullian’s reliability concerning Cerinthus, see Klijn, Patristic, 7. 217 In Apocalypsin, 11.1. The standard edition of the text is Martine Dulaey, Victorin de Poetovio: Sur l’Apocalypse et autres écrits (SC 423; Paris: Cerf, 1997). 218 “Moreover, we say that the measure of God’s temple is the command of God to confess the Father Almighty, and that his Son Christ was begotten by the Father before the beginning of the world, and was made man in very soul and flesh, both of

62

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

In his commentary on Rev 21:25, Victorinus, who himself advocated a millenarian eschatology, cautions against those who hold to a crass earthly concept of the millennium: “Therefore they are not to be heard who assure themselves that there is to be an earthly reign of a thousand years; who think, that is to say, with the heretic Cerinthus. For the kingdom of Christ is now eternal in the saints, although the glory of the saints shall be manifested after the resurrection.”219

6. Dionysius of Alexandria A similar description of Cerinthus as a carnal millenarian appears in Dionysius of Alexandria (ca. 260), whose Peri Epangelion is partially preserved in Eusebius.220 Dionysius recounts how many in his day questioned the authenticity of the Revelation of John, attributing it instead to Cerinthus, who founded the sect which was called after him the Cerinthian.…For the doctrine which he taught was this: that the kingdom of Christ will be an earthly one. And as he was himself devoted to the pleasures of the body and altogether sensual in his nature, he dreamed that that kingdom would consist in those things which he desired, namely, in the delights of the belly and of sexual passion; that is to say, in eating and drinking and marrying, and in festivals and sacrifices and the slaying of victims, under the guise of which he thought he could indulge his appetites with a better grace.221

For the first time, we have the claim that Cerinthus was the founder of a sect. But no mention is made of Cerinthus the demiurgical gnostic who taught separation Christology. Instead, Cerinthus’s chief heresy is them having overcome misery and death; and that, when received with his body into heaven by the Father, he shed forth the Holy Spirit, the gift and pledge of immortality, that he was announced by the prophets, he was described by the law, he was God’s hand, and the Word of the Father from God, Lord over all, and founder of the world: this is the reed and the measure of faith; and no one worships the holy altar save he who confesses this faith” (11.1). 219 It is not clear whether this statement is Victorinus’s own, or Jerome’s editorial “correction.” If it is Victorinus’s, then it must be intended to warn against taking the millennial reign as a literal thousand years. If it is Jerome’s, then it probably rejects any type of millenarianism. See Brian Daley, The Hope of the Early Church: A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003), 65–66; Charles Hill, Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 35–37. 220 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 7.25.1–3; cf. 3.28.3–5. 221 Hist. eccl. 7.25.1.

Cerinthian Opponents

63

Judaizing millennialism, which he propounded by writing Revelation pseudonymously.

7. Eusebius Eusebius’s monumental Ecclesiastical History discusses Cerinthus at length in Book 3. Describing him as “the author of another heresy,”222 Eusebius locates him around the time of Menander, the Ebionites, and the Nicolaitans. Eusebius does not explicitly say what Cerinthus’s heresy was, although he alludes in passing to Irenaeus’s summary of his “abominable false doctrines.”223 Eusebius focuses, however, on Cerinthus’s millennial teachings, which suggests that he may have considered chiliasm to be Cerinthus’s primary heresy. He quotes the tradition of Dionysius (mentioned above), as well as Gaius’s own Disputation, in which he alleged that Cerinthus wrote the Apocalypse under the name of the Apostle John in order to advance his fleshly millennial teaching.224 Eusebius concludes the section by quoting Irenaeus’s bathhouse tale.225

8. Epiphanius Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. 375), devotes a long chapter to Cerinthus in his Panarion.226 He draws mainly on Irenaeus and Pseudo-Tertullian for his facts, although he may also have had access to other sources, including oral traditions.227 According to Epiphanius, Cerinthus held to a Christology similar to that of Carpocrates and the Ebionites, denying the virgin birth and teaching that Jesus was a mere human, born from

222 223 224 225 226 227

3.28.1. 3.28.6. 3.28.2. 3.28.6; he repeats it in 4.14.6. Ch. 28 is devoted to Cerinthus. The “Merinthians” (28.8.1), who are not attested in other sources, may be evidence of corruption via oral tradition.

64

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

the seed of Joseph.228 Following Irenaeus, Epiphanius also attributes separation Christology to Cerinthus.229 Beyond this, Epiphanius’s report is quite confusing, even contradictory, in places.230 He locates Cerinthus’s activity in Asia, Jerusalem231 and Galatia232 during the Apostles’ time and sees him as the target of the apostolic decree in Acts 15.233 Indeed, Cerinthus somehow makes his way into every NT controversy: he opposed Peter in the Cornelius episode, he argued for circumcision based on Matthew 10:25, he accused Paul of bringing uncircumcised Gentiles into the temple (Acts 21:28), and he was the one who denied the resurrection and taught baptism for the dead, against whom Paul penned 1 Corinthians 15.234 The only heresy that Epiphanius does not connect to Cerinthus is chiliasm. This is puzzling, since he clearly had access to Eusebius’s account, which had stressed Cerinthus’s millennial doctrine. Like Irenaeus, Epiphanius reports that Cerinthus was also an opponent of John, and that John wrote his Gospel to refute Cerinthus by testifying that Christ “is the eternal Word and has come from on high and been made flesh.”235 Later, he states that the Fourth Gospel was written against both Cerinthus and Ebion with the intention of defending the pre-existence of Christ.236 Elsewhere, however, he accuses Cerinthus and Ebion of teaching that “Christ simply appeared in the world as a grown man and came to the Jordan to John,”237 a teaching more traditionally attributed to Marcion.238

228 28.1.1. Hill, “Cerinthus,” 146, believes that Epiphanius attributed to Cerinthus all the Jewish ideas of the Ebionites on the basis of Irenaeus’s statement that the Ebionite Christology was similar to Carpocrates and Cerinthus. 229 According to Epiphanius, Cerinthus taught that “Jesus is not Christ” (Pan. 28.1.6: οὐ τὸν Ἰησοῦν εἶναι Χριστόν.) 230 See Hill, “Cerinthus,” 148; Brown, Epistles, 769. For example, Epiphanius says at one point that Cerinthus taught that Jesus had been raised from the dead (28.1.7), but later that Jesus “has not yet risen, though he will rise at the general resurrection” (28.6.1). 231 28.8.2. 232 28.6.4 233 28.2.3–6; 28.4.1. 234 28.6.4–5. 235 51.4.1–2; 51.6 236 51.12.3–6. 237 51.10.4. 238 See above, p. 39.

Cerinthian Opponents

65

C. Scholarly Reconstructions of Cerinthus 1. Cerinthus the Chiliast From the survey of ancient evidence above, it should be apparent that there is a mass of conflicting data surrounding Cerinthus. Contemporary scholarship, in its struggle to sift the data and produce a coherent picture, has fallen far short of consensus in its own reconstruction of Cerinthus and his teachings. 239 Three basic paths have been taken. First, some scholars have seen Cerinthus primarily as a Judaizing chiliast who denied the virgin birth and divinity of Jesus and who held to a traditional Jewish concept of the messianic age as a thousand-year period of earthly feasting and rest.240 They give the most weight to the evidence from Gaius and Dionysius, while theorizing that Irenaeus’s gnostic portrait was a speculative attempt to tar Cerinthus with the Valentinian and Carpocratian brush, likely for the sake of geneological continuity.241 On this view, if Cerinthus did hold an aberrant Christology, it was simple adoptionism of the kind usually associated with the Ebionites and did not depend upon an elaborate theory of divine aeons.242 Irenaeus and other second-century sources do not mention Cerinthus’s chiliasm because they were chiliasts themselves and did not consider such a view heretical.243

239 Myllykoski, “Cerinthus,” 223, laments that currently “Scholarship seems to be at an impasse.” 240 Wurm, Irrlehrer, 20–38, Bardy, “Cérinthe,” 344–73; Jean Daniélou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity: The Development of Christian Doctrine before the Council of Nicaea (London: Longman, 1964), 1:68–69, 284–85; Goulder, “Poor Man’s,” 332–48; Myllykoski, “Cerinthus,” 213–46; Pearson, Ancient Gnosticism, 38. Those who see a preponderance of Jewish elements in Cerinthus do not necessarily hold that Cerinthus was himself a Jew. Almost all see the later traditions in Epiphanius about Cerinthus’s Judaizing as pure imagination. See Myllykoski, “Cerinthus,” 244–45; for a different opinion, see Bardy, “Cérinthe,” 371. 241 Myllykoski, “Cerinthus,” 226, believes that Irenaeus’s main target in his work, Adversus Haereses, was the Valentinians. He therefore tends to describe other heretics so as to maximize their resemblance to the Valentinians. Cf. Bardy, “Cérinthe,” 346, 371, who also emphasizes Irenaeus’s overarching strategy of delineating a succession or διαδοχή of gnostic teachers. 242 Myllykoski, “Cerinthus,” 232, thinks that later gnostics incorporated adoptionism into their demiurgism and their system of aeons; as a result the heresiologists often did not distinguish adoptionism from Gnosticism. 243 Ibid., 242.

66

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

2. Cerinthus the Gnostic A second option is to explain Cerinthus primarily as a gnostic.244 Scholars who take this route put the most stock in Irenaeus’s account, which they find to be essentially reliable and coherent. They hold that Cerinthus was a demiurgical theologian whose Christology flowed from the distinction between the supreme Unknown God and the lower Creator God. The Christ, an aeonic emanation from the Supreme God, accomplished redemption through the purely human vessel, Jesus, descending upon him at baptism and proclaiming through him the Unknown God before departing prior to the cross. Cerinthus’s view stripped the cross of redemptive value and focused instead upon the Christ’s revelatory work as the vehicle of redemption. It also rendered unnecessary the tradition of the virgin birth. According to the gnostic reading of Cerinthus the charge of chiliasm was trumped up by Gaius in an attempt to attack the view by linking it to a notorious heresiarch.245 Several scholars have argued that Cerinthus’s thought had its roots in the Johannine tradition itself, and that Cerinthus is the heir of the Johannine secessionists combated in 1 John.246 K. Wengst, for example, argues that the secessionists held to a separation Christology on the basis of the Fourth Gospel’s account of Jesus’ baptism (1:32) and death (19:30), which depict the Spirit arriving and departing. 247 Cerinthus inherited the secessionists’ separation Christology and combined it with a gnostic demiurgism.248 G. Theissen believes a Cerinthian separation Christology developed among the secessionists because of the strict monotheism of the Johannine tradition combined with its very high Christology.249 These were reconciled through a theory of temporary possession. R. Brown suggests that Irenaeus may have thought Cerinthus the target of the Fourth Gospel because Cerinthus depended heavily on that Gospel to support his own teachings. This would also explain, Brown thinks, why other traditions, conversely,

244 Walter Bauer, “Cerinth,” RGG 1:1632; Wengst, Häresie, 24–34; Brown, Epistles, 770. 245 So argues Klijn, Patristic, 8. If, however, Cerinthus was a more or less pure gnostic, it is strange that Gaius would have tried to pin Revelation on him, since the book shows no signs of gnostic influence. 246 See Rensberger, 1 John, 24; Wengst, Häresie, 24–34; Theissen, Introduction, 161; Brown, Epistles, 770. 247 Wengst, Häresie, 24, 33–34. 248 Ibid., 61. This would explain why demiurgism is not mentioned in 1 John. 249 Theissen, Introduction, 161.

Cerinthian Opponents

67

actually attribute the Gospel of John to Cerinthus (e.g. the Alogoi).250 If Irenaeus is to be trusted, however, Cerinthus actually preferred Mark’s Gospel, while the Valentinians depended on John. This makes good sense because Mark begins his Gospel in a way quite amenable to Cerinthus—sans Virgin Birth, or, indeed, any birth narrative. The story opens at Jesus’ baptism and concludes the passion with Jesus crying out to his god (on Cerinthus’ reading, perhaps the Christ?) who has forsaken him.251

3. Cerinthus the Jewish Gnostic A third view attempts to synthesize both the Jewish and gnostic elements in the patristic reports into a coherent portrait that can account for all the evidence.252 Pamela Kinlaw exemplifies this approach when she contends that while Cerinthus held to a temporary possession Christology that had its roots in Jewish adoptionist theories such as those of the Ebionites, he introduced a key innovation when he expressed his possessionist Christology in gnostic demiurgical terms and identified the Christ-spirit that Jesus received at his baptism as a divine aeonic emanation. Thus, according to Kinlaw, Cerinthus bridged Jewish-Christian ideas with Gnosticism.253 Similarly, Charles Hill offers a sophisticated attempt to reconcile the patristic evidence concerning Cerinthus.254 Hill accepts Irenaeus and the Epistula Apostolorum as basically trustworthy testimonies regarding Cerinthus.255 He believes that Cerinthus was closest doctrinally to Marcion and his predecessor Cerdo, in that he accepted the Marcionite demiurgical dualism between the OT Creator and the 250 Brown, Epistles, 770. For the attribution of John and Revelation to Cerinthus, see Epiphanius, Pan. 51, who assigns this view to the “Alogoi.” See above, p. 64. 251 Haer. 3.11.7. 252 See Hill “Cerinthus,” 135–72; Kinlaw, Christ, 86–87; Eduard Schwartz, “Johannes und Kerinthos,” ZNW 16 (1914): 210–19; Hilgenfeld, Einleitung, 411–21; F. J. A. Hort, Judaistic Christianity (London: Macmillan, 1894), 188–91. 253 Kinlaw, Christ, 86. 254 Hill, “Cerinthus,” 135–72. 255 Ibid., 158. Hill thinks that Polycarp was the main source for Irenaeus’s information on Cerinthus, as he is the only source named in the discussion. He speculates that Polycarp may also be the anonymous presbyter of Haer. 4.32.1 who, according to Irenaeus, refuted the demiurgists. There is, however, no good reason that Irenaeus would leave the presbyter anonymous if it were in fact Polycarp. Myllykoski, “Cerinthus,” 230, therefore proposes that the presbyter was an Asian teacher known to Irenaeus but who would not have been familiar to his readers.

68

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

NT Father of Jesus.256 Cerinthus was also a chiliast, as the evidence from Gaius of Rome indicates. According to Hill, Cerinthus’s chiliasm is not in conflict with his demiurgical dualism but actually flows out of it. Because of his demiurgism, Cerinthus believed that the OT was not valid for Christians, as it was the product of the demiurge. The OT prophecies did not refer to Jesus or to a suffering Messiah but to the demiurge’s own Messiah whose future coming would restore the land to Israel and usher in an earthly reign of one thousand years. Jesus, in his early life, was a devout worshipper of the demiurge, but at his baptism and possession by the Christ-spirit, he disassociated himself from the Jewish god and began to proclaim the message of the higher God who had sent the Christ-spirit. Thus, Cerinthus accepted many of the claims of Jewish apologists against Christianity 257 but placed them in the service of supersessionism by means of his demiurgical schema.258 Hill’s explanation is ingenious, but problematic, since the early evidence of Cerinthus’s chiliasm (in the writings of Gaius) never suggests any link with demiurgical theories or supersessionism. Indeed, Cerinthus is attacked in this material precisely because he taught a millenarian future for Christians. It is unthinkable that Gaius would attribute Revelation and the Fourth Gospel to Cerinthus if Cerinthus were in fact a demiurgist and supersessionist.259

D. Weaknesses of the Theory of Cerinthian Opponents Numerous points make it necessary to reject the identification of 1 John’s opponents with Cerinthus or his followers. In this section I will focus on the historical issues. The exegetical issues will be discussed in depth in following chapters.

256 Hill, “Cerinthus,” 153. Contra Hill, however, it is noteworthy that Irenaeus himself does not connect Cerinthus to Marcion or Cerdo. 257 E.g., that Jesus was merely human, and that the Messiah would be a royal conquerer, not a suffering servant. 258 Ibid., 171–72. 259 This is why Hippolytus has such an easy time disproving (his understanding of) Gaius’s Cerinthian attribution. While Gaius apparently knows nothing of Cerinthus’s Gnosticism, Hippolytus, dependent on Irenaeus, knows only of Cerinthus’s Gnosticism.

Cerinthian Opponents

69

1. The Dearth of Reliable Ancient Evidence The primary problem with claiming that the opponents are Cerinthian is the difficulty of obtaining reliable evidence about Cerinthus or his possible followers. Those who believe 1 John is opposing Cerinthian Christology uniformly rely on Irenaeus for his description of Cerinthus, as he is the earliest extant source to describe Cerinthus as holding to separation Christology. But, there are many reasons to think that Irenaeus’s portrait of Cerinthus cannot bear critical scrutiny and that some, perhaps much, of Irenaeus’s account of Cerinthus and his teaching may be the result of speculation, not firm evidence. First, there is the possibility that Irenaeus, lacking any firsthand experience with Cerinthian teaching and any documentary evidence, relied on word of mouth for his portrait of Cerinthus, filling in the gaps with educated guesses as to his teachings. 260 This may be why Cerinthus comes across as little more than a copy of Carpocrates, albeit with much less elaboration from Irenaeus on his teachings. 261 We can certainly see such a tendency at work in the heresiological tradition, so that by the time of Epiphanius, the Cerinthus-legend has grown to such an extent that he has become “an all-purpose heretic”262—a fearsome hybrid of the early church’s worst fears, gnostic and Judaizer wrapped up in one. A perfect example Irenaeus’s imagination at work can be found in Haer. 1.26.3, where his report on the “Nicolaitans” demonstrates a complete lack of firm documentary evidence about them. The absence of evidence does not deter Irenaeus, though, as he fancifully claims that the Nicolaitans are followers of Nicolas, one of the seven deacons of Acts 6:5, and proceeds to fill out his description of the sect’s teaching through a simplistic mirror-reading of Revelation 2. Second, Irenaeus’s description of Cerinthus’s teaching is inconsistent. In Haer. 1.26.1, he states that Cerinthus taught that Jesus was a normal human being, born of Joseph and Mary, who was then possessed by the Christ spirit at baptism. In Haer. 3.11.1, however, he represents Cerinthus (and the Nicolaitans) as teaching that Jesus was the “Son of the Creator,” or the Second God, the Demiurge. A little bit later, in Haer. 3.16.1, he appears to suggest that the Cerinthians taught “Jesus was the Son, but that Christ was the Father, and the Father of 260 Klijn, Patristic, 4, 18; Bardy, “Cérinthe,” 349; Brown, Epistles, 66. 261 For the parallels between Irenaeus’s descriptions of Cerinthus and Carpocrates, see above, p. 61. 262 Kenneth Grayston, The Johannine Epistles (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 15; Klijn, Patristic, 5.

70

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

Christ was God.” And again in 3.16.5, he holds that 1 John 2:22 (“Jesus is the Christ”) was meant to refute those who “divide the Lord…saying that He was formed of two different substances.” These conflicting statements cast doubt on the accuracy of Irenaeus’s knowledge of Cerinthus. Third, Irenaeus’s chronology for Cerinthus is also inconsistent. On the one hand, Irenaeus recounts the famous bathhouse incident, which places the Apostle John and Cerinthus in Ephesus at the same time. 263 He also states that John wrote his Gospel to refute Cerinthus’s doctrine of two gods.264 On the other hand, he states elsewhere that John wrote his Gospel “foreseeing” the blasphemous systems which attempt to divide the Lord.265 Here, he appears to backtrack on his previous statement that John wrote against a contemporary heresy and seems to indicate that John’s writings were not originally aimed at refuting separation Christology but later proved useful for that purpose.266 The link Irenaeus makes between Cerinthus and John, often used to support the theory that 1 John was written against Cerinthian teaching, is rather tenuous. It depends upon two pieces of information: a) that John wrote his Gospel against Cerinthus, and b) the bathhouse story, which places John and Cerinthus in Ephesus at the same time. Both of these pieces are questionable. Irenaeus introduces the bathhouse story in a way that indicates he did not hear it directly from Polycarp: “There are those who heard from him [Polycarp] that John…”267 Irenaeus heard from certain unnamed sources, who heard from Polycarp, who

263 Haer. 3.3.4. 264 3.11.1. Irenaeus’s confusion is on display in this section as he states that the demiurgical doctrine had been propounded by the Nicolaitans “a long time before” John’s Gospel was written. In his previous discussion of the Nicolaitans (1.26.3), though, he inexplicably fails to mention this aspect of Nicolaitan teaching. See Brown, Epistles, 65, for further discussion. Bardy, “Cérinthe,” 344, notes that the heresiologists often tried “à prouver que les erreurs les plus récentes en apparence ont déjà été condamnées autrefois, au temps de leurs premières origines.” However, see N. Brox, “Nikolaos und Nikolaiten.” VC 19 (1965): 23–30, for a defense of Irenaeus on this point. Cf. also L. Seesemann, “Die Nikolaiten: Ein Beitrag zur ältesten Häresiologie,” TSK 66 (1893): 47–82. 265 3.16.5. 266 See Grayston, Epistles, 15. Some believe that the very idea of Cerinthus and John being contemporaries was an invention of Irenaeus; cf., e.g., Schwartz, “Johannes und Kerinthos,” 210–19. The evidence from the Epistula Apostolorum, however, does indicate that by the mid-second century, it was supposed in at least some circles that Cerinthus was a contemporary of the Apostles. 267 3.3.4.

Cerinthian Opponents

71

heard from an unnamed source.268 Thus, as it stands, Irenaeus’s account is fourth-hand information. The story, as is typical of legends, appears elsewhere with different antagonists—including Basilides, Ebion, and an unnamed rabbi—instead of Cerinthus.269 Is it possible that Irenaeus concluded from this tidbit of fourth-hand folklore that John intended to refute Cerinthus with his Gospel?270 He appears to have done something similar in the case of the Nicolaitans, where he reasons that since the Apostle attacked this sect in Revelation 2, they must also have been a target of his Gospel.271 Such pious guesswork cannot provide a firm basis for historical reconstruction.272 Fourth, the strand of patristic evidence that portrays Cerinthus as a millenarian heretic is impossible to reconcile with Irenaeus’s portrait of Cerinthus as a gnostic.273 Hill’s valiant attempt to reconcile the two portraits by way of demiurgical supersessionism fails to do justice to the sources, which portray Cerinthus as teaching an earthly millennium as the hope of Christian believers and speaking of a thousand-year marriage feast that he had learned about through angelic visions. Moreover, this strand of evidence contains no trace of the Gnosticism Irenaeus stresses as the defining mark of Cerinthus. The earliest 268 It is, of course, possible that Polycarp heard from John himself, or that Polycarp was an eyewitness of the incident, but neither is made explicit in Irenaeus’s account, as we would expect if they were the case. 269 See Grant, Second-Century (1946 edition), 132. For the version with Ebion, see Epiphanius, Pan. 30.24.1. In Epiphanius, the story serves to exemplify the Ebionite attachment to purification rituals (thus, the bathhouse setting), and actually yields a better sense than Irenaeus’s version. Another example of the tendency to read later events and persons anachronistically back into the Apostolic Age can be found in the anti-Marcionite prologue to the Gospel of John (cf. the same tradition in the fourth-century Philaster, Haer. 45), which recounts how John once confronted Marcion in person—clearly an historical impossibility. For a more optimistic assessment of the historicity of the Cerinthus-John bathhouse episode, see Law, Tests, 36, who calls its authenticity “beyond doubt.” Cf. Bardy, “Cérinthe,” 348; Hill, “Cerinthus,” 150. 270 This is what Bardy, “Cérinthe,” 349, suggests. An alternative explanation holds that the story is “die Ätiologie der späteren Auseinandersetzung der Kirche mit Kerinthianern” (Thyen, “Johannesbriefe,” 188). Thyen also theorizes that the belief that the Gospel was anti-Cerinthian may have been a reaction to Gaius’s charge that it was authored by Cerinthus. 271 Haer. 3.11.7. See Schnackenburg, Epistles, 21. 272 Cf. Edwards, Epistles, 61; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 105–106. In light of the tangled web of evidence, it is not difficult to see why some scholars despair of having any firm basis for responsibly reconstructing Cerinthus and his views. Klijn, Patristic, 4, 18, 19, is representative of this view, concluding that nothing more can be known of Cerinthus than that he was a heretic in Asia Minor. 273 Myllykoski, “Cerinthus,” 232.

72

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

reference to Cerinthus, in the Epistula Apostolorum, likewise, contains not a hint that a demiurgical doctrine or theory of aeons was associated with him.274 In fact, the Epistula itself, which purports to oppose Cerinthus, actually narrates the virgin birth in a way that is amenable to possessionist Christology, or at least Valentinianism: “Christ” is portrayed as an angel who enters Mary in the form of an already developed baby (14).275

2. The Questionable Relevance of the Ancient Evidence Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept Irenaeus’s portrait of a gnostic Cerinthus as basically reliable, many challenges remain for the view that the Johannine Epistles were anti-Cerinthian: 1) While Irenaeus does claim that the Fourth Gospel was written against Cerinthus, he notably does not claim the same for 1 John or 2 John.276 Irenaeus does quote 1 John 2:22 against later separation Christologies, but he does not suggest that this was its original purpose.277 2) It is evident from the narrative of the Fourth Gospel, as well as other relevant evidence from the NT, that the confession of John 20:31 (that “Jesus is the Christ”) expresses the most fundamental conviction of the early church, that Jesus was the promised Messiah. There is no compelling reason to believe that the confession was intended to counter Cerinthus; likewise, there is no reason to doubt that the confession maintains its original meaning when it is reused in 1 John 2:22.278 3) At the heart of the debate between the early church and Cerinthian Christology was the meaning of the term “Christ.”279 While Cerinthus applied it to an aeon, or divine emanation, orthodox Christians saw it as a title of the promised redeemer. If the debate in 1 John concerned Cerinthianism, we would expect some clear statement defining the contested term, “Christ.” Instead, we find a rather unselfconscious use of the term, often in ways that would be

274 275 276 277 278 279

Cf. Myllykoski, “Cerinthus,” 213. See G. Bardy, “Cérinthe,” 344–73, who questioned the text’s supposed orthodoxy. See Schnackenburg, Epistles, 21. Haer. 3.16.5. See the full discussion of this issue below in ch. 3. See Irenaeus, Haer. 3.16.2–8.

Cerinthian Opponents

73

misleading if a Cerinthian definition were to be assumed. 280 In response to a Cerinthian separation of Jesus and the Christ, the statement that Jesus is the Christ would not express an orthodox Christology unless the term Christ was clearly defined. Similarly, to say in 1 John 5:6–7 that the Christ came not just in water but also in blood would seem to surrender half the battle to the secessionists, who are supposed to have held that the Christ came at baptism. 4) If Cerinthian Christology were at issue, 1 John 4:2 would hardly be the most obvious way to respond. Someone who held to a separation Christology could easily confess Jesus as the Christ having come in the flesh, since their doctrine taught precisely that: the Christ came and took up residence in the flesh of Jesus. Indeed, although Irenaeus used this verse to attack the separationist heresy, he acknowledged that it needed further clarification since the heretics “appear to be like us, by what they say in public, repeating the same words as we do; but inwardly they are wolves.” 281 5) While one of the linchpins for the modern anti-Cerinthian view is the reference in 1 John 5:6–7 to Christ’s coming in the water and blood, none of the heresiologists ever detects an anti-Cerinthian meaning in this passage. The verse is never quoted against those advocating an adoptionist, possessionist, or separation Christology. Indeed, the verse was not taken in an anti-Cerinthian way until the nineteenth century. 282 6) While the modern anti-Cerinthian view understands the confession in 1 John 4:15 and 5:5 (“Jesus is the Son of God”) as a strike against separation Christology, there is no evidence that Cerinthus or other advocates of separation Christology applied the name “Son” to the Christ-spirit or Christ-aeon which was thought to have possessed Jesus. In fact, Irenaeus states in Haer. 3.11.1 that the Cerinthians believed that Jesus was the Son of the (lower) Creator God. Moreover, when Irenaeus cites 1 John 2:22, he does not go on to quote the following verse, which speaks to the necessity of affirming Jesus’ sonship.283 7) Modern readings see separation Christology as the only doctrinal issue addressed in 1 John, but the ancient evidence concerning Cerinthus always connects his separation Christology to other heterodox beliefs as well, including a rejection of the virgin birth and a 280 See Schnackenburg, Epistles, 20. 281 3.16.8. Earlier he observes that the Valentinians confess “indeed, in tongue, one Christ Jesus,” but upon deeper analysis are found to divide him (3.16.1). 282 See below, 276. 283 Haer. 3.16.5.

74

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

demiurgical dualism. If Cerinthus were the target of 1 John, we would certainly expect the letter to address such teachings.284 In response to this objection, one might claim, as K. Wengst does, that the secessionists held to a primitive form of Cerinthianism which taught separation Christology alone and had not yet linked it to a gnostic cosmogony or doctrine of the Pleroma, both of which were later innovations of Cerinthus.285 Such a theory, however, is both circular and an argument from silence. It also ignores the fact that there is no evidence of a separation Christology (such as that supposedly addressed in 1 John) which was not closely tied to gnostic demiurgism.286 As Hill points out, Cerinthus taught that Jesus was possessed by the aeonic Christ in order to remove him from the religion of the demiurge (Judaism) and to draft him into the service of the Unknown Father.287 Thus, it appears that his separation Christology was driven by his demiurgical doctrine.

3. Other Possible Separationist Opponents In the same vein, it is also frequently asserted that the opponents of 1 John need not be identical to Cerinthus or even genetically connected to him.288 Rather, Cerinthus (as described in Irenaeus) may simply serve as a helpful parallel to the secessionists who, like him, held to some form of separation Christology. Other figures and texts that are not clearly connected to Cerinthus may be adduced to show that Cerinthus did not have a monopoly on the kind of separation Christology at issue 284 See Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 107; Schnackenburg, Epistles, 21; Brown, Epistles, 67. 285 Wengst, Häresie, 61. A variation of this approach is found in Carson, “Witnesses,” 230, who believes that 1 John addresses some form of proto-gnostic doctrine akin to what Irenaeus associates with Cerinthus. But, he argues that because early Gnosticism is a “smorgasbord religion” not all the teachings of Cerinthus must necessarily be present in the Johannine opponents. 286 Theodotus of Byzantium, discussed in Hippolytus, Haer. 7.23, is a possible exception. Hippolytus states that Theodotus rejected Cerinthus’s demiurgism while accepting his possessionist Christology. He also held to the virgin birth. Hippolytus, however, makes clear that Theodotus’s view was a novelty and a development from Cerinthian teaching. More importantly, Theodotus’s Christology is not truly separationist, but rather adoptionist, since unlike Cerinthus he did not teach that the Christ-spirit abandoned Jesus prior to his death. 287 Hill, “Cerinthus,” 152–53. This distinguishes Cerinthus from the Ebionites, for whom the descent of the Spirit at baptism was the fulfillment of the OT’s messianic promises. 288 See, e.g., Rensberger, 1 John, 23.

Cerinthian Opponents

75

in 1 John. For example, Carpocrates, like Cerinthus, is said to have held that a higher power descended upon the human Jesus and departed prior to the crucifixion—surely a form of separation Christology.289 The Ebionites similarly held that Jesus was a normal human until his baptism, when the messianic Spirit, sometimes described as an angel,290 descended upon him and empowered him for his ministry. 291 The Excerpta ex Theodoto, preserved by Clement of Alexandria, teach that Jesus “put on” the “psychic Christ” (59).292 Among the Nag Hammadi documents, two texts are relevant. In the Second Treatise of the Great Seth (VII, 2) the Savior recounts his descent: “I visited a bodily dwelling. I cast out the one who was in it first and I went in.…And I am the one who was in it, not resembling him who was in it first. For he was an earthly man, but I, I am from above the heavens. I did not refuse them even to become a Christ, but I did not reveal myself to them.” 293 Later, he describes the Passion: “They nailed their man unto their death.…It was another, their father, who drank the gall and vinegar; it was not I.…It was another upon whom they placed the crown of thorns.”294 Along the same lines, in The First Apocalypse of James (V,3), the Lord comforts his brother regarding his passion: “James, do not be concerned for me or for this people. I am he who was within me. Never have I suffered in any way, nor have I been distressed. And this people has done me no harm.”295 These are not valid parallels, however, because while each has a little bit in common with the separation Christology attributed to the secessionists, they lack the essential characteristic, namely a distinction between the human being Jesus and the divine being named Christ, along with the belief that the Christ possessed Jesus at his baptism but departed before the cross.296 Carpocrates, for example, is said to refer to 289 Irenaeus, Haer. 1.25.2. 290 Tertullian, Carn. Chr. 14.6. 291 For the view that John’s opponents were Ebionite, see Goulder “Poor Man’s,” 332– 48. 292 Cited as a parallel to the secessionists by Kinlaw, Christ, 87. 293 51.20–25; 51.32–52.6. 294 55.34–56.20. See Brown, Epistles, 770, who thinks this text evidences gnostic acceptance of a possessionist Christology akin to that of Cerinthus; Kinlaw, Christ, 86, calls it “displacement possession” and notes also the presence of polymorphism. 295 31.15–22. 296 The name of the divine being which possesses the human Jesus is crucial. On the view that the Johannine secessionists hold to separation Christology, the divine being must have been called both “Christ” and “Son of God.” From Irenaeus’s account, it appears that while several heretics spoke of a divine aeon possessing a human Jesus, Cerinthus was the first to designate this being the “Christ.”

76

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

a power descending upon Jesus at baptism, but he is never said to call this power the “Christ.” The Ebionites, in the same way, do depict the Spirit descending upon Jesus at baptism, but they do not call it the “Christ” nor do they teach that it departed prior to his death; rather, it was Jesus’ sealing with the Spirit at baptism which granted him his messianic status and ensured his resurrection from the dead.297 Theodotus, while distinguishing Jesus from the Christ, did not believe that Jesus was a human but a pre-existent aeon who was joined with another pre-existent aeon, the Christ. Furthermore, this joining did not occur at baptism, but at birth.298 The Sethian treatise seems to reflect a similar view, since the revealer identifies himself as “Jesus Christ…who is exalted above the heavens”—not, as we would expect from the secessionists, simply as Christ who abandoned a human vessel Jesus prior to his death.299 In the First Apocalypse of James (V,3), we have even less reason to see a true parallel with the secessionists. This text does little more than what later orthodox theologians would do when they distinguished the two natures of Christ, one passible and with a beginning, one impassible and eternal.300 297 See Hill, “Cerinthus,” 152–53. 298 Contra Kinlaw, Christ, 87, who misreads the evidence. She also attempts to show that Theodotus taught a departure of the Christ prior to death, but the text actually states that the Spirit was withdrawn, and equates this (in line with the canonical Gospels) to death (see Exc. 61–62). Theodotus clearly believed that the Passion of Christ was redemptive (Exc. 76). For discussion, see Pearson, Ancient Gnosticism, 165–66. 299 Treat. Seth 69.21–22. 300 As Klaus Koschorke, Die Polemik der Gnostiker gegen das kirchliche Christentum: unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Nag-Hammadi-Traktate ‘Apokalypse des Petrus’ (NHC VII,3) und ‘Testimonium Veritatis’ (NHC IX,3) (NHS 12; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 32, 85, notes, many of the gnostic texts which are often described as Cerinthian or as advocating a separation Christology are in fact attempting to articulate the same ideas that would later be enshrined in the nuances of the orthodox doctrine of the hypostatic union. The Coptic Apocalypse of Peter (VII,3), for example, is often thought to be docetic, but in fact it presents Peter as being able to see through the fleshly reality and to recognize that the Savior himself (as distinguished from the fleshly reality) did not suffer. This hardly differs from the statements of the orthodox, such as Origen, who leaves no doubt that he believes in the physicality of Christ, but still very clearly differentiates Jesus from the Logos when it comes to the question of passibility: “Christ suffers, but in his flesh, and he underwent death, but in the flesh.…The logos, however, which is Christ according to the Spirit…remained in incorruptibility” (Origen, Hom. Gen. 8.9). This quote comes in the midst of a typological reading of Isaac, seen as a type of the Logos in that he does not die; the ram, on the other hand, dies as a type of Jesus. Cf. Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 1.5.21.3–1.5.23.2. Perkins, “Gnostic Revelation,” 266–67, points to the Trimorphic Protennoia (XIII,1) as another example of a gnostic text often seen as docetic or Cerinthian. She observes that, far from being docetic or strictly separationist, such

Opponents Who Devalue Jesus

77

It is important to stress here that the above points are only a sampling of the difficulties with the theory of anti-Cerinthian opponents. The true test of any view is how it holds up under exegetical scrutiny; therefore, a detailed rebuttal of the anti-Cerinthian view must await later chapters.

VII. Opponents Who Devalue Jesus Recently, an alternative to identifying the opponents as gnostics, docetists or Cerinthians has gained in popularity, in part due to the advocacy of prolific scholars such as Raymond Brown301 and HansJosef Klauck.302 This alternative posits that the opponents did not espouse outright docetism, nor demiurgical Gnosticism, nor a separation of the Christ from Jesus, but rather advocated a theology that downplayed the centrality and atoning significance of Jesus’ death (and, in some cases, his life and teaching, as well).303 Why would the opponents devalue Jesus? One theory is that they held to such a high Christology and strong belief in Christ’s pre-existence that they tended to downplay the significance of his earthly ministry and death in comparison to his pre-existent glory and his present re-exalted state.304

301 302 303

304

texts actually intend to deny that to confess that the Logos became flesh “says what is true of the eternal, divine nature of the Savior.” Brown, Epistles, 69–115. Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 295–97 cf. Klauck, “Internal,” 57–58. Aside from the aforementioned Brown and Klauck, advocates of this view include: Von Wahlde, Commandments; Boer, “Death,” 326–46; Grayston, Epistles, 14–22; Hartin, “Community,” 37–49; Perkins, Gnosticism, 161; Turner, “Sethian Gnosticism,” 399–434; U. B. Müller, Die Geschichte der Christologie in der johanneischen Gemeinde (SBS 77; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1975), 53–79; Tricia Gates Brown, Spirit in the Writings of John: Johannine Pneumatology in Social-Scientific Perspective (JSNTSup 253; London: T&T Clark, 2003), 256–57; Trebilco, Early Christians, 285; Vielhauer, Geschichte, 472; Schwankl, “Aspekte,” 369–70; Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 200–206; Painter, “Opponents,” 51–53; D. Rensberger, “Conflict and Community in the Johannine Letters,” Int 60 (2006), 283; Gary M. Burge, The Letters of John (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 30–35; Bonnard, Épitres, 13; D. Bruce Woll, Johannine Christianity in Conflict: Authority, Rank, and Succession in the First Farewell Discourse (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981), 109–128; Tom Thatcher, “‘Water and Blood’ in Antichrist Christianity (1 John 5:6),” SCJ 4 (2001), 241–47; Whitacre, Polemic, 125–31; G. Sloyan, Walking in the Truth: Perseverers and Deserters: The First, Second, and Third Letters of John (NTC; Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995), 3; Beutler,”Krise,” 152–62. Cf., e.g., Brown, Community, 29; Hartin, “Community,” 42–43. Trebilco, Early Christians, 285, explains that the secessionists denied “that Jesus’ life in the flesh (including his death) mattered theologically.”

78

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

Another suggestion is that the secessionists interpreted Christ’s ministry as one primarily of revelation, not atonement. They therefore stressed the knowledge of God which Jesus revealed through his teachings, and understood his death simply as a further revelation of his glory, not as an atoning sacrifice.305 Finally, an increasingly influential hypothesis holds that the opponents emphasized their reception and possession of the Spirit, believing it, not Jesus’ atoning death, to be the central redemptive event.306 To the extent that they accorded importance to Jesus’ death, it was primarily as a means of dispensing the Spirit. Perhaps, it is thought, Jesus’ death was sidelined in comparison to his baptism, at which he received the Spirit and was thus established in his role as giver of the Spirit. By emphasizing the Spirit, the secessionists charted a progressive course, and felt free to move in the Spirit beyond the historical words and deeds of Jesus. Likewise, their thoroughly realized eschatology resulted in a claim to sinless perfection and a disregard for, if not denial of, the second coming of Jesus, with its attendant physical resurrection and judgment. Almost everyone who believes that 1 John is opposing a devaluation of Jesus’ earthly life or atoning death would also agree that the secessionists were “ultra-Johannine.”307 That is, as discussed above, the secessionists developed their beliefs by interpreting the Johannine tradition (usually thought to be the Fourth Gospel, more or less). The response of the epistolary author, then, is to stress, against the secessionists, the importance of Jesus’ life and teachings, the sacrificial nature of his death, and the fact that believers’ present possession of the Spirit is intended to evoke obedience and imitation, not neglect, of Jesus’ historical teachings and deeds.

305 Perkins, Gnosticism, 161; cf. Perkins, “Gnostic Revelation,” 245–76. Turner, “Sethian Gnosticism,” 399–434, notices the same tendency among Sethian texts. Cf. Müller, Geschichte, 53–79; Culpepper, Gospel, 52. 306 Klauck, “Internal,” 57–58. 307 See, e.g. Klauck, “Internal,” 57–58; Brown, Spirit, 256–57, who thinks the secessionists emphasized Jesus’ giving of the Spirit as the “pinnacle of his work.” But, once the Spirit was received by believers, the historical work of Jesus was complete and merited no further attention. Jesus’ present role as mediator was denied: the secessionists “believe the Spirit can provide them with direct access to God, making Jesus superfluous” (257). The author of 1 John, in contrast, wishes to emphasize Jesus’ present work as Paraclete (2:1–2), and the way that the Spirit, so far from making Jesus irrelevant, actually points to Jesus and inspires the correct confession of Jesus as the unique Son of God.

Opponents Who Devalue Jesus

79

A. Exegetical Basis for the Theory of Opponents who Devalue Jesus This view depends upon the same set of passages as previous views. Most important, of course, are those texts which explicitly mention opponents and their teachings: 1 John 2:18–27; 4:1–6; 2 John 7–9, and usually 1 John 5:6–11, although it does not technically mention the opponents. Implicitly polemical are the antitheses and the “if we say…” passages of the first two chapters, which are thought to contain summaries of secessionist claims. Also, one may deduce the opponents’ positions from the emphasis the epistle places on the sacrificial death of Jesus (1:7; 2:2; 3:16; 4:10), his earthly ministry (1:1–3; 2:6; 3:3, 7), and future eschatology (2:28–3:3).

1. Raymond Brown’s Reconstruction Perhaps the best way to approach this interpretation is to summarize the proposals of its main advocates. We may begin with R. Brown, whose reading of the Johannine Epistles is found in both his commentary and his monograph on the Johannine community.308 According to Brown, the Epistles were written after the Fourth Gospel and address a different situation. The Gospel addressed the recent conflict with the synagogue, which ended with Johannine Christians being excommunicated because of their high Christology. Removed from the context of the synagogue, with its restraining theological influence, some in the Johannine community began to take the tradition in an “ultraprogressive” direction.309 From their reading of the Fourth Gospel, with its very high Christology and accent on Jesus’ preexistence, they concluded that the earthly life of Jesus was relatively unimportant, or at least not the main arena in which his divine sonship was expressed. “After all, GJohn insists that Jesus in his lifetime does 308 See Epistles, 69–115; Community, 93–144. 309 Community, 29. Brown derives the term from 2 John 9. Crucial to Brown’s hypothesis is his contention that the heart of the debate concerns the proper interpretation of the Johannine tradition: “Every idea of the secessionists (as reconstructed from the polemic of I and II John) can be plausibly explained as derivative from the Johannine tradition as preserved for us in GJohn” (Epistles, 72; italics original). It must also be stated that Brown does not consider the secessionist reading a distortion of the Fourth Gospel, but thinks that the Gospel remains open to both the secessionist interpretation and the epistolary author’s reading. Brown also does not believe that it is possible to identify the secessionists with any known group from early church history (Epistles, 67).

80

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

and says nothing that he has not already seen and heard with the Father (5:19; 8:26,28,38).”310 They therefore described Jesus’ earthly life as merely revelatory, not salvific. While Jesus revealed God’s glory in human terms he did not “do anything new that changed the relationship between God and human beings.” 311 Thus, when the author describes the opponents as denying “Jesus-Christ-come-in-theflesh” (1 John 4:2), he is not addressing a docetism like that of Ignatius’s opponents (which would be impossible for the secessionists to hold in light of John 1:14; 19:34; 20:27), but a refusal “to acknowledge that his being in the flesh was essential to the picture of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God.”312 That is, the secessionists believe that the glorious pre-existent state of the Son of God includes everything one needs to know about Christ. They, therefore, “negate the importance of Jesus the man,” as 1 John 4:3 implies.313 When the author, in 1 John 2:22, presents the secessionists as denying that Jesus is the Christ, his emphasis falls on the name “Jesus,” not “Christ,” for it is the human content of the confession which the secessionists weaken: “For them to stress that Jesus was the Christ would mean that his humanity and the way he lived were essential for understanding his role as the Christ, the Son of God.”314 The famous “three witnesses” passage (1 John 5:6–11) alludes to the secessionist belief that Christ came only in water, that is, in baptism. Most likely, the seccessionists located the incarnation—the moment the Word became flesh—not at Jesus’ conception or birth, but at his baptism, a belief encouraged by the sequence of the Gospel’s Prologue, which introduces John the Baptist (1:6–8) prior to its statement of the

310 Ibid., 75. “What the one who was sent did would be only confirmatory and not of salvific value” (77). 311 Ibid., 75. 312 Ibid., 76. Brown appeals to Pagels, Johannine Gospel, 13, who finds a similar attitude in Valentinian thought, which did not deny the reality of events in Jesus’ life, but denied that they mattered theologically. 313 Brown, Epistles, 29. Cf. p. 494, where he accepts the variant reading of λύει in 4:3, translating λύει τὸν Ἰησοῦν as “negates the importance of Jesus.” For a discussion of this passage, see below, p. 178. 314 Ibid., 352. In R. Brown, “The Relationship to the Fourth Gospel Shared by the Author of 1 John and By His Opponents,” in Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black (ed. E. Best and R. McL. Wilson; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 64, Brown explains: “Since they do not think that God’s Son was affected or changed by his mortal career, they see no special significance in the fact that God’s Son was Jesus who lived a specific kind of life and died a specific death.”

Opponents Who Devalue Jesus

81

incarnation (1:14).315 At the very least, the secessionists pointed to Jesus’ baptism as the primary event of gifting and revelation. 316 Accordingly, and in line with the general tenor of the Fourth Gospel, they understood Jesus’ death not as a salvific sacrifice but as a revelation of his glory and his means of return to the Father.317 The ethical outgrowth of the opponents’ Christology was indifferentism, i.e., an outlook that “attributed no salvific importance to moral behavior by believers.”318 For them, the earthly life of Jesus did not serve as an example to be imitated. The Fourth Gospel notably lacks the detailed ethical instruction of the Synoptics, instead stressing the centrality of belief in Jesus. 319 The opponents took this to mean that knowing God (1 John 2:4) was the only thing that mattered; it placed them in the light (1 John 2:9) and granted them fellowship with God (1 John 1:6). It also granted them perfectionist freedom from sin. In 1 John 1:10, the secessionists claim not to have sinned since their conversion, and thus presently to have no sin (v. 8).320 Such indifferentism and perfectionism expressed itself practically in a lack of love and charity for fellow members of the community. The bitter root of the progressives’ Christological and ethical opinions ultimately flowered into a dispute that stretched the little sectarian community to the breaking point, and beyond into an acrimonious schism, as reflected in 1 John 2:19. The author of 1 John was a conservative who responded to the secession with a harsh combination of apocalyptic rhetoric and theological reasoning. Unable to defeat the secessionists on their own playing field—the Fourth Gospel—the author instead takes a twopronged strategy. First, he rebukes the opponents for their lovelessness, which he sees as a failure to live in accordance with their claim to know 315 This does not mean that they believed that Christ descended at baptism but departed prior to the spirit à la Cerinthus. Brown believes that such a departure is ruled out, since in John’s Passion account the Spirit remains with Jesus through the suffering of the cross (see Brown, Epistles, 77). 316 Ibid., 78. 317 Ibid., 79: “The cross of Christ in Jn is evaluated precisely in terms of revelation in harmony with the theology of the entire gospel, rather than in terms of vicarious and expiatory sacrifice for sin.” Brown compares the secessionists on this point to Paul’s opponents at Corinth. 318 Ibid., 80. 319 Ibid., 81: “No specific sins of behavior are mentioned in GJohn, only the great sin which is to refuse to believe in Jesus.” 320 Ibid., 81, 83. As a possible source for this belief, Brown points to John 13:10, where Jesus declares that those who have bathed (i.e., have been baptized) are completely clean.

82

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

God and to be in the light.321 If Jesus is the clearest model of the one who knows God and has fellowship with him, surely those who claim such a relationship to God should behave as Jesus did, in self-giving sacrificial love of the brothers.322 Second, the author digs deep into the past of the Johannine community—to the “beginning”—and reintroduces “more ancient Johannine themes that are somewhat submerged in GJohn” but which serve to regulate its interpretation and to combat the progressive reading of the secessionists.323 Such themes include the stress in the community’s confessions on the humanity of Jesus (1 John 2:22; 4:2) and the “not yet” aspect of eschatology (2:28– 3:3), intended to be an antidote to the overrealized eschatology and perfectionism of the opponents. Likewise, he directs attention away from Jesus’ baptism (the “water”) and restores the more ancient focus on Jesus’ death (the “water and blood” of John 19:34) as a vicarious sacrifice that defines Jesus’ coming, or mission (1 John 5:6–7; cf. 1:7; 2:2; 3:16; 4:10).324

2. Urban Von Wahlde’s Reconstruction In The Johannine Commandments, U. Von Wahlde presents a book-length reconstruction of the Johannine situation that builds upon the theories of R. Brown, while modifying them substantially in several areas. 325 Like Brown, Von Wahlde finds the source of the secessionist conflict in a clash of interpretations of the Fourth Gospel. 326 Indeed, he takes Brown’s work even further by attempting to illuminate the opponents’ beliefs by reference to parallels in Second Temple Judaism. 327 Unlike Brown, however, he depends heavily on a theory of the Gospel’s literary history. He believes that the Gospel in its present form is antisecessionist, having been redacted in the wake of the controversy 321 Ibid., 80. 322 Ibid., 98. Brown terms this the “kathōs ethic” and finds such a polemical emphasis in 1 John 2:6; 3:3, 7. 323 Ibid., 97. 324 Ibid., 77. For the theme of the “beginning” see 1 John 1:1; 2:7, 13–14, 24; 3:11; 2 John 5–6. Cf. Klauck, “Internal,” 58; Burge, Letters, 35; Rensberger, “Conflict,” 289. 325 Von Wahlde, Commandments. 326 Ibid., 1, 5, 105. 327 Ibid., 184. Brown did make reference quite a bit to Second Temple sources (esp. the Dead Sea Scrolls) in his reconstruction, but Von Wahlde discusses them in much more depth. Brown was also more apt to find gnostic parallels to the secessionists, while Von Wahlde is more methodologically circumspect in this regard.

Opponents Who Devalue Jesus

83

(probably around the same time 1 John was written) in order to make certain contested themes more explicit and to clarify ambiguities exploited by the opponents.328 In order to reconstruct the secessionist system, Von Wahlde relies primarily on the antitheses and claims of chs. 1–2 and the explicitly polemical statements of the Epistle. He also mirror-reads the author’s emphases, as he assumes that they too have polemical intent.329 In his estimation, the evidence indicates that the primary disagreement between the author and the opponents concerned the role of the Spirit in relation to Jesus.330 The opponents’ proclaimed a Jesus whose main role in the plan of salvation was to bring the eschatological Spirit.331 Once he had done this, he became salvifically irrelevant; his role was

328 Ibid., 8. For a different approach, see Grayston, Epistles, 14, who hypothesizes that 1 John was actually written before the Gospel and represents a simpler and more primitive attempt to respond to the secessionist situation. The belief that the Gospel preceded 1 John is the majority opinion. 329 Von Wahlde, Commandments, 108. 330 For those who, like Von Wahlde, stress the pneumatological dimension of the schism, see Grayston, Epistles, 14–22; Donald W. Mills, “The Holy Spirit in 1 John,” DBSJ 4.2 (1999): 33–50; Burge, Letters, 30–35; Gary Burge, The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 224, asserts, “the final crisis of the Johannine community was essentially pneumatic”; Cornelis Bennema, The Power of Saving Wisdom: An Investigation of Spirit and Wisdom in Relation to the Soteriology of the Fourth Gospel (WUNT 2.148; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 252; Bonnard, Épitres, 13; Woll, Conflict, 109–128, argues that 1 John is written against charismatic prophets who stressed independent and direct access to God and thus downplayed the mediatorial role of Jesus. Others diagnose the cause slightly differently and believe the problem arose from prophetic activity on the part of the secessionists. See D. Moody Smith, “Johannine Christianity: Some Reflections on its Character and Delineation,” NTS 21 (1976), 233, who speculates that the prophets might have been claiming to utter oracles “of the risen Lord”; Beutler, “Krise,” 152–62; Barrett, “Johannine Christianity,” 339; Vielhauer, Geschichte, 472; Friedrich Büchsel, Die Johannesbriefe (THKNT 17; Leipzig: Deichert, 1933), 4–5, compares the situation to the Corinthian problem with enthusiasm. Thatcher, “Antichrist,” 242, suggests that the opponents claimed new and continuing revelation from the Spirit which relativized the value of Jesus’ historical ministry. Rensberger, “Conflict,” 283, appears to agree: “the controversy behind 1 and 2 John is about theological change, including how much change is legitimate and how to tell authentic from inauthentic theological development. In a sense, it is a controversy between Spirit and tradition.” Cf. also Painter, “Opponents,” 51–53; Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 209. He points to the unusual use of γλῶσσα in 1 John 3:18, μὴ ἀγαπῶμεν λόγῳ μηδὲ τῇ γλώσσῃ, as hinting at the charismatic claims of the opponents (Painter, “Opponents,” 66). 331 Von Wahlde, Commandments, 114, calls this “a completely spiritual understanding of the ministry of Jesus.” They derived such a perspective from passages like John 1:33; 6:63; 7:39; 14:17; 16:13 (idem, 117).

84

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

not permanent.332 All those who have received the gift of the Spirit become anointed ones (χριστοί) and sons of God, just like Jesus.333 This is what 1 John 2:22 is referring to when it accuses the opponents of denying that Jesus is the Christ: “They are in reality denying that he is the (unique) Christ since they too have the same anointing from the Spirit that empowered his ministry.” 334 Of course, this is the epistolary author’s take on it; the secessionists would not describe themselves that way: “The opponents do not seek to deliberately devalue the status of Jesus; rather they elevate themselves by claiming similar prerogatives for themselves.”335 Like Brown, Von Wahlde believes the opponents do not accord atoning significance to Jesus’ death. Von Wahlde differs, however, with Brown as to the meaning of the opponents’ teaching that Jesus came “in/with water only.” Von Wahlde interprets “water” as a cipher for Spirit (according to its usage in the Fourth Gospel), and thus takes “in water only” as a claim that Jesus came in order to give, or baptize with, the Spirit, not to die an atoning death (i.e., not in “water and blood”).336 The same kind of idea is at work in the opponents’ denial that Jesus came in the flesh (1 John 4:2): they deny not that he was a truly human, physical being, but that his death (the referent of “coming in the flesh”) was sacrificial or the means through which forgiveness of sins was made available.337 Instead, they taught, forgiveness of sins comes through reception of the Holy Spirit, just as John 20:22–23 depicts.338 332 Von Wahlde opts for the variant λύει τὸν Ἰησοῦν in 1 John 4:3, and describes the opponents as “doing away with Jesus” (Ibid., 159). 333 Ibid., 114, 139. Grayston, Epistles, 19: “It is inappropriate to call Jesus the Christ, the Anointed One, as if he alone could provide access to the Father; for they themselves have an anointing by the Spirit which gives them unmediated access to God.” Cf. pp. 16–18, where he opines that 1 John 1:3 and 2:23 respond to the opponents’ claim to have fellowship with the Father without the mediation of the Son. He further conjectures that 1 John 4:14 is meant to refute the opposition’s claim to be, by the Spirit, the saviors of the world. 334 Von Wahlde, Commandments, 145. 335 Ibid., 149. 336 Ibid., 117. For further discussion, see ch. 5 below. Cf. Thatcher, “Antichrist,” 247, who shares the identification of water as the Spirit, but thinks that when the opponents teach that Jesus came through water only, they mean “that everything significant about Jesus has been revealed to the Church through the Spirit.” 337 Von Wahlde, Commandments, 152–56. According to Von Wahlde, the opponents understood Jesus’ death in terms of departure, return to the Father, and glorification, all of which were central to the Fourth Gospel’s depiction, as well (cf. idem, p. 117). 338 The opponents, though, most likely looked to their water-baptism as the moment when they received the Spirit.

Opponents Who Devalue Jesus

85

The reception of the Spirit brings not only forgiveness but also complete freedom from sin. The believer is sinlessly perfect, without need of further confession, forgiveness or ethical instruction.339 The opponents’ realized eschatology had further consequences: because believers had received the Spirit, they presently possessed eternal life. There was therefore no need in their system for a physical resurrection. Death for believers would be departure to the Father, just as it was for Jesus.340 Of course, there would be no second coming of Jesus and no future judgment, for the Spirit had already come and believers’ sinlessness obviated a final judgment.341 In response to the opponents, the author of 1 John asserts the sacrificial nature of Jesus’ death (1:7; 2:2) and highlights its central role in Jesus’ messianic mission (4:10; 5:6).342 Jesus, the author avers, has not been rendered obsolete by the Spirit-Paraclete. Rather, Jesus himself is a Paraclete who continues his ministry to believers as their advocate before God. Despite their reception of the Spirit, believers must continue to confess their sins and seek forgiveness through Jesus’ sacrifice; they must also look to Jesus, especially his self-giving death, as an example of righteous behavior (2:6; 3:3–7). The Spirit, so far from replacing Jesus, actually orients believers toward Jesus and prompts them to abide in his teachings and properly to confess his unique messianic sonship.343 According to the author, believers should be presently purifying themselves in anticipation of Jesus’ second coming and judgment; it is only then that believers will be perfected (2:28; 3:2– 3).344

339 Ibid., 139, 162–63. Cf. Klauck, “Internal,” 57–58. Grayston, Epistles, 19: “Since all they do is prompted by the Spirit, they are naturally without sin.…Hence they have no need of the commandments or of the example of Jesus.” 340 Rensberger, “Conflict,” 291, sees the secessionists as advocating a “redemption from the flesh, not in the flesh”—the result of an attempt to contextualize the Gospel for a Hellenistic audience. 341 Von Wahlde, Commandments, 115, 140. 342 Ibid., 156. 343 Ibid., 122. For a similar reading, see Heckel, “Historisierung,” 440–41, who sees a “historicizing” of the concept of the Spirit in 1 John, where the author ties the role of the Paraclete closely to Jesus and describes the Spirit as a witness in the church to the historical events of the baptism, teachings and death of Jesus. Cf. Grayston, Epistles, 121. 344 Von Wahlde, Commandments, 182–84.

86

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

B. Weaknesses of the Theory of Opponents who Devalue Jesus I have already outlined above several general criticisms of any theory which posits that the secessionists are “ultra-Johannine” in their beliefs.345 It is unnecessary, then, to repeat those here; instead, I will focus on the more specific proposals of Brown, Von Wahlde, and those who have pursued similar readings.

1. Weaknesses of Brown’s Proposal I begin with Brown’s theory. In the first place, it seems there is a fundamental lack of clarity at the heart of Brown’s reconstruction. On one hand, Brown argues that the secessionists deny the salvific importance of Jesus’ earthly life; this, he holds, is the meaning of their denial of Jesus-Christ-come-in-the-flesh (1 John 4:2).346 On the other hand, though, he believes that they ascribed revelatory significance to Jesus’ earthly life.347 One might ask: if the life of Jesus is revelatory, is it not therefore—in Johannine theology, especially—salvific? Without Jesus’ earthly life, no knowledge of God or the Son is available,348 no light has come into the world,349 no human may become a child of God,350 and no sin has been taken away. 351 Similarly, Brown at one point speculates that the secessionists so stressed the pre-existence of the eternal Son of God that they downplayed the incarnation as not playing an essential role in the Son’s identity.352 Elsewhere he states nearly the opposite: the secessionists stressed the incarnation of the Son as the way humans become God’s children.353 How such an 345 See above, p. 8. 346 Brown, Epistles, 505: “They are denying that what Jesus was or did in the flesh was related to his being the Christ, i.e., was salvific.” 347 Ibid., 75. 348 For Johannine statements to this effect, see John 1:14b, 16, 18; 17:26. 349 John 3:19; 8:12; 9:39; 12:46. 350 John 1:12. Cf. the theme of eternal life in 10:10. 351 John 1:29; 8:21, 24. 352 Brown, Epistles, 76; Brown, “Relationship,” 64. 353 Brown, Epistles, 76–79, believes the stress on the incarnation went hand in hand with a denial of Jesus’ death as the essential salvific act. See Epistles, 99, where he suggests that, e.g., John 3:16 (“God gave his only son”) could be taken by the secessionists to refer to the incarnation as the crucial moment, not Jesus’ death. See also Epistles, 368, 508, where he theorizes that to the secessionists John 1:10–12 might suggest that believers may become children of God by virtue of the Son’s incarnation. It does not mention any atoning death.

Opponents Who Devalue Jesus

87

interpretation could possibly be construed as denying Jesus-Christcome-in-the-flesh is a mystery.354 Second, in reconstructing the opponents’ beliefs, Brown often cites passages in the Fourth Gospel that he thinks funded their theology, but in many cases, it is extraordinarily difficult to see how anyone could possibly derive such beliefs from those passages, much less from the Fourth Gospel as a whole. For example, Brown refers to John 5:19; 8:26, 28, 38 as texts which led the secessionists to devalue Jesus’ earthly life and to claim that it did not bring about “anything new that changed the relationship between God and human beings.” 355 These passages, though, far from making Jesus’ earthly ministry irrelevant compared to his pre-existence, in fact stress that Jesus’ earthly ministry is the main arena in which his identity as divine Son and emissary is manifested. In his ministry Jesus carries out the instructions and work the Father has given him. His ministry does change humans’ relationship with God, as it confronts them with truth and judgment.356 Similarly, Brown must characterize the Gospel’s numerous clear statements about Jesus’ salvific death as a “minor indication” of the importance of Jesus’ death.357 Third, Brown’s reconstruction of the opponents’ ethics is problematic. In order to argue that the opponents’ ethical indifferentism was drawn from the Johannine tradition, with its exclusive focus on faith and its concomitant lack of ethical instruction, he must ignore the numerous passages in the Gospel that do suggest a full-orbed ethic and make clear that believers’ moral behavior has salvific importance. The Fourth Gospel’s ethics include a condemnation of adultery (4:18), murder (7:19; 8:34, 39–40), lying (8:44), selfishness (10:12), stealing (10:1, 8, 10; 12:6), and “evil deeds” in general (3:19; 7:7). Positively, the Gospel commends love for one another (John 13:34), service to one another (13:14), and in general following and serving Jesus (12:25–26). It also attaches salvific significance to believers’ deeds. The sick man of John 5:1–18 is warned not to continue sinning after his 354 A similar unclarity can be found in Grayston’s statement that the opponents denied “that Jesus had much significance for communion with God” (Grayston, Epistles, 78). What does Grayston mean by “much?” Even on Grayston’s reading, the opponents would at least understand Jesus’ coming as the pivotal salvific event. Even if they also claimed anointed status, they would still have accorded Jesus an honored role as the first Christ, and as the dispenser of the Spirit. 355 Epistles, 75; cf. also p. 77. 356 See, e.g., John 9:39. 357 Ibid., 98. He mentions 1:29; 3:16; 10:15; 11:51–52. One could add 12:27, where Jesus states that he has come for the very purpose of undergoing his hour (of death).

88

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

healing lest something worse happen to him (v. 14). Likewise, John 8:34 indicates that those who sin are slaves to sin.358 In John 5:29 Jesus states that final judgment will be according to deeds, “those who did the good to a resurrection of life, those who practiced the evil to a resurrection of judgment.” It is impossible to derive moral indifferentism from the Gospel without doing severe violence to the text. Furthermore, to argue as he does, Brown must assume that the Johannine tradition was hermetically sealed from the wider Christian movement so that it was either ignorant of or explicitly rejected the moral teachings of Jesus preserved in the Synoptic Gospels. That such an assumption is incorrect may be demonstrated by the way the author of 1 John calls his audience to walk as Jesus walked (2:6)—such an appeal assumes a fairly detailed knowledge of Jesus’ behavior and teaching. Brown also offers no compelling argument for reading the ethical instruction of 1 John as polemic aimed at the secessionists of 1 John 2:19. The moral admonitions of the epistle may be more simply explained as traditional Christian paraenesis with a pastoral, not polemical, intent.359 Perhaps the most serious weakness with Brown’s proposal, however, is its failure to explain the statements of the epistle that are clearly polemical. If the opponents devalued the salvific significance of Jesus’ earthly ministry, it is far from clear why the author would describe such a view as a denial that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22) or as a denial that he is the Son (2:23). How also could the simple confessional statements of 1 John 4:2–3 refute what was on Brown’s reconstruction, such a subtle, complex, and nuanced understanding of the relationship between Jesus’ pre-existence, incarnation, and ministry?360 Moreover, if Brown is correct, we would expect 1 John to be full of emphatic statements that Jesus’ human life is indeed salvifically important, accompanied by numerous references to the major historical moments of his life, along with summaries of his behavior which is to be imitated.361 None of this is in fact the case.

358 Ibid., 81, himself notes these passages as evidence that calls his proposal into question. 359 See ch. 2 below for further arguments to this effect. 360 How would 1 John 4:2–3 combat the secessionists any more effectively than John 1:14? Brown, Epistles, 77, believes the latter was actually used by the opponents to support their devaluation of Jesus’ human life. Certainly, 1 John 1:1–3 says nothing more than John 1:14, and, it might be argued, quite a bit less. 361 See Lieu, Second, 200; Lieu, “Authority,” 220.

Opponents Who Devalue Jesus

89

In sum, Brown’s theory, while impressive in its ingenuity and creativity, is ultimately based on such slender (at times, non-existent) evidence, such highly improbable exegesis, and such speculative mirror-reading that it must be judged a failure.

2. Weaknesses of Von Wahlde’s Proposal Von Wahlde’s reconstruction suffers many of the same shortcomings.362 He overinterprets each of the key polemical passages so that they fit his picture of the opponents. Thus, 1 John 2:22–23 no longer addresses the denial that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, but rather targets an overrealized eschatology which denies Jesus’ uniqueness by teaching that all believers are anointed ones and sons of God. Likewise, 1 John 4:2 does not oppose those who deny Jesus’ physicality or messiahship; instead, its talk of Jesus’ “flesh” actually refers to his death. But the opponents do not deny that Jesus died; rather, they deny that his death was sacrificial. Along the same lines, “coming in water only” in 1 John 5:6 must refer to the opponents’ teaching. “Water” must be code for the Holy Spirit (even though the Spirit is plainly mentioned as a separate witness in the very same verse). “Coming in water only” must be a way of saying that Jesus’ sole mission was to dispense the Spirit. Such interpretations are unlikely, depending more on circular reasoning and guesswork than on the kind of hard evidence that critical exegesis requires.363

362 Von Wahlde’s argument is plainly circular. He first reconstructs the secessionists’ views on the basis of his mirror-reading of 1 John. Next, he hypothesizes that they derived such views from the Fourth Gospel. Then, he reasons that whatever material in the Fourth Gospel would contradict their view must be secondary—the result of redaction by the epistolary author or one of his comrades. Von Wahlde acknowledges this circularity, but remains confident that there are objective ways to distinguish secondary material in the Fourth Gospel (Von Wahlde, Commandments, 119). For his latest treatment of the literary history of the Fourth Gospel, see U. Von Wahlde, “Community in Conflict: The History and Social Context of the Johannine Community.” Interpretation 49 (1995): 379–89. Unfortunately, much of his process for discerning redactional material in the Fourth Gospel assumes a specific and highly controverted version of the Johannine Community’s history; it is therefore also not immune to the charge of circularity. 363 One example is Von Wahlde’s contention that the opponents reject the resurrection, the future judgment and the second coming of Jesus. Nothing in the Epistle even suggests such a position, but Von Wahlde asserts that it is possible to “fill in the gaps” (Commandments, 169).

90

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

VIII. Jewish Opponents As should be evident from the discussion above, each of the various proposals discussed in this chapter has historical, exegetical and methodological flaws that render it untenable. Also, they all tend to require overly elaborate explanations of key texts and exceedingly detailed reconstructions of the putative Johannine community and its history. My argument in this work is that a simpler and more elegant solution lies close at hand that possesses far more explanatory power than any of the currently dominant positions.364 That solution, in short, is that the secessionists of 1 John 2:19 were individuals who had once confessed Jesus as the Messiah and participated in the community. 365 Later, however, they gave up their confession of Jesus and departed the community. This may have been the result of persuasion by Jewish apologists, or, alternatively, persecution by the synagogue or civil authorities.366 Most likely the secessionists were Jews who, upon their departure from the community, returned to the safe haven of their former synagogues. There are numerous historical parallels to such a scenario; there is, therefore, no need to appeal speculatively to later gnostic, docetic, or Cerinthian theologies to identify the opponents.367 The struggle to preserve allegiance to the confession of Jesus as Messiah over against pressures from wider Judaism and persecution from the Roman authorities is extensively witnessed to by the NT.

364 It also avoids the anachronism of understanding 1 John’s first-century opponents by appeal to later second-century movements. As Sevrin, “Quatrième Évangile,” 264, argues, logic demands that if the thought of a NT text can be explained by sources or movements prior to Gnosticism and its texts, those earlier sources should be preferred over the later gnostic texts. 365 By “community” I do not mean to imply the existence of a hermetically sealed sect sometimes imagined in scholarly reconstruction. Rather, I use the term on the basis of 1 John 1:3 (κοινωνία) to refer to the local group of those who confessed Jesus as Messiah and participated regularly in corporate gatherings. 366 Neither of these, of course, must necessarily have been the cause. The statement in 1 John 2:19 is broad enough to describe apostasy for any reason. I also do not wish to argue that their departure from the community necessarily involved a dramatic renunciation of their initial confession, as opposed to a simple departure with no clear ideological motivation. 367 As Teresa Okure, The Johannine Approach to Mission: A Contextual Study of John 4:1–32 (WUNT 2.31; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988), 245, observes, “If we never had the Patristic evidence.…we would [never] have been tempted to interpret 1 Jn 2:22; 5:1 and 4:2; 2 Jn 7 in the Cerinthian/gnostic sense rather than in the Johannine (Gospel) sense.”

Jewish Opponents

91

A. The Exegetical Basis for the Theory of Jewish Opponents The details of my interpretation will be made clear in the following chapters, where each of the key passages and interpretive options receives intense scrutiny. At this point, it is necessary only to sketch the outlines of my reading. My position is based primarily on 1 John 2:18– 19, 22–23. This passage is the first time the opponents are mentioned in the letter. They are identified as former members of the community who have now manifested their true nature as “antichrists” and “liars.” Their departure from the community, occasioned by their denial that “Jesus is the Christ,” heralds the arrival of the last hour. The simplest reading of this passage is that it addresses the issue which distinguished Christians from the majority of Jews in the first century, namely the question of whether Jesus was the Messiah foretold by the Scriptures.368 The confession, “Jesus is the Messiah,” was the basic statement of Christian faith in the early church and appears prominently in the purpose statement of the Fourth Gospel (John 20:31). First John, therefore, was likely written in the same context usually proposed for the Fourth Gospel: a predominantly Jewish setting, where tensions with synagogue Jews were ever present. Most reconstructions of the secessionists depend heavily upon 1 John 4:1–6 and 5:6, both of which are taken as polemic against the same group as 2:18–27. Such an identification, however, appears hasty and unwarranted in light of a careful exegesis.369 While 1 John 2:18–27 refers to those who have abandoned the community and renounced their confession of Jesus, 1 John 4:1–6 (as well as 2 John 7) appears to envision a different situation, that of itinerant prophets who might visit the community and attempt, in the author’s view, to mislead their hearers.370 It is not stated or implied that the prophets had ever

368 This is acknowledged even by those who opt for a different reconstruction. For example, Schnackenburg, Epistles, 19, concedes that “There does seem to be an emphasis on the idea of messiahship” in 2:22. Kruse, Letters, 104, likewise admits that “On the surface, this [2:22] looks like the sort of denial a non-Christian Jew would make, not a Christian.” He goes on, however, to read the later statements of the letter (4:2 and 5:6) back into 2:22 in order to argue that it actually has docetism in view. 369 See chs. 4 and 5 below for in-depth exegesis of these two passages. 370 Cf. the probable reference to the visiting teachers in 1 John 2:26: τῶν πλανώντων ὑμᾶς. William Horbury, “Antichrist among Jews and Gentiles,” in Messianism among the Jews and Christians: Twelve Biblical and Historical Studies (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 116, may be correct when he proposes that the antichrists of 2:18–27 were leaders in the community who renounced their belief in the messiahship of Jesus

92

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

confessed Jesus as Messiah or had ever been part of the community. For the author, there is, of course, a connection between the prophets and the secessionists, since he believes both groups are inspired by the spirit of antichrist and are part of the eschatological rebellion. Also, it may have been the teaching of the prophets which influenced the secessionists to depart. It is essential, however, for the purposes of historical reconstruction, to distinguish clearly between the visiting prophets of 4:1 and the secessionists of 2:19.371 As in 2:22, the issue which distinguishes the false prophets from the community is the fundamental confession of Jesus as the Messiah (4:2–3). While other views see 4:2–3 as a development or expansion of 2:22, by virtue of the phrase “in flesh,” I will demonstrate that 4:2–3 carries the same meaning as the earlier confession. The third passage most reconstructions depend on is 1 John 5:6, the famously difficult “three witnesses” text. Unlike other views, which mirror-read this verse as a polemic against an aberrant Christology, I do not believe that it is polemical at all. Rather, it is an appeal to three pieces of evidence intended to buttress the readers’ belief in Jesus and to encourage them to maintain their confession of him as the messianic Son of God. Along the same lines, I do not read other passages in the letter, such as the antitheses, slogans and claims of the first two chapters, as polemic against supposed libertine opponents. Instead, they are more likely traditional pastoral exhortations to the community to live in a way consistent with their confession of Jesus and to maintain the unity of the fellowship through love.

B. Previous Contributions to the Jewish Apostate View 1. Alois Wurm The view that the secessionists of 1 John 2:19 are Jewish apostates 372 is not original with me. Indeed, it was actually quite common among and attempted to lead “their followers into or back to the majority Jewish community.” 371 The two different groups, prophets and secessionists, are again referred to in 2 John 7–9. Verse 7 warns the readers about the possibility of visiting prophets who do not confess Jesus as the Messiah, while vv. 8–9 exhort the audience not to give heed to such prophets, lest they follow in the footsteps of the secessionists and lose both their fellowship with God and their eschatological reward. 372 Henceforth I will use the phrase “Jewish apostates” as shorthand to refer to the secessionists as those who have forsaken their confession of Jesus as the Messiah

Jewish Opponents

93

early modern interpreters.373 Alois Wurm, in his monograph, Die Irrlehrer im ersten Johannesbrief (1903), offered the most extensive (and too often ignored) argument for this reading.374 In his opinion, 1 John 2:22–23 indicates that the dispute with opponents centered on the same issue as the dispute with the “Jews” of John’s Gospel, namely, whether Jesus was the Messiah.375 He found the same basic point reiterated in 1 John 4:2 and 5:6.376 The secessionists of 1 John 2:19, then, were members of the church who under Jewish pressure had recanted on their confession of Jesus as the Messiah.377 For Wurm, the ethical exhortations in 1 John targeted the secessionists who by virtue of their denial of Jesus had failed to love their brothers and to practice righteousness; instead, they were liars and were committing the sin unto death.378 Wurm’s monograph received scant support because by the time of its publication the history of religions school had achieved dominance and the focus had shifted to Gnosticism as the explanatory matrix for the Johannine literature.379 It remained the reigning paradigm until the discoveries at Qumran in 1947 revolutionized the study of Christian origins and prompted scholars such as John A. T. Robinson to speak of an emerging “new look” on John that stressed the Gospel’s Jewish

373

374 375 376 377 378 379

and have left the community. The use of this shorthand, though, should not imply in any way that I think all of the secessionists referred to in 1 John 2:19 were ethnically Jewish, or that they necessarily returned to the synagogue. The anachronism of the phrase is admitted, but in the absence of a better label, it captures the basic distinctive of my view. See, among others, Josias Friedrich Christian Löffler, Dissertatio Historico-Exegetica Ioannis Epistola Prima Gnosticos Imprimis Impugnari Negans (Frankfurt, 1784); J. E. Belser, Die Briefe des Heiligen Johannes (Freiburg: Herder, 1906), 58–59; F. Bleek, An Introduction to the New Testament. (2 vols; trans. W. Urwick; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1852), 2:191; J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Leipzig: Weidmann, 1811), 2.2:285–95; Samuel Gottlieb Lange, Die Schriften des Johannes. III. Die Drei Breife des Johannes (Weimar: Industrie-Comptoirs, 1797), 19–28; Wilhelm A. Karl, Johanneische Studien. I. Der erste Johannesbrief (Freiburg: Mohr Siebeck, 1898), 19, 57– 61, 97–98; John McClintock and James Strong, eds., Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. Vol. IV (New York: Harper, 1883), 953. A. Wurm, Die Irrlehrer im ersten Johannesbrief (Freiburg: Herder, 1903). Ibid., 1–52. Ibid., 53–82. Ibid., 47–52. Ibid., 138. See the account of the rise of the history of religions approach to John in Ashton, Understanding, 20–23. He locates its genesis in Michaelis (1789), but it only began to develop with Hilgenfeld, Baur, and Pfleiderer, and the Göttingen group of Wrede, Gunkel, and Bousset in the late 1880s.

94

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

context.380 The last half of the twentieth century saw this perspective become virtually axiomatic.381 The Fourth Gospel came to be read as a response to the recent struggle with the synagogue. Scholars were reluctant, though, to treat the Johannine Epistles in the same way, since they reasoned that the Epistles came from a later and more Hellenized phase of the community’s history. At the present, however, the landscape is changing and scholars are becoming more and more open to considering the possibility that the Epistles should be read in the same Jewish context, and as addressing the same situation, as the Gospel.382 The following are some of the substantial contributions to this shift.

2. J. C. O’Neill In 1966, J. C. O’Neill’s compact monograph, The Puzzle of 1 John,383 made extensive use of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other Jewish literature384 to reconstruct what he believed to be a preformed source that was expanded and redacted by the author to form our present

380 John A. T. Robinson, “The New Look on the Fourth Gospel,” in Twelve New Testament Studies (London: SCM, 1962), 94–106. James Charlesworth, “A Study in Shared Symbolism and Language: The Qumran Community and the Johannine Community,” in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Volume 3: The Scrolls and Christian Origins (ed. James H. Charlesworth; Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006), 99, states, “The exegesis of no document in the New Testament…has been so fundamentally improved or altered by the recovery of the Qumran Scrolls as has the Fourth Gospel.” 381 Some of the major works in establishing this consensus were Raymond Brown, The Gospel according to John (2 vols.; Anchor Bible; Garden City: Doubleday, 1966–1970); J. L. Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (1st ed.; New York: Harper and Row, 1968). Cf. Hengel, Frage, 281, who argues for a Palestinian provenance for the Gospel. The effect of the new view can be seen in the wealth of recent studies on John and its use of temple and festival motifs, as well as its use of Scripture. W. Meeks, The Moral World of the First Christians (LEC 6; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 109, represents current opinion when he states that Johannine Christians thought of themselves as “entirely within the orbit of Jewish communities.” 382 See Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 12, for further discussion of this trend. 383 J. C. O’Neill, The Puzzle of 1 John: A New Examination of Origins (London: SPCK, 1966). 384 O’Neill relies quite heavily on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, which is dubious given the texts’ clear and extensive reworking by Christian hands. See M. de Jonge, “Christian Influence in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (ed. M. de Jonge; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 193– 246.

Jewish Opponents

95

text.385 The source was Jewish (i.e., pre-Christian) and apocalyptic in its outlook, brimming with messianic expectation.386 Through his reconstruction of the literary history of the source and its use in 1 John, O’Neill also attempted to discover the history of the Johannine community. He theorized that the author “belonged to a Jewish sectarian movement” much like the Essenes. 387 Most of the members, like the author, came to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, while some did not. This caused a schism that resulted in the secession of the minority party. The opponents of 1 John, then, “were the members of the Jewish sect who had refused to follow their brethren into the Christian movement.”388 Thus, the main polemical texts of the epistle (1 John 2:22; 4:2) address the issue of Jesus’ messianic status. O’Neill was truly ahead of his time in his analysis, which may explain why his view met with universal rejection. His literary analysis of the letter was overly confident and highly arbitrary in places,389 but it did highlight the significant continuity between the thought of 1 John and its Jewish predecessors. O’Neill was also likely mistaken in describing John as a “sectarian” Jew. Apocalyptic theology of the kind attested in 1 John and the Dead Sea Scrolls was not limited to wilderness enclaves like Qumran, but seems to have been common currency in early Judaism.390 Nevertheless, O’Neill’s belief that the community of 1 John is to be 385 For other attempts at source criticism of 1 John, see Bultmann, “Analyse,” 138–58; Braun, “Literar-Analyse,” 210–42; Wolfgang Nauck, Die Tradition und der Charakter des ersten Johannesbriefes (WUNT 3; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957). 386 O’Neill, Puzzle, 2–6. 387 Ibid., 6. M.-E. Boismard, “The First Epistle of John and the Writings of Qumran,” in John and Qumran (ed. James H. Charlesworth; London: Chapman, 1971), 165, also thinks that 1 John was addressed to former Essenes, whom he thinks had relocated to Ephesus. These Essenes were possibly closely related to the disciples of John the Baptist mentioned in Acts 19:1–7. Boismard also believes that 1 John was directly dependent on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Elsewhere, he mentions that apostate Jews are likely the target of both the Epistles as well as an edition of the Gospel which he labels “John II-B” and which includes passages like John 6:60–66 and 8:31, 37–47, whose rhetoric is echoed in the Epistle (see M.-E. Boismard and A. Lamouille, Synopse des quatre Évangiles en français. Vol. 3: L’Évangile de Jean (Paris: Cerf, 1977), 59, 242–44). 388 O’Neill, Puzzle, 6. 389 Brown, Epistles, 46, notes that the source O’Neill reconstructs cannot be distinguished by means of vocabulary from the other Johannine writings, because it contains quite a bit of typical Johannine vocabulary. O’Neill’s instinct that 1 John consisted of a Grundschrift that was later expanded is better explained by recent rhetorical analyses that observe the use of amplificatio. See D. Watson, “Amplification Techniques in 1 John: The Interaction of Rhetorical Style and Invention,” JSNT 51 (1993): 99–123. 390 See, e.g., John J. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 7–8.

96

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

understood in a Jewish context has been vindicated by recent studies in the field.391

3. Hartwig Thyen H. Thyen’s article on the Johannine Epistles in the Theologische Realenzyklopädie (1988) is a forceful though brief treatment of the major issues. He revives and defends Wurm’s hypothesis, which he finds “größtenteils bisher unwiderlegten”392 that the antichrists of 1 John “Juden sind, die mit ihrem Abfall vom Glauben an Jesus als den Messias seine göttliche Sendung als des Sohnes vom Vater verleugnen.”393 Likewise, he holds that 1 John 4:2 is a statement of Jesus’ messianic identity, not an anti-docetic creed.394 He also suggests a more nuanced understanding of the epistle’s rhetoric and urges a turn from the intensive mirror-reading strategies so common in treatments of the text.395

4. Dietrich Rusam D. Rusam in his thesis, Die Gemeinschaft der Kinder Gottes (1993), explores the motif of the “children of God” in the Epistles. 396 He finds that the Epistles use the motif and its accompanying rhetoric in a way very similar to the Fourth Gospel, which leads him to conclude that “Die Gemeinde ist des 1Joh in der gleichen Situation wie vordem der Jesus der JohEv.”397 That is, the main issue in the key polemical passages of the Epistle (2:22–23 and 4:2–3) is the same as that in the Gospel: the messiahship of Jesus.398 Just as in the Gospel many departed from Jesus’ circle and forsook their initial belief in him, so also in the Epistle many have gone out from the community and disowned their original confession in order to return to their Jewish 391 392 393 394 395

Such a context is assumed, e.g., in Brown, Epistles; Von Wahlde, Commandments. Thyen, “Johannesbriefe,” TRE 17:186–200. Ibid., 191. Ibid., 193. For example, he takes 1 John 5:6 non-polemically (ibid., 193). In this, he anticipates later non-polemical readings. 396 D. Rusam, Die Gemeinschaft der Kinder Gottes: Das Motiv der Gotteskindschaft und die Gemeinden der johanneischen Briefe (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1993). 397 Ibid., 153. 398 Ibid., 183.

Jewish Opponents

97

synagogue communities. According to Rusam, 1 John 5:6 is also polemical, but addresses a second group. It presents Jesus’ baptism and death as an example to be followed by believers, and thereby engages in Frontenklärung, challenging those who are unwilling because of persecution to take the final step of conversion—baptism (“coming in water”)—and thus risk martyrdom (“coming in blood”).399 While Rusam’s reading of 1 John 5:6 is unnecessarily complicated, his analysis of the Epistle’s rhetoric presents a key piece of evidence that the crux of the schism was the confession of Jesus as Messiah.

5. Terry Griffith In Keep Yourselves from Idols (2002),400 T. Griffith examines the enigmatic ending of the letter, which abruptly exhorts the audience to keep themselves from idols (5:21). Griffith challenges the usual explanation of the text, which takes the term “idols” as either an indication of a Gentile context or a symbol for heretical doctrine threatening the community. He suggests that the passage refers to real idols. The exhortation is not concerned with preventing an apostasy to idolatry, however, but is meant to evoke Israel’s history and tradition of antiidol rhetoric in order to reinforce the community’s boundaries.401 Such reinforcement occurs in concert with the polemic of 1 John 2:22 and 4:2, which Griffith sees as a response to “some Jewish-Christians belonging to Johannine Christianity [who] had reverted to Judaism.”402 Those who left the community likely did so because they came to reject the high Christology espoused in both the Gospel (John 1:1–3; 5:18; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28) and the Epistle (5:20).403 Griffith’s contribution serves to reinforce the argument that the Epistle’s context is thoroughly Jewish and virtually the same as that of the Fourth Gospel.

399 Ibid., 176–77. 400 Griffith, Terry. Keep Yourselves from Idols: A New Look at 1 John. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002; cf. his previous summary: “A Non-Polemical Reading of 1 John,” TynBul 49 (1998): 253–76; more recently, “‘The Jews Who Had Believed in Him’ (John 8:31) and the Motif of Apostasy in the Gospel of John,” in The Gospel of John and Christian Theology (ed. R. Bauckham and C. Mosser; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 183–92. 401 Griffith, Keep, 2. 402 Ibid., 1. 403 Ibid., 190.

98

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

6. Birger Olsson B. Olsson, whose early studies404 fell in line with the Brown-Martyn school of historical reconstruction, represents a scholar who has made a decisive shift in his approach to the Johannine literature. Whereas he previously held that the Johannine letters reflected a later stage in the community’s history, when the polemical rhetoric once aimed at hostile synagogue Jews had turned inward against Christian heretics, he now believes that the Epistles are to be located in the same context as the Gospel: they reflect “an intra-Jewish process within the wide range of the synagogue.”405 He reconstructs the situation in each of the letters as follows: 1) In 3 John, the protagonist Gaius’s house-church was not distinguishable from a normal Jewish synagogue, which would typically meet in a private home in the first century.406 The antagonist Diotrephes is a Jewish non-Christian who will not allow JewishChristian itinerants to preach in the synagogue which meets in his house.407 2) Second John is addressed to Jewish-Christian recipients whose house church or synagogue is being visited by Jews who have apostatized from the Johannine movement.408 3) First John, much like 2 John, deals with Jews who had accepted Jesus as the Messiah but subsequently renounced that confession and left the Johannine movement (1 John 2:18–27). They then paid visits to other Johannine Christians and attempted to persuade them also that their belief in Jesus was misguided (4:1–6).409 All three letters, therefore, point to a situation where the Johannine movement is still part of the synagogue context and is only gradually and on a location-by-location basis 404 See, e.g., “The History of the Johannine Movement,” 27–42, which confidently reconstructs the history of the community in numerous stages by mirror-reading the text of the Fourth Gospel. Cf. idem, Structure and Meaning in the Fourth Gospel: A Text-Linguistic Analysis of John 2:1–11 and 4:1–42 (Conant 6; Lund: Gleeful, 1974). 405 Birger Olsson, “‘All My Teaching Was Done in Synagogues…’ (John 18,20),” in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by the Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminary (ed. G. Van Belle, J. G. van der Watt, and P. Maritz; BETL 184; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 205. 406 Olsson finds that ἐκκλησία is virtually synonymous with συναγωγή, adducing evidence throughout the Second Temple period for the usage. Interestingly, Justin Martyr, Dial. 63.2, can refer to Christians meeting in a synagogue. For a discussion of recent research on ancient synagogues, see S. Catto, Reconstructing the First-Century Synagogue: A Critical Analysis of Current Research (LNTS 363; London: T&T Clark, 2007). 407 Ibid., 205. 408 Ibid., 206. 409 Ibid.

Jewish Opponents

99

separating from it. Olsson hypothesizes that it was the apostasy of so many Jewish Christians from the Johannine movement that ultimately resulted in the split with the synagogue and produced the viewpoint of Revelation 2:9 and 3:9, which attack the “synagogue of Satan.”410 410 Ibid., 207. Olsson’s forthcoming commentary, De johanneiska breven (KNT 19; Stockholm: EFS-förlaget, forthcoming), will further elaborate on his view. For more of his reflections on what he sees as a shift in Johannine studies towards this understanding, see B. Olsson, “Kulturbundna tolkningar av Johannesbreven,” Tro och Liv 63, nos. 3-4 (2004): 4–12. On the phrase “synagogue of Satan,” see John Marshall, Parables of War: Reading John’s Jewish Apocalypse (SCJ 10; Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2001); idem, “John’s Jewish (Christian?) Apocalypse,” in Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts (ed. Matt Jackson-McCabe; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 233–56. See also the recent treatment in G. Stemberger, Juden und Christen im spätantiken Palästina (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007). Olsson’s theory dovetails nicely with the emerging consensus concerning the “parting of the ways” between Judaism and Christianity. See J. D. G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity (London: SCM, 1991); Judith Lieu, Neither Jew nor Greek? Constructing Early Christianity (London: T&T Clark, 2005); Adam H. Becker and A. Y. Reed, eds., The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (TSAJ 95; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). These studies all call into question the traditional understanding of the parting of the ways. Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), critiques theories of the parting of the ways that are based on accounts of the council at Yavneh, which he regards as later rabbinic legends. He urges that what has traditionally been seen as a “parting” of the ways could more accurately be described as a “partitioning” of the ways. Cf. P. M. Casey, From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God: The Origins and Development of New Testament Christology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991), 158, for a similar analysis of the Johannine situation vis-à-vis the synagogue. Recently, M. Sommer, “A Better Class of Enemy: Opposition and Dependence in the Johannine Writings,” in The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice (ed. Thomas L. Brodie, Dennis R. MacDonald and Stanley E. Porter; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007), 266– 83, also argues that 1 John was written in a Jewish context prior to separation with the synagogue. The author and his recipients, all Torah-observant, do not see themselves as “converts” to Christianity but as a synagogue which is now messianic (271). Sommer thinks that 1 John comes from a community hostile to the community which produced the Fourth Gospel. In his opinion, the “Jews” of the Fourth Gospel represent the members of 1 John’s community, which has expelled the Fourth Gospel community for its blasphemously high Christology and its “progressive” disregard of the Jewish Law (264–71). This explains why Ἰουδαῖοι appears frequently in the Fourth Gospel but never in the Epistles (275). Contra Sommer, though, there is no evidence in 1 John that the Law is an issue at all, nor is it correct to describe the Epistle’s Christology as low compared to the Gospel’s (see, e.g. 1 John 5:20). Sommer’s view also cannot make sense of 1 John’s polemic against those who deny that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22) and do not confess Jesus Christ come in the flesh (4:2); neither of these is likely to refer to the views expressed in the Fourth Gospel. A more reasonable approach is that of K. Erlemann, “I Joh und der jüdische-christlich Trennungsprozess,” TZ 55 (1999): 285–302, who anticipated B.

100

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

7. Ben Witherington Finally, Ben Witherington’s commentary on the Johannine Epistles, the first volume of his series, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians,411 is the first full-scale commentary to explore the Jewish apostate theory of the opponents at any significant length. He heralds “fresh winds…blowing in the study of the Johannine Epistles,”412 by which he means a new appreciation for the Jewishness of the author, audience, and opponents.413 He proposes that the Johannine community, based in Ephesus, was predominantly Jewish and had “porous” boundaries that allowed non-Christian Jews to attend the various house churches.414 Some of these non-Christian Jews stayed in the churches long enough to be recognized as members and even as teachers or prophets in the community. It eventually became clear, however, that these members held views of Jesus that conflicted with those of the community’s founder (the beloved disciple). “They viewed themselves as Jewish followers of Jesus, but they did not share our author’s more robust Christology.”415 Schism thus resulted. At this point, Witherington’s proposal lacks clarity. He speaks of lacking a “robust Christology” and

411 412 413 414 415

Olsson in arguing that the Johannine Epistles were written at a stage in the JewishChristian Trennungsprozess when the boundaries between non-Christian Jews and Christian Jews were fluid (286). He believes the author of 1 John contributed to the parting of the ways by establishing the confession that Jesus was Messiah and Son of God as the primary boundary marker (292). Erlemann speaks of the opponents in 1 John returning to a “präconversionalen, ‘mainstream’-konformen Position” (295), but thinks that terms such as ‘apostasy’ or ‘heresy’ are anachronistic in this case (291). While Erlemann’s basic contention about the fluidity of Jewish-Christian boundaries in the first century is probably correct, he perhaps underestimates how early on the confessional criterion of Jesus as the Messiah was established as a firm boundary-marker. It may be that 1 John should not be seen as introducing a new confessional boundary but as urging the practical enforcement of the one that was already agreed upon. B. Witherington, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Vol. 1: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1–2 Timothy and 1–3 John (Grand Rapids: InterVarsity, 2006). Ibid., 407. Ibid., 402, 407. Ibid., 409. Ibid., 430.

Jewish Opponents

101

uses the language of “low” Christology416 or the rejection of “christological monotheism.”417 At other times, though, he seems to 416 Ibid., 431. 417 Ibid., 495. It was common among earlier scholars to interpret the opponents along these lines. Often, an attempt was made to identify the opponents with early JewishChristian heretics such as the Ebionites, or with non-Christian Jewish sects which would have held much in common with Johannine Christians, perhaps the Essenes or the followers of John the Baptist (sometimes called Sabians). Tertullian, Praescr. 33.11, is the first on record to argue that 1 John 2:22–23 addresses an Ebionite view that accepted Jesus as a messianic figure but denied his divinity. The anti-Ebionite interpretation understands 1 John 2:22–23 (especially the title “Son”) and 4:2–3 to be defending Jesus’ pre-existence and divinity, both apparently rejected by Ebionites. Those who identify the opponents as Ebionites or as advocates of a similar low Christology include J. Semler, Paraphrasis in Primam Ioannis Epistolam cum Prolegomenis et Animadversionibus (Rigae: Hartknochius, 1792), 22; Karl Christian Tittmann, Tractatus de Vestigiis Gnosticorum in Novo Testamento Frustra Quaesitis (Lipsiae: Lipsiae, 1773), 179; Georg Christian Knapp, Scripta Varii Argumenti Maximam Partem Exegetici atque Historici (Halis Saxonum: E Libraria Orphanotrophei, 1823), 157; , K. F. Wunder, Utrum Prima Ioannis Epistola coetui e Iudaeis et IudaeoChristianis mixto scripta sit (Vitebergae: Literis Christiani Philippi Meltzeri Academiae Typographi, 1799); E. Haupt, The First Epistle of St John: A Contribution to Biblical Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1879); Windisch, Briefe, 127; C. Wittichen, Der geschichtliche Charakter des Evangeliums Johannis in Verbindung mit der Frage nach seinem Ursprunge (Elberfeld: Friderich, 1868), 67–95; Lange, Schriften; S. G. Lange, “Die Judenchristen, Ebioniten und Nicolaiten der apostolische Zeit und das Verhältnis der Neutestamentlichen Schriften zu ihnen,” in Beyträge zur ältesten Kirchengeschichte so wie zur Einleitungswissenschaft in die Schriften des Neues Bundes 2 (Leipzig: Barth, 1831), 123, proposes Nicolaitan opponents with an Ebionite Christology; Neander, First Epistle, 12, sees Ebionite opponents in 2:22–23 but docetic and Cerinthian opponents in the other passages; C. Clemen, “Beiträge zum geschichtlichen Verständnis der Johannesbriefe,” ZNW 6 (1905), 272–75. More recently, see Michael Goulder, A Tale of Two Missions (London: SCM, 1994), 121–27, and idem, “Poor Man’s,” 341–44, who argues for Ebionite opponents but interprets them as teaching a possessionist Christology of the sort usually attributed to Cerinthus. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, xxi–xxii, 108, 111, thinks that 2:22–23 opposes the low or Ebionite Christology of “heretically inclined members from a Jewish background” (xxii). He believes however that it was the docetists combated in 4:2–3 who led the secession from the community (211–12). Anderson, “Sitz im Leben,” 46– 47, holds a similar view; Ludger Schenke, “The Johannine Schism and the ‘Twelve,’” in Critical Readings of John 6 (ed. R. Alan Culpepper; BibInt 22; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 205–19, interprets John 6 as a two-level drama that depicts the later crisis in the Johannine community. He holds that the opponents portrayed in John 6 are JewishChristian adoptionists who, because of their commitment to Jewish monotheism, deny Jesus’ pre-existence and divinity (which Schenke believes are implied in John 6:60, 66) and teach instead that Jesus became Messiah by receiving the Spirit at his baptism. They also teach that Jesus only took on salvific significance at his resurrection and exaltation (206–207). Schenke takes Peter’s confession in John 6:69 (“you are the holy one of God”) to represent the higher Christology of the rest of the Johannine community (216–17). Cf. Dongsu Kim, An Exegesis of Apostasy Embedded in John’s Narratives of Peter and Judas Against the Synoptic Parallels (SBEC 61; Lewiston,

102

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

think that the opponents in fact had no “Christology” at all, properly speaking, since they “denied the messianic identity of Jesus.”418 On yet other occasions, he points to their denial of Jesus’ atoning death as their main shortcoming.419 Witherington also fails to plausibly explain how those who denied Jesus’ messiahship and atoning death could ever have become members, much less leaders, in a community founded by the beloved disciple. Such a community would almost undoubtedly have had firm boundaries at both the confessional level (requiring the confession of Jesus as Messiah) and the ritual level (baptism in Jesus’ name, accompanied by the Christological confession). In spite of its shortcomings, Witherington’s commentary may represent the beginning of a significant scholarly shift in the right direction.

C. Objections to the Jewish Apostate View 1. The Opponents are “Christians” Several objections have been made to this understanding of the secessionists. It is disturbing, however, to observe the degree to which such objections rely on circular reasoning or on a fundamental misunderstanding of the view itself. Examples abound. R. Schnackenburg, for instance, considers but rejects Wurm’s reading, protesting that “such a denial of the messiahship of Jesus could never have arisen in a Christian community.” 420 One must conclude from the statement that Schnackenburg has simply not understood Wurm, since he seems to assume that the secessionists continued to claim to be N. Y.: Mellen, 2004), 293; Wilckens, “Gegner,” 90, 96, who holds that the opponents are “orthodoxe Juden” committed to strict monotheism who returned to the synagogue when the Johannine community developed its increasingly high Christology. Among those who argue that the opponents had some connection to John the Baptist or his disciples, or even more generally to some kind of baptismal sect such as the Elchasaites, the most prominent advocate is Gottlob Christian Storr, Über den Zweck der evangelischen Geschichte und der Briefe Johannis (Tübingen: Heerbrandt, 1786), 1–27, 168–234, who argued the Gospel and Letters were written against two parties: Jewish followers of John the Baptist and Gentile Gnostics of a Cerinthian stripe. Advocates of this view usually read 1 John 5:6 as anti-Baptist polemic (“not in water only”) and find much of the material concerning John the Baptist in the Fourth Gospel to have polemical significance. See p. 294 below for further discussion. 418 Witherington, Letters, 495. 419 Ibid., 431. 420 Schnackenburg, Epistles, 18.

Jewish Opponents

103

“Christians”421 and thus finds it impossible that they could have denied that Jesus was the Christ. Of course, this misses the very point of Wurm’s thesis, which is that the Jewish secessionists left the community precisely because they came to deny the messiahship of Jesus and would therefore forego any claim to be “Christians.”422 Similarly, G. Burge writes of 1 John 2:22, “At first reading it sounds as if these people [the secessionists] are denying the messiahship of Jesus. But this is unlikely since they were once members of John’s church and understood the gospel story.”423 This is simply a non sequitur, as it assumes that a church member could never change his mind. Again, G. Strecker proclaims it “scarcely tenable” that the secessionists could be unbelieving Jews, citing as evidence the fact that they originally belonged to the community (1 John 2:19). He never considers the possibility (well-attested in early church history) that the secessionists could have left the community to return to the unbelieving synagogue.424

421 One might object at the very outset to Schnackenburg’s un-Johannine use of the term “Christian,” which introduces a category that is not helpful in accurately reconstructing the historical situation. 422 See the discussion of Wurm above, p. 93. Schenke, “Schism,” 205, makes the same assumption: “Since the schismatics claimed to be ‘Christians,’ not every christological confession can have been rejected.” Cf. also Brown, Epistles, 52; Dodd, Epistles, 55: “It is unlikely that any person who took this view should ever have been (as these heretics had been) a member of the Church.” 423 Burge, Letters, 129. 424 Strecker, Letters, 70. Cf. Edwards, Epistles, 60–61, who considers only two options for identifying the secessionists as Jews: 1) They are non-Christian Jews who are members of the community (similar to O’Neill’s position), or 2) They are ethnic Jews who want to continue Jewish law observance. She rightly rejects both possibilities, but fails to consider any other option, positing instead “a group who fail to adopt…an ‘orthodox’ interpretation of Jesus’ sonship and messiahship” (italics original). Similarly, Bultmann, Epistles, 39, can contemplate Jewish opponents only in the form of law-preaching Judaizers: “it cannot be a matter of Jewish heretics (‘Judaizers’). The ‘law’ is nowhere the subject of debate.” Whitacre, Polemic, 125, concedes that “there are no exegetical data that conclusively rule out such an understanding [the Jewish apostate view] of the false teaching,” but objects that the “subtlety of the author’s argument” makes it improbable. What Whitacre means by the author’s “subtlety” is difficult to determine. It does not seem subtle to decry one’s opponents as antichrists, false prophets, and liars who deny that Jesus is the Messiah. Lieu, I, II, & III John, 105, states that “it is unlikely that they [the opponents] are former ‘Jewish Christians’ who have surrendered their convictions about Jesus to return to their Jewish friends,” because the author “does not accuse them of having given up their earlier beliefs.” The author, however, clearly refers to those who “left us” (2:19) and who do not remain (2:19; 2 John 9). This, in addition to the description of the opponents as “denying” the confession of Jesus as Messiah leaves

104

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

One scholar who does attempt to provide a textual basis for believing that the secessionists continued to assert a Christian identity is C. K. Barrett.425 He points to 1 John 2:3–4: Καὶ ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἐγνώκαμεν αὐτόν, ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ τηρῶμεν. ὁ λέγων ὅτι Ἔγνωκα αὐτόν, καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ μὴ τηρῶν, ψεύστης ἐστίν, καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ἡ ἀλήθεια οὐκ ἔστιν.

Barrett focuses on the phrase, Ἔγνωκα αὐτόν, a claim that only a professing Christian would make. Barrett errs, though, in assuming that such a claim is made by the secessionists—something the text never states. Barrett assumes that the ὁ λέγων statements are direct quotes of the secessionists rather than a rhetorical technique used for pastoral exhortation. As I will discuss in the next chapter, such a reading is fraught with methodological difficulties. There is no clear reference to the secessionists in this passage. Rather, the passage speaks pastorally to members of the community who make a proper confession but vitiate it through their disobedience. Those passages which do explicitly mention the secessionists fault them for denying the central Christian confession, not for their aberrant behavior.426

2. The Non-Jewish Context of the Epistles A more formidable challenge to the theory of Jewish secessionists posits a difference in setting between the Gospel of John and the Epistles. The Gospel, the argument goes, was produced for a community in conflict with the synagogue, i.e., the “Jews.” At the heart of the debate was the claim that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah who had fulfilled the OT scriptures.427 It was this claim which had led to the community’s expulsion from the synagogues. The Epistles, however, reflect a later stage in the community’s history. The breach with the synagogue is past and the struggle now centers on wayward teachers one wondering what more the author could say to express the opponents’ abandonment of their initial convictions. 425 Barrett, “Johannine Christianity,” 339. 426 Brown, Epistles, 51, rules out Jewish opponents because they would not fit his profile of the opponents, who “placed little emphasis on avoiding sin, keeping the commandments, and acting justly.” Like Barrett, Brown interprets the antitheses in 1 John 1–2 with reference to the secessionists. 427 Martyn, History, 91: “the issue of Jesus’ messiahship stands at the center of the synagogue-church discussion. Indeed the more we read John’s Gospel with this issue in mind, the more obvious it is that the title ‘Messiah’ occupies an important place in the whole of John’s thought.”

Jewish Opponents

105

within the community. According to M. De Jonge, “No trace of the conflict with the Jews remains.”428 Thus, there are no references at all to οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι—a group so prominent in the Fourth Gospel.429 There is also no debate about Jesus’ messiahship. The term Χριστός (as well as ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ) has shifted from its Jewish titular significance and come to denote, in a Gentile context, a pre-existent divine spiritual being.430 In response to this objection, it must be recognized how unlikely it is that any Christian community in the first century (especially in Ephesus, the traditional location assigned to the Johannine tradition) would not have been in contact, and likely in some level of conflict, with local synagogues. Scholarship is increasingly recognizing the extent to which the “parting of the ways” was a slow process that continued well past the end of the first century and that unfolded differently in each city and region.431 Both Revelation and Hebrews witness to a situation in the late first century where the relationship between ἐκκλησία and συναγωγή was still very much at issue. In the second century, Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho evinces an ongoing and spirited exegetical debate with the Jewish community, the importance of which was frequently highlighted by those Jewish Christians who, under social, political, economic, or even theological pressure, would renounce their confession of Jesus as Messiah and return to the acceptance of the synagogue.432 The debate over the claim that Jesus was Messiah certainly did not cease by the end of the first century, as Justin’s Dialogue also clearly attests.433 It is thus very 428 Jonge, Christology, 144. Cf. Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 24; F. Vouga, “La Réception de la Théologie Johannique dans les Épîtres,” in La Communauté johannique et son histoire (ed. J.-D. Kaestli, J.-M. Poffet, and J. Zumstein; Paris: Labor et Fides, 1990), 293; Theissen, Introduction, 161. 429 Brown, Epistles, 52. It is interesting to note that Brown does see John 8:31–59 and 12:42–43 as veiled references to members of the Johannine community who have left the community to return to the synagogue. But he asks why, if the secessionists of the Epistles have done the same, there is “no appeal in I John to that polemic.” See pp. 165ff below, however, for the argument that John 8:31–59 is in fact a primary subtext for 1 John’s portrait of the secessionists, and that the secessionists are repeatedly described in the same terms used for the antagonists in the Gospel. 430 See, e.g., Grayston, Epistles, 78, who remarks concerning 1 John 2:22, “It is not likely that the dissidents were interested in varieties of Jewish messianic expectation,” but never provides any evidence to support his claim. Elsewhere, he acknowledges that messianic sense of Χριστός dominates in the Gospel, but denies that it carries that connotation in the Epistles (ibid., 78). His view is all the more puzzling since he believes that the Gospel was actually written after the Epistles. 431 See, e.g., Reinhartz, “Johannine Community,” 111–38. 432 Dial. 47.4. 433 See below, p. 161 for further discussion.

106

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

unlikely that the term Χριστός, especially in such a confessional context, could be used to refer to something other than the Messiah without further explanation being provided. 434 The fact that the “Jews” are never mentioned may, as argued above, actually be a point in favor of the Jewish context of 1 John. 435 It is quite possible that both the author and a majority (perhaps, all) of his audience are Jewish and would still claim the label “Jew” for themselves.436 If 1 John reflects an intra-Jewish conflict, there would be no reason for the author to refer to the “antichrists” as “Jews.” We may have an indicator of the Johannine movement’s Jewish identity in 3 John 7, where the author speaks of itinerants who have “gone out for the sake of the Name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles.” 437 As Witherington observes, it “seems unlikely that the author would speak in this rather pejorative way about Gentiles if his audience was predominantly Gentile.”438

434 The same point is made by Griffith, Keep, 174–77. 435 Erlemann, “Trennungsprozess,” 291, proposes that the label began to be used pejoratively when the separation from the synagogue became more pronounced. He does not believe that this separation has occurred by the time of 1 John (ibid., 294). Cf. Casey, Prophet, 158; Sommer, “Better Class,” 275. 436 This could favor the theory that the Epistles preceded the final form of the Gospel; thus, Casey, Prophet, 158. It must be noted though that the meaning of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι in the Fourth Gospel is heavily disputed. It is not clear that it simply denotes ethnic Jews, in which case the objection is moot. For the status quaestionis on the “Jews” in the Fourth Gospel, see the various treatments in R. Bieringer, Didier Pollefeyt, and F. Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, eds., Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001). Thyen, “Johannesbriefe,” 195, also observes that the difference in genre between Gospel and Letters may be relevant for this question. The Gospel is a narrative, where the characters, the Jews, would naturally be identified. In the Johannine Letters, however, there would be no reason to mention the Jews. 437 So Casey, Prophet, 158; Thyen, “Johannesbriefe,” 197. 438 Witherington, Letters, 402, 591. On the other hand, it is possible that the term is being used simply to refer to unbelieving Gentiles, as in 1 Cor 12:2. Michaelis, Introduction, 4:452, suggests that the Gentiles may be the target of the church’s mission and that, like Paul, the missionaries did not want to rely for support on those they were trying to evangelize. Roger W. Gehring, House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 2004), 283, finds the description in 3 John 7 an indication that the missionaries were still following Jesus’ mission instructions in Matt 10:5, 8–10. Taking no money with them, they depended on hospitality from residents along the way. If Gehring is correct, this also points to a predominantly Jewish setting where the system of hospitality could be relied upon.

Jewish Opponents

107

3. The Lack of Scriptural Citations A very common objection to the Jewish apostates view is that 1 John contains no OT quotes.439 D. A. Carson, in his examination of the use of the OT in the Johannine literature, writes of the Epistles, “The most striking feature relevant to our subject in these epistles is the absence not only of OT quotations but even of many unambiguous allusions to the OT.”440 If the messiahship of Jesus were the central issue, as the Jewish apostate view holds, we would certainly expect a wealth of OT argumentation in support of the Christian confession. This objection fails on a couple points. First, it misconstrues the aim and purpose of the Epistle. First John is not a “debate” with the “antichrist” secessionists, as M. DeJonge characterizes it.441 It is not meant to refute or persuade the opponents. Indeed, the letter suggests that whatever debate there was took place prior to the letter and that by the time of the letter the secession had ended. The letter is not addressed to the secessionists, but to those left behind who have “overcome” the antichrists (4:4). The author is truly “preaching to the choir.” It is not necessary, then, for him to adduce prooftexts in support of his position. Second, this objection underestimates how much the OT is used in 1 John. While it is true that there are no quotations of the OT, there are numerous allusions to the OT and its concepts, all of which seem to

439 Brown, Epistles, 52, calls this “an eloquent objection,” which is ironic, as his own theory holds that the debate with the secessionists revolves around the Fourth Gospel, which is also never quoted (noted by J. Lieu, “What Was From the Beginning: Scripture and Tradition in the Johannine Epistles,” NTS 39 (1993), 460. A similar objection is made by Jonge, Christology, 144; Trebilco, Early Christians, 285; Whitacre, Polemic, 155. Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 53, believes that the audience of 1 John was predominantly Gentile and would not find arguments from the OT convincing. To the contrary, the assumption that Gentiles would not be interested in Scriptural argumentation is hard to defend in light of what appears to be widespread interest in the OT and Judaism among Gentile Christian converts (as seen in Galatians, for example). 440 D. A. Carson, “John and the Johannine Epistles,” in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture (ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 256. Dodd, Epistles, lii, similarly remarks,”There is no other NT writing in which the Jewish colouring is so little significant as in the Johannine Epistles.” Cf. Lieu, Second, 181, who writes, “I John is marked by the absence of any use of the Old Testament,” though she retreats from this view in later research. 441 Jonge, Christology, 144.

108

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

presume a familiarity with the OT on the part of the audience.442 The following may be noted: 1) References to the story of Cain and Abel appear in 1 John 3:7–15. These seem to presuppose the developed haggadic tradition that viewed Cain as the seed of the serpent (τὰ τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου, 3:10; ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν, 3:12) who slays righteous Abel.443 2) Language such as ἱλασμός (2:2) and references to expiation of sin by means of blood (1:7) both draw on OT cultic themes.444 3) References to the OT’s covenant framework may be found in the concept of κοινωνία (1:3) and the way it is conditioned on obedience (1:6–7).445 The discussion of the “sin unto death” may well presuppose the law in Num 15:22–31 concerning unpardonable sins committed with a “high hand” that constitute apostasy from the covenant.446 442 Carson retracts his previous blanket statement in a later article (D. A. Carson, “‘You Have No Need That Anyone Should Teach You’ (1 John 2:27): An Old Testament Allusion That Determines the Interpretation,” in The New Testament in Its First Century Setting: Essays on Context and Background in Honour of B. W. Winter on His 65th Birthday [ed. P. J. Williams, A. D. Clarke, P. M. Head, D. Instone-Brewer; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004], 269–70), where he notes many of the elements discussed below. Lieu, “What Was From the Beginning,” 461, compares 1QS and 1QM with 1 John and finds their use of the OT similar: limited quotation but a wealth of allusion. She concludes: “Scripture, or rather a tradition of interpreting Scripture, is part of the thought world which constructs the letter” (475). See also Carson, “1–3 John, Jude,” 1063–69. In spite of these studies, Smith, “Epistles,” 379, could remark as recently as 2009 that with the exception of the allusion to Cain in 3:12, “1 John neither interacts with nor echoes Old Testament scriptures.” It is possible that Smith is working with a very narrow definition of “echo,” since such a statement seems difficult to justify in light of recent treatments of the issue. 443 Lieu, “What Was From the Beginning,” 461; J. Lieu, The Theology of the Johannine Epistles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 87; see also the helpful summaries in Kruse, Letters, 235–42. Cf. T. C. de Kruijf, “‘Nicht wie Kain (der) Bösen war…’ (1 Joh. 3.12).” Bijdr 41 (1980): 47–63; John Byron, “Slaughter, Fratricide and Sacrilege: Cain and Abel Tradition in 1 John 3,” Bib 88 (2007): 526–35. Domingo Muñoz León, “El derás sobre Caín y Abel en 1 Jn y la situación de la comunidad joánica,” EstBíb 53 (1995): 213–38, argues that the story of Cain and Abel undergirds the structure of the entire letter of 1 John. 444 See Carson, “You Have No Need,” 269–70; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 36–38; Kruse, Letters, 75–76. 445 See H. A. A. Kennedy, “The Covenant Conception in the First Epistle of John,” ExpT 28 (1916–17): 23–26. 446 On 1 John 5:16–17, see David M. Scholer, “Sins within and Sins without: An Interpretation of 1 John 5.16–17,” in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation (ed. G. F. Hawthorne; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 230–46; P. Trudinger, “Concerning Sins, Mortal and Otherwise: A Note on 1 John 5.16–17,” Bib 52 (1971): 541–42; Edwards, Epistles, 103. It seems more likely to me that John is dependent upon Ezekiel 18 for his understanding. This chapter (see esp. Ezek 18:24) speaks of a righteous man (cp. 1 John 5:16 “brother”) who turns away from his

Jewish Opponents

109

Especially important is the covenantal background to 1 John 2:20, 27 (οἴδατε πάντες) in Jer 31:33–34. Jeremiah prophesies that in the new covenant God will put his Torah in his people’s hearts so that they will “all know” the Lord and no longer need mediating teachers (priests, most likely) with special knowledge for access to God and the covenant.447 4) Similarly, 1 John 1:9–2:2, with its description of God as πιστός καὶ δίκαιος in pardoning sins, appears to depend upon Exod 34:6–7 where such divine qualities are closely connected to forgiveness of sins.448 5) The juridical motif of witness or testimony in 1 John 5:6–12 depends upon the Deuteronomic principle that every fact must be established on the basis of two or three witnesses (Deut 17:6; 19:15). The motif of eyewitnesses in the prologue of 1 John almost certainly alludes to Isa 43:8–10, where God’s witnesses participate in an international trial by declaring (dgn, ἀναγγέλλω) the truth, which is described as “from the beginning” (twnvar, τὰ ἐξ ἀρχῆς). This witness takes place in order that the nations “might know and believe” (yl wnymatw wudt numl, ἵνα γνῶτε καὶ πιστεύσητε).449 Isaiah 43, or rather its targumic reception, also seems to be behind 1 John 2:12–14, which addresses “little children,” whose sins have been forgiven “for his name’s sake,” and “fathers,” who “know the one who is from the beginning.” Targum Isaiah 43:25 has the Lord declare, “I am he who forgives your sins for my name’s sake,” while in 43:10, he says, “I am he that is from the beginning.”450

447

448 449 450

righteousness and commits ἀδικία, ἀνομία, and ἁμαρτία—all terms central to John’s theology of sin—which result in death. Also in the background may be the three occasions when Jeremiah is told not to pray for the people of Judah and Jerusalem because of their apostasy from the covenant (Jer 7:16; 11:14; 14:11). These in turn may spring from Deut 13:6, 8, which insist that no pity be shown to the “brother” who engages in, or encourages, idolatry. M.-E. Boismard, “La connaissance de Dieu dans l’Alliance Nouvelle d’apres la première lettre de S. Jean,” RB 56 (1949): 365–91; Carson, “You Have No Need,” 278– 79; on the topic of interiority in 1 John and the New covenant, see Edward Malatesta, Interiority and Covenant: A Study of εἰναι ἐν and μένειν ἐν in the First Letter of Saint John (AnBib 69; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978), 42–74, who ties the Johannine concepts of “being in” and “abiding in” to a covenant framework. It is also possible that the ἱλασμός of 1 John 2:2 is to be understood as a sacrifice which inaugurates a covenant. Lieu, “What Was From the Beginning,” 461. These echoes are noted in Lieu, “What Was From the Beginning,” 475. They also occur in John 15:27. John L. Ronning, “The Targum of Isaiah and the Johannine Literature,” WTJ 69 (2007), 247–51.

110

Options for Identifying the Opponents of 1 John

6) There is possibly a reference to the Genesis account of Adam, Eve, and the Serpent in 1 John 3:8, which states that “the devil has sinned from the beginning.” The second half of the verse, which says that the “Son of God appeared in order to destroy the works of the devil,” may echo the protoevangelium in Gen 3:15, which foretells the crushing of the serpent’s head by the woman’s seed. 7) The depiction of the false prophets in 1 John 4:1–6 and 2 John 7 appears to have its source in Deuteronomy 13 and 18:15–22, which warn Israel of “lawless” ones who “go out” to deceive the nation into worshipping idols.451 8) Not to be forgotten are the use of messianic titles such as Christ, Son of God, the “Righteous One”452 and the “Coming One.”453 These are incomprehensible apart from their background in the OT.454 While such evidence hardly proves that 1 John is addressed to a Jewish audience or addresses Jewish concerns about whether Jesus is Messiah, it does help us recognize the way the author uses the language and concepts of the OT to encourage his audience to understand their present situation through Scriptural categories.

IX. Conclusion In this chapter I have discussed the various proposals for identifying the opponents mentioned in 1 John. I have analyzed each proposal, noting its exegetical basis and its use of historical parallels. In each case, we have found that scholars have tended to rely primarily on four key texts: 1 John 2:18–27; 4:1–6; 5:6–12; 2 John 7–9. These are taken as polemic directed at the opponents for a supposed deviant or heretical Christology, usually involving a denial of, or devaluation of, Christ’s physicality or death. In addition to these, scholars often point to several passages in 1 John 1–2, which they believe to be aimed at the ethical teachings and the behavior of the opponents. These ethical teachings are often thought to stem in some way from their aberrant Christology. In contrast to these proposals, I suggested that the secessionists are most easily understood as apostate Jews, who have not introduced a

451 452 453 454

For further discussion see below p. 148 and p. 233. See below, p. 242. See below, p. 345. Carson, “You Have No Need,” 269–70.

Conclusion

111

subtle Christological error, but rather have rejected the fundamental claim of the early Christian movement: that Jesus is the Messiah. As this chapter has made clear, the understanding of the secessionists as Jewish apostates is still by any measure a minority report among scholars, although it is increasingly garnering more attention and consideration.455 The present work fills a significant gap in previous research. Since Wurm, over a century ago, no one has provided an extensive exegetical exploration of the key passages with an eye towards reconstructing the historical situation addressed by 1 John. Most of the advocates of the Jewish apostate view discussed above have addressed the nature of the opponents and their teaching only in passing.456 Moreover, no one has yet offered a thorough critique of the alternative reconstructions and their methodology. This kind of critique is necessary to establish the Jewish apostate view as the most plausible. The remaining chapters will address such issues.

455 See, e.g., Okure, Approach, 235–81, esp. 263, 268, 273–81; Ekkehard Stegemann, “‘Kindlein, hütet euch vor den Götterbildern!’ Erwägungen zum Schluss des 1. Johannesbriefes,” ThZ 41 (1985): 291–92; Lewis R. Donelson, From Hebrews to Revelation: A Theological Introduction (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 117; G. W. H. Lampe, “‘Grievous Wolves’ (Acts 20.29),” in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament (ed. B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 261–62; Horbury, “Antichrist,” 116. 456 For example, T. Griffith, Keep Yourselves from Idols, focuses on anti-idolatry rhetoric and the meaning of 1 John 5:21, devoting only a single chapter to discussing the key passages regarding the opponents (he does not deal with 2 John 7–9, however). D. Rusam, Gemeinschaft, likewise, focuses on a specific theme in the Epistles (that of believers’ divine childhood), only briefly addressing the nature of the opponents.

Chapter 2

The Methodology of Mirror-Reading Before I begin exploring the key passages, it will be helpful to dwell briefly on the methodological questions surrounding the historical reconstruction of the situation of a text like 1 John. The basic method to reconstruct the historical situation of 1 John has often been called “mirror-reading.” The fundamental assumption of the mirror-reading approach is that the text “reflects” the situation it addresses. In the case of a text like 1 John, which explicitly mentions the presence of opponents, a mirror-reading approach assumes that the elements in the text which are aimed at the opponents may be used to determine their identity. There is, however, a great deal of diversity among scholars as to how mirror-reading should be carried out. Unfortunately, scholars often seem simply to assume a mirror-reading approach without much, if any, consciousness of their methodological decision or possible objections to it.1 In this chapter I will highlight some of the major difficulties of the mirror-reading approach when it is applied to 1 John. I will argue that the majority of commentators have been overly confident in their ability to mirror-read 1 John. They have overestimated how polemical 1 John is, as well as how much of the material in 1 John may shed light on the opponents. They have also claimed too much certainty concerning their reconstructions. In contrast to such an approach, I will advocate a re-evaluation of the purpose of 1 John and a concomitant rethinking of the role mirror-reading should play in exegesis of this text.

1

For example, one can find virtually no discussion of methodology in Stott, Epistles; Kruse, Letters; Marshall, Epistles. Merely one paragraph discusses the issues in Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 18.

The Maximalist Mirror-Reading Approach

113

I. The Maximalist Mirror-Reading Approach A. Kenneth Grayston’s Reconstruction Throughout the scholarly literature, one may find numerous examples of a maximalist approach to mirror-reading 1 John. Kenneth Grayston’s commentary is representative. 2 He detects references to the opponents of 1 John in the following passages: 1:3, 6, 8, 10; 2:3–4, 6, 9, 18–23, 28; 3:2, 9–10, 17; 4:1–3, 5, 12, 14, 17; 5:6–12.3 While he realizes that the descriptions of the opponents in these passages are “necessarily partisan,” he nevertheless believes they provide a fairly transparent window into the situation of the community and the nature of the adversaries.4 From his mirror-reading, he reconstructs opponents who separated from the community primarily because of their theology of the Spirit (2:19). The Spirit had anointed them, they reasoned, making them in some sense “christs” and “sons of God.” They therefore denied that Jesus was the Christ, in the sense of the unique anointed one (2:18, 22) or the unique “Son of God” (2:23; 4:14–15; 5:5, 13). Their “anointing” with the Spirit (2:20, 27) provided them direct access to God, leaving no need for a mediator or Paraclete like Jesus (2:2). Thus they could claim to have “fellowship” with the Father, while disavowing any need for fellowship with the Son (1:3; 2:23). The Spirit had equipped them with special illumination and knowledge; they therefore made elitist claims to be “in the Light” (2:9) and attempted to teach the rest of the community (2:27). Their charismatic prophetic claims fueled a missionary enterprise that enjoyed widespread success (4:1, 5). Because of their reception of the Spirit, they were “sons of God” (3:2) who had “seen God” (4:12) and had been sent by God to save the world (4:14). Their theology of the Spirit also had a harsh side. They looked down on those who clung to the past historical ministry of Jesus “in the flesh” as the central salvific moment (4:2; 2 John 7). The “Spirit is the truth” (5:6), not the flesh, and it was the Spirit which provided salvation, not the “blood” of Jesus (1:7; 5:6). They also claimed to have achieved sinless perfection (1:8, 10; 3:9) and therefore to have no need for the example of Jesus (2:6), or the continued cleansing of his blood (1:7, 9). Their elitist attitude prevented them from showing love for

2 3 4

Kenneth Grayston, The Johannine Epistles (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984). Ibid., 16–18. Ibid., 18.

114

The Methodology of Mirror-Reading

fellow members of the community (3:10–16); they were wealthy but refused to show charity to those in need (3:17). It is clear from this summary that Grayston does not limit himself to the passages which explicitly mention opponents (2:18–27; 4:1–6), but relies on three additional kinds of evidence: a) passages which seem to him to quote the secessionists’ claims and teachings (1:6, 8, 10; 2:4, 6, 9; 5:6); b) the special theological emphases of the author, which Grayston believes have been determined by the adversarial situation; c) the use by the author of certain terms and phrases which appear to have been first employed by the opponents (e.g., anointing, seed, fellowship, “in the light”). According to Grayston’s reconstruction, the author has used these contested terms polemically in an attempt to claim them for his own side and to undermine the dissidents’ position by showing its incoherence. In short, Grayston understands the entire book to be polemical in purpose and execution. This legitimates his reading of virtually every passage as a response or rebuttal to the secessionists.

B. Raymond Brown’s Reconstruction The same kind of mirror-reading approach may be found in the commentary of Raymond Brown,5 widely considered the gold standard of commentaries on 1 John for its thoroughness. Brown believes that the central purpose of the Epistle is polemical; he goes so far as to describe the Johannine Epistles as “the record of a theological life-anddeath struggle within a community at the end of the first century.”6 Brown is “certain” that 1 John addresses a specific Johannine Community “of which the author was a part, from which a major secession had taken place, and where the faith of those who remained was endangered by the propaganda of the secessionists.”7 Reconstructing the identity of the secessionists and their teachings, then, will provide the interpretive key to the letter. In Appendix I.4 of his commentary, Brown provides a helpful summary chart of the passages in 1 John and 2 John from which the opponents’ views may be reconstructed.8 His chart indicates that no fewer than 43 verses (out of 118 total) in the Epistles are to be 5 6 7 8

Raymond Brown, The Epistles of John (AB 30; Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1982). Ibid., x. Ibid., 88. Ibid., 762–63.

The Maximalist Mirror-Reading Approach

115

considered polemical. In addition, Brown believes that other passages in 1 John contain “ideas which the author presents only positively but which may implicitly constitute a refutation of the adversaries.” 9 As an example he points to three passages which refer to Christ’s Parousia (2:28; 3:2; 4:17) and reasons that the adversaries “do not do justice to the parousia.”10 Similarly, according to Brown, the author emphasizes love for the brothers in reaction to the opponents’ theologically driven ethical indifferentism. Brown also detects in the text several direct quotations of the adversaries—most importantly, the claims and antitheses of chs. 1 and 2. On Brown’s reconstruction, the adversaries are progressives who have denied the salvific importance of Jesus’ human ministry and concomitantly the salvific importance of Christians’ ethical behavior. Their teachings split the Johannine community and perhaps persuaded the majority of the members; thus, 1 John 4:1 (cf. 2 John 7) speaks of “many” adversaries, while 4:5 describes their success with the world. The author of 1 John advises his readers not to listen to the secessionists (“you have no need for anyone to teach you,” 2:27), not to allow them into their house churches (2 John 10–11) and not even to pray for them, since they have committed the “sin unto death” (1 John 5:16). Unlike Grayston, Brown is a bit more sensitive to the fact that 1 John, like any polemical writing, is unlikely to have represented its opponents’ views with the nuance, sympathy, and attention to context that the opponents would likely have provided were they given an opportunity to defend themselves.11 Brown is also careful not to engage in what he understands as a simplistic or naïve mirror-reading. A simplistic mirror-reading, for instance, would read 1 John 4:18 (“perfect love drives out fear”) as a refutation of opponents who teach that love may co-exist with fear. A more nuanced mirror-reading, Brown suggests, would conclude rather that the author is encouraging his readers in the face of opponents who have stirred up fear about the future judgment. Nevertheless, because Brown understands the letter to be chiefly polemical, and reads the majority of the text as responding in one way or another to the opponents, his approach may be classified as a maximalist mirror-reading of the text.

9 10 11

Ibid., 48. Ibid. Ibid.

116

The Methodology of Mirror-Reading

C. The Interpretive Logic of Maximalist Mirror-Readings of 1 John Although not all commentators pursue such a thoroughgoing mirrorreading, it is the dominant approach, and its principles are accepted uncritically by the majority of commentators. 12 One may discern a common pattern of thought and sequence of reasoning shared by those who take this approach.13 The logic behind a thoroughgoing mirrorreading of 1 John appears to proceed as follows: 1) It is clear from the first explicit mention of opponents14 in 2:19 that some kind of secession occurred in the church(es) to which the addressees belong. From the apocalyptic terms in which the author describes the secession and the secessionists, it is deduced that the secession must have been sizeable and dramatic. 2) The context of 2:19 explicitly states that the “antichrists” who left the community deny “that Jesus is the Christ” (2:22). This indicates that the key issue in the secession was Christological. 3) The next passage to mention opponents explicitly is 4:1–6. It uses some of the same apocalyptic rhetoric as 2:18–27. The mirror-reader therefore assumes that it also speaks of the secessionists whom it labels “false prophets.” Most importantly, this passage is thought to clarify the nature of the Christological dispute: the secessionists were denying some aspect of Christ’s flesh. Usually this is thought to indicate some type of docetism or devaluation of Jesus’ life or death. 4) Second John 7, also explicitly polemical, is used to corroborate the interpretation of the aberrant Christology as centering on the flesh of Christ. 5) Second John 9 is taken to describe the secessionists as “progressives” who have pressed beyond the Johannine tradition, perhaps claiming the inspiration of the Spirit for their teaching. 12

13 14

Other examples of maximalist mirror-reading may be found in Weiss, “Gnosis”; Bultmann, Epistles; Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John; Painter, “Opponents”; Bogart, Orthodox; Boer, “Death”; Kruse, Letters; Wengst, Brief; Culpepper, Gospel. More methodologically circumspect is Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, although he too reads a majority of the texts as polemical. Cf. also H. Schmid, “How to Read the First Epistle of John Non-Polemically,” Bib 85 (2004), 24–25, who lists four key elements involved in a polemical interpretation. By “explicit,” I mean that the presence of opponents is specifically stated and that the opponents are said to have been a historical reality with which the audience would have had actual contact. Passages which are explicit (like 2:19) must be distinguished from passages that could imply opponents (such as 2:4, “If anyone says…”) but do not indicate that such individuals are, or were, actually present in the community. For examples of explicit references to opponents in the Pauline corpus, see Rom 3:8; 2 Cor 10:10.

The Maximalist Mirror-Reading Approach

117

6) The mirror-reader now moves to passages which do not explicitly mention the opponents but are thought to quote or summarize their teachings. A primary example is 1 John 5:6, which is taken to clarify further the Christological crux of the dispute mentioned in 2:22 and 4:2: the opponents claim that Christ came “in water only” and deny that he came “in blood.” This claim is taken to be a denial of Jesus’ physicality (docetism), a claim that the Christ separated from Jesus before his crucifixion (Cerinthianism), or an assertion that Jesus’ death was not an integral part of his salvific mission, i.e., his “coming.” 7) Other passages which also seem to quote the opponents are incorporated into the reconstruction. These are primarily found in 1 John 1–2 in the form of claims or slogans marked by the introductory formula, ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι (1:6, 8, 10) or ὁ λέγων ὅτι (2:4, 6, 9).15 From these it is deduced that the schism in the community involved a dispute over ethics as well as Christology. The opponents claimed to be in the light, to know God and to have fellowship with him, but according to the author their behavior belied their claims, for the opponents did not keep the commandments, did not behave like Jesus, and did not love the brethren. Even more, they refused to admit that they had sinned. 8) Next, it is supposed that there must have been some sort of connection between the ethical and Christological issues. 16 The Christology of the opponents must have funded their perfectionism and indifferentism, perhaps by leading them to disavow the exemplary character of Christ’s behavior. Maybe they taught that Christ’s primary role was to give the Spirit, and therefore emphasized their own reception of the Spirit so much that they considered their subsequent behavior irrelevant to their soteriological status. 9) Having established the presence of both Christological and ethical controversies in the Johannine community, the mirror-reader may now proceed to mine the text for other indications of the secessionists’ teaching, paying special attention to specific concepts and topics that the author emphasizes. These may indicate that the author is responding in such passages to the opponents. This is especially the case if the views being contravened by such emphases would fit neatly with the already reconstructed picture of the opponents. For example, perhaps the opponents’ lack of charity had something to do with their 15 16

Bogart, Orthodox, 23, calls these passages the six “Grundsätze” for reconstructing the opponents’ views; cf. Bultmann, Epistles, 38–39. See the discussion in G. C. Kenney, The Relation of Christology to Ethics in the First Epistle of John (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2001).

118

The Methodology of Mirror-Reading

wealth (3:17) or their close ties with the wider society (2:15–17). Perhaps their charismatic excess focused on prophecy (4:1) and glossolalia (3:18), leading them to neglect concrete acts of charity. Maybe they were elitist, as well, claiming a special anointing (2:27). It could even be that their libertine attitude went so far as to allow them to worship idols (5:21), or at least participate in practices our author considered idolatrous (eating idol-food, or participating in idol-feasts). In sum, such an approach is driven by the conviction that 1 John is occasioned by, and thus determined by, a traumatic rending of the community over doctrine and praxis. R. Law is representative: “There is no New Testament writing which is more vigorously polemical in its whole tone and aim.”17 He is echoed by numerous others. J. Painter asserts that the conflict with the opponents is “the central subject matter addressed.…The presence of the opponents pervades the whole book.”18 He later writes that given the magnitude of the conflict, “It would be surprising if the whole Epistle did not revolve around the issues the schism raised.”19

II. An Alternative Approach There are numerous problems with the reasoning involved in such a maximalist mirror-reading. Because the coming chapters will deal with the specific exegetical issues involved in the four foundational passages (2:18–27; 4:1–6; 5:6–12; 2 John 7–9), here I will primarily address the methodological flaws, unjustified assumptions, and unwarranted inferences involved in the usual attempts to mirror-read 1 John. The following points militate against a maximalist reading:

A. The Limited Role of the Secession in the Letter There is no credible basis in 1 John for supposing that the letter is primarily occasioned by the secession and primarily polemical in its 17 18 19

Law, Tests, 25. Painter, “Opponents,” 49–50. Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 17. Cf. Brooke, Johannine Epistles, xxvii: “the writer never loses sight altogether of the views of his opponents in any part of the Epistles.” Fernando F. Segovia, “Recent Research in the Johannine Letters,” RelStRev 13 (1987), 135, speaks of “the deeply polemical character” of 1 John. Bonnard, Épitres, 14, characterizes the Johannine Epistles as “foncièrement polémiques, de bout en bout.”

An Alternative Approach

119

intent. The first passage to mention the opponents explicitly does not occur until more than one-third of the way through the letter (2:18).20 Furthermore, very little can be said about the secession or the opponents on the basis of this passage. Much of the description of the opponents is couched in apocalyptic rhetoric that is less descriptive than it is evocative.21 Such rhetoric was common in religious disputes of the first century.22 It therefore provides no basis for evaluating the magnitude of the secession, or the number of secessionists.

B. The Generalized Nature of the Warnings We must also guess at the nature of the secession itself. Who was the “us” from which the “antichrist” secessionists went out (2:19)?23 Does it refer to the author’s group of “eyewitnesses” in 1 John 1:1–3, or to the Johannine community? Why could it not refer much more broadly to the early Christian movement as a whole? How do we know that the “antichrists” were a unified group?24 How do we know that they all left at one time, or even for the same reason? It is quite plausible to read this passage as describing the general rate of attrition undoubtedly experienced by early Christian communities as converts dropped away

20

21

22 23

24

Neufeld, Reconceiving, 30; Lieu, “Authority,” 211; Thyen, “Johannesbriefe,” 190. C. Clifton Black, “Short Shrift Made Once Again,” ThTo 57 (2000), 390, notes that “the topic of intramural strife occupies hardly more than fifteen out of 1 John’s 105 verses—less than a seventh of the book.” He goes on to comment, “When I read 1 John, I find myself wondering whether that letter is as pervasively polemical as [Raymond] Brown seems to suggest.” Cf. Brevard S. Childs, The New Testament As Canon: An Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 482. See the discussion below, p. 147. Cf. Edwards, Epistles, 59; S. Witetschek, “Pappkameraden? Die Auseinandersetzung mit den ‘Gegnern’ im 1. Johannesbrief und die Darstellung des Judas im Johannesevangelium,” in The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition (ed. J. Schlosser; BETL 176; Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 530; P. Perkins, The Johannine Epistles (NTM 21; Wilmington, Del: Glazier, 1979), 4–5. One may find the same kind of rhetoric in 1 Tim 4:1–4; 2 Tim 3:1–9; 2 Pet 2:1–3; 3:3; Jude 18. For an insightful discussion of the ambiguity surrounding the use of “us” and “you” in 1 John, see J. Lieu, “Us or You? Persuasion and Identity in 1 John,” JBL 127 (2008): 805–819. Cf. Klaus Berger, “Die implizierten Gegner: Zur Methode des Erschliessens von ‘Gegnern’ in neutestamentlichen Texten,” in Kirche (ed. D. Lührmann and G. Strecker; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980), 378, 382, for appropriate cautions. An example of overreaching in this area is Watson, “Amplification,” 118, who theorizes that the secessionists left the author’s audience in order to form their own community.

120

The Methodology of Mirror-Reading

for one reason or another.25 In 2:22, the author portrays the secessionists as denying “that Jesus is the Messiah.” It is most natural to take this as indicating that the “antichrists” were Jewish converts who subsequently retracted their initial confession of Jesus as Messiah, but we should also consider the possibility that the “antichrists” could have included those who left for various other reasons but whom the author describes from his own perspective simply as denying the basic Christian confession. It is also not clear that those who want to “deceive” the audience (2:26) are to be identified with the secessionists (2:19). It is just as likely that the “deceivers” are persons outside the community whose teaching was responsible for the apostasy that occurred.26 The fact that the author does not name names may also support my contention that the warnings are more general than specific; one may contrast the situation with that of 3 John, which names Diotrephes as an opponent.27

C. Pastoral Discourse in 1 John 2:18–27 In any case, 2:18–27 makes it clear that the author himself considers his purpose in writing to be pastoral rather than polemical. He views his audience as those who have survived the eschatological purge and weathered the apocalyptic storm; their true nature has been made evident—they are truly “of us” (2:19). They have the anointing and they know the truth (2:20–21, 27).28 Similar statements appear in 1 John 4:4–6 and 5:13.29 The audience “believes in the name of the Son of God,” is “from God,” and has “overcome.”30 Thus, the author writes not to 25 26

27

28 29 30

Cf. Witherington, Letters, 523; Plummer, Epistles, 95; Neufeld, Reconceiving, 101. There is good reason to identify the deceivers with the πολλοὶ ψευδοπροφῆται of 1 John 4:2 (who have τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς πλάνης, 4:6) and the πολλοὶ πλάνοι of 2 John 7. See below, pp. 169, 251, 340. In light of the host of questions that require educated guesses, J. Lieu’s observation is especially appropriate: “It is perhaps ironical that 1 John, which in many ways is one of the most imprecise of the New Testament letters regarding authorship, readers and location, should have been so widely afforded one of the most precise settings” (in J. Lieu, “Die Johannesbriefe by Georg Strecker,” Bib 74 [1993], 133). Cf. B. Childs, New Testament, 483, who writes concerning Raymond Brown’s theory that “what purports to be an historical investigation is actually an exercise in creative imagination with very few historical controls.” Cf. 1 John 2:12–14 for similar statements that appear in a passage which is usually neglected in discussions of the Epistle’s purpose and occasion. See Brown, Epistles, 366. See Schmid, “Non-Polemically,” 36.

An Alternative Approach

121

correct his audience or to combat the secessionists or false teachers, but rather to encourage his audience to maintain their faithfulness to the message.31 The secession, from the author’s perspective, is over. Any debate that occurred with the secessionists appears to have been concluded.32 While addressing the apostasy is a concern of the author, it is not the driving concern. There is no evidence that it was still looming large in the author’s mind as a grave threat. We should therefore not expect this letter to consist wholly of polemical, point-by-point refutations of the opponents, such as those “discovered” by the maximalist reading. The material usually considered polemical is quite limited and actually serves a primarily pastoral function by assuring the audience that the apostasy was expected and predicted, and that the crisis in fact has served to confirm the audience’s status.33 In addition, the description of the secessionists functions pastorally by portraying their apostasy as part of an eschatological rebellion not to be

31

32

33

Trebilco, Early Christians, 283; cf. E. R. Wendland, “‘Dear Children’ Versus the ‘Antichrists’: The Rhetoric of Reassurance in First John,” JOTT 11 (1998): 40–84; Kruse, Letters, 33; Thyen, “Johannesbriefe,” 189–90; Schmid, “Non-Polemically,” 36; Lieu, “Authority,” 216; Childs, New Testament, 482–85; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, xxv; Johnson, Introduction, 566; Griffith, Keep, 108. Watson, “Amplification,” 123, identifies the genre of 1 John as epideictic rhetoric, in which the author or speaker assumes his audience’s basic agreement and attempts to strengthen it. He summarizes the purpose of 1 John: “to increase his audience’s adherence to the traditional truths of the Johannine Community in the face of secessionist challenges.” Witherington, Letters, 409–12, builds on Watson’s analysis and likewise stresses the epideictic character of the letter, asserting that it is meant “to shore up the boundaries of the community.” For a similar conclusion arrived at from linguistic analysis, see L. Scott Kellum, “On the Semantic Structure of 1 John: A Modest Proposal,” Faith and Mission 23 (2005): 34–82. It is admitted, of course, that the author does speak of false teaching as a yet present (perhaps ever-present) threat to the audience (cf. 2:26; 4:1–2), but to describe the community as being “in turmoil” (J. Painter, John: Witness and Theologian [London: SPCK, 1975], 116) or in a “theological life-and-death struggle” (Brown, Epistles, x) is to go beyond what the text will support. As Thyen, “Johannesbriefe,” 189, comments, “Auch wenn der ‘Weggang’ jener abtrünnigen Christusleugner aus der Gemeinde schmerzlich als Treuebruch empfunden wurde, so ist er doch nicht das Thema des Briefes.” Lieu, Theology, 15, writes, “However serious the schism, the polemic against specific views does not control the letter or its thought.” While it seems self-evident to say that the letter is not addressed to the opponents, but to the believing audience, it bears repeating in light of the fact that so many commentators seem to operate on the assumption that the opponents would actually be reading the letter. See Lücke, Commentary, 59–61. He argues that the polemical intent of the letter is “subordinate” and “indirect” (61).

122

The Methodology of Mirror-Reading

emulated. The opponents are a foil used to bring out the characteristics of a true child of God.34

D. The Preventative Nature of the Warnings in 1 John 4:1–6 The same kind of faulty assumptions plague readings of 1 John 4:1–6. It is prima facie methodologically illegitimate to read this passage back into 2:18–27, and to deduce that the description of the false teaching there as a refusal to accept Jesus as the Christ is now completely revised to reveal its true docetic nature.35 If the crux of the Christological dispute was the “flesh” of Christ, it is unthinkable that the author would wait until the last third of the letter even to make the barest mention of it. Furthermore, as I will demonstrate below in Chapter 4, while it is almost universally assumed that the “false prophets” of 4:1 are the same persons as the secessionists of 2:19, a close reading of the text renders this questionable. As I suggested above, it appears more likely that the “false prophets” are outside teachers who are attempting to gain followers from the community, and are thus distinct from the apostates of 2:19. The polemical statements in 4:1–6 are therefore less of an attack on those who have split the church in the past than a prophylactic warning commonly found in early Christian paraenesis (cf. Did. 11; 1 Thess 5:19–22; 1 Cor 12:10; 14:29). The passage ought not to be overinterpreted as an indication of a charismatic or docetic crisis. 34

35

Cf. Neufeld, Reconceiving, 100; H. Schmid, “Tradition als Strategie: zur Pragmatik des Traditionsarguments im 1. Johannesbrief,” in The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition (ed. J. Schlosser; BETL 176; Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 512. A common Reformed reading of 1 John interprets the letter primarily as providing “tests of life” whereby the individual reader may determine whether or not she is regenerate or born of God. See Law, Tests; Robert L. Reymond, John, Beloved Disciple: A Survey of His Theology (Fearn: Mentor, 2001), 107–109, for examples. This introspective reading suffers from significant anachronism and ignores the author’s clear statements of confidence in the audience’s faithfulness. The tests that are actually offered have more of a communal function in that they provide the community with criteria by which to determine whether or not to receive a visiting teacher or prophet (see 1 John 4:1–6; 2 John 10–11). Those who read 4:1–6 back into 2:18–27 include Strecker, Letters, 62; Bonnard, Épitres, 85; Houlden, Epistles, 83. Lieu, Second, 82, critically comments: “there are no grounds for supposing that these simpler forms [of Christological confession] are subordinate to the longer and more ambiguous confession and so must be interpreted in its light.” Cf. Okure, Approach, 244, who points out that the logic of reading 4:2 (and 5:6) back into 2:22 is viciously circular. Griffith, Keep, 168, notes that such an approach also tends to interpret the rather clear statement of 2:22 by the relatively obscure statements in 4:2 and 5:6.

An Alternative Approach

123

E. The Reassuring Rhetoric of 1 John 5:6 First John 5:6–12 has suffered the same fate as 4:1–6; it has been the recipient of innumerable overly creative mirror-readings. Like 4:1–6, it has been seen as further clarifying and revising the previous descriptions of the false teaching, usually by specifying that the opponents claimed some special role for Jesus’ baptism (the water) over against his death (the blood). Once again, it seems highly problematic a) to suppose that only in the concluding section of the letter does the author actually specify the chief shortcoming of the opponents’ teaching. and b) to go on to reinterpret the previous statements of 2:22 and 4:2–3 in the “light” of 5:6. More importantly, there is in fact no compelling reason to take 5:6 as anti-opponent polemic. The passage does not explicitly mention opponents or make it clear that it is addressing their doctrine. It is only since the early nineteenth century that the statement of 5:6, “not in water only, but in water and blood,” has been read as a rebuttal of the opponents. As I will show below in Chapter 5, there are good reasons to think that the construction is merely emphatic and does not point to opponents who taught that Jesus came “in water only.”

F. The Pastoral Intent of the Ethical Instruction Even more questionable than the reconstruction of the supposed Christological crisis is the mirror-reading applied to 1 John’s ethical instruction. The key passages appear in the first two chapters (1: 6, 8, 10; 2:4, 6, 9) and have often been portrayed as virtual quotations of the opponents that reveal their aberrant ethical teachings. There are several reasons, however, for rejecting a polemical interpretation of these passages.36 36

Those who do not believe the ethical statements of 1 John warrant mirror-reading include Strecker, Letters, 61, 70; Perkins, Epistles, xxi; Vouga, Johannesbriefe, 28; Thyen, “Johannesbriefe,”189, 194; Lieu, “Authority,” 221–24; Erlemann, “Trennungsprozess,” 286; Edwards, Epistles, 57–59; Johann Michl, Die katholischen Briefe (RNT 8; Regensburg: Pustet, 1968), 208–9, 252–53; Witherington, Letters, 428– 29; Neufeld, Reconceiving, 88, 94; Berger, “Gegner,” 381. For the opposite position, see Kruse, Letters, 16–17; Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 88–98, 116–29; Culpepper, Gospel, 49; Felix Porsch, “‘... daß sie alle nicht zu uns gehörten’ (1 Joh 2,19). Der Umgang mit Dissidenten im 1 Joh,” BK 53 (1998): 190–94. Bultmann, Epistles, 38, says it is “all but certain” that the ethical antitheses and slogans are aimed at the heretics, whom he identifies as charismatic libertines. Similarly, Brooke, Johannine Epistles, 13,

124

The Methodology of Mirror-Reading

First, the passages themselves do not explicitly mention any opponents. It is only when one presumes that 1 John is primarily polemical that it seems natural to take these as refutations of the opponents.37 The form of the statements, on the contrary, suggests that their purpose is less to rebut unmentioned opponents and more to caution the audience against inconsistency between claims and behavior.38 This is why the author repeatedly employs hypothetical and communal language (“we”) in his warnings, implying that he has his audience, not the (as yet unmentioned) opponents in mind. Ruth Edwards concurs: “Those who see this as a polemic fail to take the ‘we’ serious. Rather than attacking a specific group of opponents who claim to be sinless, the author is warning his own community that they must not make this claim.”39 The “we” is a rhetorical pluralis sociativus that increases the ethos of the exhortations by demonstrating the author’s “willingness to live by the ethical consequences implied in the sloganlike statements.”40 Second, a simplistic mirror-reading of the claims results in absurdity. Surely we are not to think that the opponents were advocating hypocrisy, lovelessness,41 unrighteousness, or even outright libertinism.42 As all commentators agree, we are certainly not to believe that the author faults his supposed opponents solely for claiming to be in the light, to know God, to have fellowship with him, or to abide in

37 38

39 40

41

42

writes, “He is not wasting his weapons on purely hypothetical situations.” Cf. Bogart, Orthodox, 25–26, 133, 371, who identifies the targets of the ethical material as “heretical-perfectionist-docetist-libertine-charismatic-prophetic-itinerant-teachers” (133). That is, the burden of proof falls on those who would read them as polemical refutations of the opponents’ teachings. Donelson, Hebrews to Revelation, 117, says that the statements “may be less an attempt to describe an actual group of heretics in the Johannine communities and more an attempt to map the logic of faith.” Cf. Okure, Approach, 253; Griffith, Keep, 121. Lieu, Theology, 90, calls the moral questions “self-interrogation.” Edwards, Epistles, 58. Ibid. On the pluralis sociativus, see BDF §280. Cf. Neufeld, Reconceiving, 94; T. Griffith, “A Non-Polemical Reading of 1 John,” TynBul 49 (1998), 256. Perkins, “Gnostic Revelation,” 248, contends that such passages are “simple paraenesis against intracommunal tensions.” As T. Okure, Approach, 253, notes, the love commandment is so central to Johannine thought that the emphasis upon it in the Epistles ought not to be construed as a response to supposed opponents. Cf. Berger, “Gegner,” 381, who notes how unlikely it is that there were groups in the first century who considered themselves Christians and claimed a righteousness for themselves independent of their concrete acts or conduct.

An Alternative Approach

125

him.43 These are all claims that any good Johannine Christian would make.44 If he is addressing the opponents in these passages, then, he is not addressing their teaching but their behavior, and it would be misguided to reconstruct a secessionist ethical system on the basis of these texts. Third, as B. Witherington argues, the types of phrases used in the ethical statements are “common in Greek literature in rhetorical contexts and are simply ways of advancing one’s argument with an audience that already shares the speaker’s worldview. The phrases themselves are neither polemical nor need to be used to advance polemics.”45 One may find numerous examples of ancient philosophers and rhetoricians who employ the formulas ὁ λέγων, ἐὰν εἴπωμεν, and ἐὰν τις εἶπεν not for polemical purposes but to anticipate and answer possible objections and to draw out the logical and behavioral consequences of beliefs.46 Fourth, as P. Trebilco notes, when the “antichrists” are actually explicitly mentioned in 1 John 2:18, they “seem to be introduced as a new factor. It would be strange then if the secessionists were actually in view in 1:6, 8, 10; 2:4, 6, 9.”47 This is a strong indication that the author does not accuse the secessonists of any ethical aberration other than failure to confess Jesus as the Messiah. 48 43 44

45 46

47 48

Some commentators, however, have detected gnostic undertones to some of the claims. See, e.g., Stott, Letters, 79, 95, 99. Neufeld, Reconceiving, 92; Whitacre, Polemic, 134; Lieu, “Authority,” 223. Only 1 John 1:8, 10 express intrinsically wrong claims, but these verses do not say what many reconstructions actually need them to say. First, they do not state that anyone was actually making such a claim; rather, they seem preventative. Second, they also do not state that anyone was teaching perfectionism to others. Given the fact that perfectionist claims have been a recurring feature in the history of Christian doctrine, it is hardly necessary to suppose that there was a unified front of perfectionist theologians at work in the Johannine community, as opposed to a smattering of believers who were reluctant to confess their sins. Witherington, Letters, 428–29; Berger, “Gegner,” 382. Griffith, Keep, 122, helpfully provides several ancient examples. See also Stanley Kent Stowers, The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans (SBLDS 57; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981), 175–76, who addresses the rhetorical use of imaginary interlocutors in order to bring precision to the teaching or to clarify implications. Watson, “Amplification,” 114, discusses how contraries or antitheses were often used as a form of amplificatio. Trebilco, Early Christians, 282. It is possible, even likely perhaps, that the author considers his Jewish brothers who have left the community and denied the messiahship of Jesus to have thereby shown their unrighteousness and their hatred for the brothers, and to have committed the “sin unto death.” It is also conceivable that the author would characterize such apostasy as involving a claim to sinlessness. By abandoning their confession of

126

The Methodology of Mirror-Reading

Fifth, there is no convincing connection between the explicitlystated Christological views of the opponents and the typical reconstruction of their supposed ethical teachings. Many links have been suggested, but they are all quite tenuous and dubious. It is notable that our author himself never states any connection. He is quite explicit about the Christological error of the secessionists but never clearly links the antichrists to the apparent perfectionism or libertinism supposedly addressed in the ethical portions of the letter.49 In sum, the ethical statements in 1 John 1–2 should be interpreted as pastoral exhortations with many of the standard features of early Christian paraenesis. They are “prevention not correction.”50 Like Paul’s numerous warnings not to be “deceived” into taking unrighteousness lightly (1 Cor 6:9; Gal 6:3, 7; cf. Eph 5:6) and like James’s exhortations to bring one’s behavior in line with one’s profession (1:16, 26; 2:4, 18), the ethical injunctions in 1 John are aimed at those inside the community and do not require us to think that there was some organized opposition teaching the converse.

G. The Illegitimacy of the Schlagwörter Approach If there is little to support the mirror-reading of the ethical exhortations in 1 John, there is even less to commend the flights of fancy indulged in by many interpreters as they “discover” opponents behind other statements—sometimes even single words—in the letter. Does the author say that believers are God’s children (3:1)? Perhaps the opponents denied that. Does the author declare that the Son of God appeared to destroy the devil’s works (3:8)? Perhaps the opponents held to a Manichean dualism! Does the author speak of the fellowship

49 50

Jesus’ messiahship, the apostates would effectively be saying that they were not in need of Jesus’ atoning death. The Jews of the Fourth Gospel say something similar in John 8:33–34, where they claim to be, as Abraham’s sons, in no need of the liberation Jesus offers. If, in fact, the ethical sections of the letter do have the apostates partly in mind, this would not affect my view that the opponents are apostate Jews, nor would it necessarily lend support to elaborate reconstructions of the opponents’ ethical theory. See Lieu, Theology, 15. Griffith, Keep, 121. Cf. Morna D. Hooker, “Were there False Teachers in Colossae?” in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament (ed. B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 317, who observes, “Exhortation to avoid a certain course of action certainly does not necessarily indicate that those addressed have already fallen prey to the temptation, as every preacher and congregation must be aware.”

An Alternative Approach

127

he and his readers have with God and his Son (1 John 1:3)? The opponents must have used the term “fellowship” to denote their higher relationship with God! Does the author speak of God’s “seed” as a guarantee of sinlessness (3:9)? He must be subverting the opponents’ own use of this term!51 Does the author tell his audience that they have an “anointing” (2:20)? Surely then, this is the opponents’ own term the author is using against them! All of these guesses are possible, perhaps even plausible, but are they likely? How could they possibly be verified?52 And given their thoroughly hypothetical nature, should they play such a large role in historical reconstruction? As L. T. Johnson observes, “Not every plus implies a minus.”53 Positive affirmations in themselves supply no grounds for believing that the opponents taught the opposite. Even if 51

52

53

Berger, “Gegner,” 374, provides numerous examples that demonstrate the impossibility of determining which terms were the Schlagwörter of the opponents. John M. G. Barclay, “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case,” JSNT 31 (1987), 82, speaks of the danger of “latching onto particular words and phrases as direct echoes of the opponents’ vocabulary and then hanging a whole thesis on those flimsy pegs.” This approach fails because it requires a) that the author knew the exact vocabulary used by the opponents, b) that the author was willing to reuse that vocabulary ironically, or attempted to redefine it, c) that we are able to discern when the author uses the opponents’ terms as opposed to his own, d) that we can then reconstruct what the opponents themselves meant by those terms. Barclay concludes that such exercises are “of very limited value” (ibid., 82). See Samuel Sandmel, “Parallelomania,” JBL 81 (1962): 1–13, for appropriate cautions in this area. M. Hooker, in her essay on mirror-reading Colossians, points out the circularity of many mirror-readings: the exegete uses the hints in the letter to build a picture of the opponents and events associated with them, and then reads that picture back into other statements in the letter, so that the entire text is thought to refer to the opponents (Hooker, “Colossae,” 316–18). Boer, “Death,” 331, attempts to justify such an approach by arguing that because the Johannine Epistles address an intra-Johannine dispute, the “readers of 1 John thus frequently need only a brief, allusive phrase to know what the author is referring to in connection with the crisis.” He later refers to the “symbolic, in-group nature of Johannine language.” Boer, however, assumes what he needs to prove, namely a) that the letters address an isolated sectarian community, b) that the crisis is an issue that pervades the letters, and c) that the secession was ultra-Johannine in nature. The letters themselves cannot support these assumptions and in fact militate against them, as they appear to have in view a much wider audience, probably at least a network of churches. For other treatments of “in-group” language in the Johannine literature, see Meeks, “Man from Heaven,” 44–72; Martyn, “Glimpses,” 150–75. Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament (London: SCM, 1986), 503. For further discussion of methodology in determining what statements in a text refer to opponents, see Jerry L. Sumney, Identifying Paul’s Opponents: The Question of Method in 2 Corinthians, (JSNTSup 40; Sheffield: JSOT, 1990), 96–106; Berger, “Gegner,” 373–400; Barclay, “Mirror-Reading,” 73–93; G. Lyons, Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985), 96.

128

The Methodology of Mirror-Reading

such statements were accepted as polemical, they would offer virtually no help in reconstructing the view they were combating, since a positive statement may have any number of possible opposing counterparts.54

H. The Use and Misuse of Historical Parallels Finally, it should be noted that scholars have often exercised too little care in their use of historical parallels to elucidate the nature of 1 John’s opponents. It is highly questionable to define the opponents in terms of heresies known to us only from later texts such as the letters of Ignatius or the writings of the early heresiologists.55 The later texts are specific, unambiguous and explicit in their description and rejection of the heresies they address. Quite the opposite is true of 1 John.56 It is also illegitimate to gloss over the differences between 1 John and the patristic sources by claiming that the opponents in 1 John were on a “trajectory” towards the later heresy or were a prototype of the heresy to come. Such claims fallaciously define the antecedent in terms of the consequent; they also mistakenly assume that ideas naturally evolve in a mechanistic fashion from one form to another. 57 In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, it seems more reasonable to assume that the opposition dealt with in 1 John was not an innovation paralleled only in later texts, but was in fact the same opposition from the majority Jewish community widely experienced by early Christians and everywhere evident in the historical record.58

54 55

56 57 58

Berger, “Gegner,” 376. See Lieu, “Authority,” 212; Frederik Wisse, “The Use of Early Christian Literature as Evidence for Inner Diversity and Conflict,” in Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity (ed. Charles W. Hedrick and Robert Hodgson, Jr.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1986), 178–80, criticizes those who assume that the conflict between orthodoxy and heresy during the patristic period was also present in the first century. Lieu, Second, 81. See Sumney, Identifying, 87–92. See Berger, “Gegner,” 393. One of the major weaknesses with Brown’s reconstruction of ultra-Johannine opponents is that there is no historical record of any such group.

An Alternative Approach

129

I. A Call for Restraint and Realism What I am arguing for is an intentional and conscientious restraint in mirror-reading 1 John and comparable texts. The desire to reconstruct the historical situation and occasion of the letter in detail often leads scholars to assume that the text is driven by polemical concerns and that every statement of the letter must be a strategic and pointed refutation of the opponents or their teaching. This temptation must be resisted if a realistic portrait of the letter’s historical situation is to be constructed.59 59

I wish to stress that I continue to believe that historical reconstruction of the letter’s situation is both a legitimate goal and a necessary step on the way to proper interpretation. It is misguided to jettison the task of historical reconstruction altogether, as several recent studies have urged (e.g., H. Schmid, Gegner im 1. Johannesbrief? Zu Konstruktion und Selbstreferenz im johanneischen Sinnsystem (BWANT 159; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2002); Schmid, “Non-Polemically”; Neufeld, Reconceiving; Perkins, Epistles; Witetschek, “Pappkameraden”; to some extent, Lieu, Theology). They make the following points: 1. The description of the opponents is too theological, stereotyped, rhetorical, and imprecise to determine the nature of the opponents or their beliefs (Lieu, Second, 82; Witetschek, “Pappkameraden,” 530). 2. The author of the Letters may not have truly understood or even known his opponents, as evidenced by the way he merely restates his own community’s confessions rather than provide a clear statement and refutation of the opponents’ teaching (see Berger, “Gegner,” 385–92; Perkins, Epistles, 52; Neufeld, Reconceiving, 100; Wisse, “Use,” 185). 3. The opponent-material in the letter is not meant to refute or even address the issue of the recent secession but to provoke the reader to engage and respond to the author’s main points by providing a negative example (Neufeld, Reconceiving, 100; Schmid, Gegner, 139–41). Many of the critiques are quite theorydriven, relying upon text-pragmatics and speech-act theory in its various forms (Schmid for example, makes clear his dependence on J. Searles and W. Iser for his constructivist reading of 1 John), and are therefore ideologically opposed to reading the text as making historical claims. Schmid endeavors to read the text “as an entity in itself” (“Non-Polemically,” 26). He believes the passages which discuss the opponents are not caused by something outside the text (i.e., historical opponents, or a historical secession) but rather arise from the internal rhetorical strategy of the text: “Es gibt die Gegner in 1Joh, aber nicht außerhalb. Es gibt sie nämlich nur durch den Text als dessen Konstruktion und Selbstreferenz, d.h. die Gegner dienen in erster Linie der Selbstdarstellung der Gemeinde” (Gegner, 289, italics original). For further elaboration, see “Tradition,” 503–17, where he discusses the use of appeals to tradition in 1 John. He interprets these appeals as functioning in a non-polemical, pastoral way (ibid., 512). While such scholars offer very helpful criticisms of overly confident reconstructions, they have arguably thrown out the baby of historical reconstruction with the bathwater of extreme mirror-reading. Schmid, for example, writes: “There may have been opponents, but 1 John read self-referentially is not an adequate source to get to know something about them. The question is, therefore, not who the opponents were but with which purpose 1 John creates them” (“Non-Polemically,” 33). See also the discussion of Virginia Barfield, “I John: A Social-Scientific Interpretation,” Ph.D.

130

The Methodology of Mirror-Reading

The general approach I have proposed is that a passage is not to be treated as polemic aimed at a specific group of opponents unless there are explicit indications to that effect. When applied to the Johannine Epistles, a careful reading indicates that only three passages really fit the bill: 1 John 2:18–27; 4:1–6; 2 John 7–11. These speak of a group of “antichrists” composed of both itinerant “false prophets” and those they have convinced to leave the community. Their “sin” is to deny that Jesus is the Messiah, an action that identifies them as participants in the eschatological rebellion, i.e. the “deceit.” Refuting or rebutting these antichrists is not, however, the driving purpose of 1 John.60 It is instead to assure and encourage the community that the secession, as great a defeat as it may seem, must be understood as heralding the last hour of a struggle in which the believers are already victorious; now is no time to give up, but rather to continue in faithfulness.61 First John’s plentiful ethical material is not meant to combat libertine perfectionists, but to reiterate the need for brotherly love and righteousness during this crucial time. The opponents’ error, therefore, has to do with Christology only. The best historical parallel to the antichrists appears throughout the NT, and more importantly the Fourth Gospel: unbelieving Jews, and Jews who profess belief in Jesus but later fall away. Such opponents provide a temporally and ideologically closer parallel than second- and thirdcentury gnostics and docetists.

60

61

diss., Duke University, 2002, who comes to a similarly agnostic conclusion, arguing that the text provides no clear information about the opponents or the crisis other than the fact that there was a crisis and that opponents did in fact exist (one is reminded of Bultmann’s bare Dass). The few statements in the letter that characterize the opponents are too rhetorically charged to be of any use in identifying the opponents. I believe Barfield, Schmid and Neufeld have posed a false dichotomy between attending to the way 1 John characterizes its opponents (and the attendant text-pragmatic function of that characterization) and reconstructing the historical situation. There is no reason both cannot be pursued by the exegete, although we do well to keep in mind the tenuous nature of all such reconstructions. One may distinguish here between 1 John and 2 John. The former appears to be more generally pastoral in tone, while the latter has the more specific purpose of warning the community about the false prophets who may come their way. This purpose is explicitly stated in 5:13.

Conclusion

131

III. Conclusion In this chapter, I have considered the key methodological issues involved in reconstructing the situation of the Johannine Epistles. The dominant approach among commentators is to understand 1 John as thoroughly polemical and thus to interpret a majority of the key passages in the Epistle as responding to, or rebutting, the teachings of the opponents. In contrast to this maximalist approach, I proposed an alternative: 1 John is not primarily polemical but pastoral. Passages should be presumed innocent of polemical intent unless proven guilty. Ultimately, the identity of 1 John’s opponents cannot be settled in the realm of methodological abstraction. The best hypothesis is the one that can provide the most coherent and compelling reading of all the exegetical and historical evidence. It is, therefore, to an exegesis of the key passages that I now turn.

Chapter 3

1 John 2:18–27: Jesus is the Messiah First John 2:18–27 is the first passage that explicitly mentions the opponents. It is therefore foundational for any reconstruction of the historical situation of the Epistles, especially of the opponents and their beliefs. It is also the only passage in the Johannine Epistles that speaks of Johannine Christians—now labeled “antichrists”—seceding or departing from the community (2:19).1 The secession appears to have revolved around the question addressed in 2:22a, which declares that the “liars” and “antichrists” deny that “Jesus is the Christ.” In 2:22b, they are said to deny the Father and the Son, a charge explained in 2:23, where confession of the Son is the sine qua non of “having” the Father. In my view, 1 John 2:19, 22–23 describe the departure of certain Johannine Christians who had once confessed Jesus as the Messiah but subsequently reneged upon their confession and departed the community. This, however, has been a minority view among Johannine specialists, largely due to the way that later passages (1 John 4:2–3; 5:6; 2 John 7–9) have been taken to indicate that the secession involved a Christological heresy concerning Jesus’ humanity or physicality. In this chapter, I will survey four major interpretations of the polemical material in 1 John 2:18–27, with special focus on how each view identifies the opponents and explains their beliefs.2 In the process of 1

2

Both 1 John 4:1 and 2 John 7 are often also thought to speak of a secession, but they are not as clear as they are assumed to be. See discussion below in chs. 4, 6. Second John 9 warns against not remaining in the teaching about the Messiah, but does not indicate that anyone has actually done so at the time, or that anyone has departed the community. I have not devoted a separate section below to those who call the opponents “gnostics.” As I discussed in Chapter 1, it was common for older Johannine scholarship to describe the Johannine literature against the background of Gnosticism or proto-Gnosticism. Because many of the old commonplaces about Gnosticism have fallen on hard times, there is less enthusiasm today for the view

Major Interpretations of this Passage

133

doing so, I will note difficulties that render each view unconvincing. Then, I will argue for my interpretation by way of an in-depth exegesis of the section, noting along the way several points that support my reading of the text.

I. Major Interpretations of this Passage A. Anti-Cerinthian The dominant explanation of 1 John 2:22 holds that the opponents advocated a Christological heresy that separated the human being Jesus from the divine Christ.3 This separation Christology is usually associated with the name of Cerinthus, with whom it is thought to have originated.4 Cerinthus taught that Χριστός was not a messianic title referring to OT prophecy, but the name of a divine, and therefore impassible, spirit-being who descended upon the human Jesus at his baptism, but departed before his crucifixion to return to heaven. On this interpretation, 1 John 2:22 is anti-Cerinthian in that it opposes those who denied the identification of the human Jesus with the divine Christ. As J. L. Houlden explains, the opponents “can accept the title Messiah for their redeemer but will not identify him wholly with the fleshly, human Jesus.” 5 Most advocates of this interpretation believe that the opponents’ denial in 2:22 is later elaborated upon in 4:2, which addresses a denial of Christ’s flesh, and in 5:6, which rebuts the

3

4 5

that the Johannine tradition was engrossed in combat with gnostic teachings. In the case of 1 John 2:22–23 and its description of opponents who deny that “Jesus is the Christ,” many of those who still employ the terms “gnostic” or “proto-gnostic” to describe the opponents are referring to the opponents’ alleged separationChristology, while others use the terms to speak of the docetic Christology they believe the opponents espouse. Each of these views (Cerinthian and docetic) will be dealt with separately below. Those who believe 1 John 2:22 is aimed at a separation-Christology include Johannes Heinrich August Ebrard, Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John (trans. W. P. Pope; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1860), 189–92; Zahn, Introduction, 3:365–66; Law, Tests, 93; Westcott, Epistles, 75; Plummer, Epistles, 62; Dodd, Epistles, 55; Bultmann, Epistles, 38; Bonnard, Épitres, 59; Bogart, Orthodox, 127–28; Koester, Introduction, 2:194; Painter, “Opponents,” 64; Kinlaw, Christ, 101; Rensberger, 1 John, 23; Stott, Letters, 111; Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, 121; Marshall, Epistles, 157–58; tentatively, Strecker, Letters, 70– 71, 74. Irenaeus, Haer. 3.16.5, is the earliest to read 1 John 2:22 as a refutation of Cerinthus. See above, ch. 1. Houlden, Epistles, 83.

134

1 John 2:18–27: Jesus is the Messiah

opponents’ claim that the Christ came “through water” (i.e., at Jesus’ baptism) but not “through blood” (i.e., Jesus’ crucifixion). The confession of 1 John 2:22— ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἔστιν ὁ Χριστός—is identical to the one summarizing the message of the Fourth Gospel (John 20:31). The anti-Cerinthian view, however, argues that in light of the later passages (1 John 4:2; 5:6), the formula’s emphasis appears to have shifted since the composition of the Gospel.6 While the Fourth Gospel labors to show that Jesus is the Christ (in a messianic sense), 1 John strives to affirm that Jesus is the Christ, i.e., that separating the divine and human elements is not legitimate. 7

B. Weaknesses of the Anti-Cerinthian View There are several problems with this view which make it highly unlikely that 1 John 2:22–23 is rebutting a form of separationChristology.8 First, it is not exactly clear how 1 John 2:22 is meant to combat a Cerinthian view. In Johannine theology, as represented by the Fourth Gospel, Χριστός is used exclusively as a messianic title, to refer to the one who fulfills the Scriptures’ prophecies. Thus the Johannine author’s main problem with Cerinthus would be his teaching that the term Χριστός refers to a divine Spirit-being. The author of 1 John, were he intending to refute Cerinthianism, would likely begin by clarifying the proper use and meaning of Χριστός. Without such a clarification, to insist that “Jesus is the Christ” would be to accept the Cerinthian definition of Χριστός, which is actually the crux of the debate.9 6 7

8 9

See, e.g., Westcott, Epistles, 137. Kinlaw, Christ, 101, offers a slightly different take on the passage but comes to a similar conclusion. In her view, 1 John 2:22 stresses that the Christ-spirit has permanently possessed Jesus, in oppositon to the Cerinthian teaching that the possession was temporary. She believes that the author does not dispute the Cerinthian understanding of the Christ as a divine spirit-being, or the Cerinthian teaching that the Christ possessed the human Jesus at baptism. He simply believes that the possession was permanent, while the Cerinthians believed it was temporary. For further discussion of Kinlaw’s theory, see below, ch. 4. As a preliminary criticism it may be noted that the terminology of possession is completely absent from 1 John 2:22–23. If the formula in 1 John 2:22 is expressing the permanent possession of Jesus by the divine Christ, it is the only place in ancient literature where such a phenomenon is expressed in such terms. Given Kinlaw’s belief that 1 John elsewhere expresses possession with the phrase μένειν ἐν it is quite strange that such phraseology is not used in 2:22–23. For similar criticisms, see Wurm, Irrlehrer, 7; Griffith, Keep, 169. Cf. Clemen, “Beiträge,” 272.

Major Interpretations of this Passage

135

On the other hand, one could argue that the author would in fact have agreed with Cerinthus in conceiving of the Christ as a divine spirit-being (perhaps equivalent to the λόγος of the Fourth Gospel).10 Perhaps he believed (contra Cerinthus) that the Χριστός /λόγος took up residence in Jesus at birth (John 1:14?), not baptism, and remained through death rather than departing. If this is the case, though, it is hard to imagine that the author would phrase the confession the way he did (“Jesus is the Christ”), since he would in fact have been advocating some form of separation or distinction between the two. One would expect him to say that the Christ came in the person of Jesus and that the two remain united in Jesus’ resurrected humanity. But this is exactly the kind of clear anti-Cerinthian statement that 1 John 2:22 lacks. Second, it is difficult to conceive of a more basic and important formula in Johannine Christianity (or early Christianity as a whole, for that matter) than “Jesus is the Messiah.” The anti-Cerinthian view requires us to believe that this confession’s meaning changed drastically—in the space of a mere decade—from an affirmation that Jesus was the Messiah to a claim that the human Jesus was to be identified completely with the divine Christ. Evidence from well into the second century, however, indicates that the confession maintained its messianic flavor far longer than the anti-Cerinthian view supposes.11 If 1 John were using the confession with a new meaning intended to refute separation-Christology, some clear indication to that effect would be required.12 On the contrary, though, the evidence in 2:18–27, especially the numerous appeals to the antiquity of the community’s message and confession, shows that the confession retains its original messianic sense. Third, the anti-Cerinthian reading of 1 John 2:22 requires that one read later passages (4:2; 5:6) in the Epistles back into 2:22. Without these other passages no one would ever have supposed that 2:22 dealt with a Cerinthian Christology. But, one may question whether it makes sense to interpret 2:22, which is quite clear on its own, by appealing to the very obscure statements of 4:2 and 5:6. Indeed, I will argue below in 10

11 12

As some later Fathers seem to have believed. See, for example Cyril of Alexandria’s anti-Nestorian writings (in Norman Russell, Cyril of Alexandria: The Early Church Fathers [New York: Routledge, 2000], 31–58, 130–74). See below, p. 161. Schnelle, Antidocetic, 70, agrees: “the distinction between a pneumatic, impassible Christ and the man Jesus, who served the heavenly Christ as a temporary vessel, cannot really be derived from 1 Jn 2.22.”

136

1 John 2:18–27: Jesus is the Messiah

Chapter 5 that 1 John 5:6 is not addressing the teaching of the opponents at all, and should therefore have no bearing on the interpretation of 2:22. In any case, it is doubtful that 2:18–27, the first passage to introduce the opponents, would deal with them without ever stating what they actually taught.

C. Anti-Docetist Quite a few scholars believe the Johannine opponents were advocating a docetic Christology that denied the physicality and true humanity of Jesus.13 Such scholars rely mainly on 1 John 4:2, 5:6, and 2 John 7 to establish their view, since 1 John 2:18–27 gives no explicit indication that docetism was at issue. Some exegetes, however, believe that antidocetism is at least implicit in 1 John 2:22–23. For example, P. Lallemann believes that the opponents were Christians who held a monophysite view of Jesus’ nature. He explains: “It is difficult to imagine Christians who do not believe in Christ at all, so these words [in 2:22–23] probably mean that they identified Father and Son so closely that the author saw the separate existence of Christ endangered.”14 Older commentators often assumed that the confession of Jesus as the Christ was merely one way of stating the doctrine of the incarnation—the unity of human and divine natures in the person of Jesus Christ. To deny that Jesus was human, therefore, was to deny the incarnation and to undermine the basic confession of the early church.15 Others stressed that the concept of the Messiah included the idea of full humanity. As F. Lücke puts it, “docetism, by denying the true humanity of Christ, annihilated the complete real Messiahship of Jesus.”16 Most contemporary proponents of the anti-docetic view, however, do not believe that 1 John 2:22 openly addresses the issue actually being disputed in the Johannine controversy. Perhaps it is a rhetorical ploy—the author attacks the opponents by portraying them as virtually non-Christian. It is not until later, in 4:2 and 5:6, that the real problem with the opponents comes out, namely that they deny Jesus’

13 14 15 16

See above, p. 35ff. Lalleman, Acts, 252. Such a view appears in Plummer, Epistles, 19–21, 113. Lücke, Commentary, 80.

Major Interpretations of this Passage

137

physicality.17 In 2:22, the author is only interested in casting the opponents in the worst light possible by accusing them of effectively denying the community’s foundational tradition, its confession of Jesus as Messiah.18 The opponents would no doubt tell a different story.

D. Weaknesses of the Anti-Docetist View First John 2:22 is the Achilles’ heel of the anti-docetic view. It is the first explicitly polemical passage and the most clear and direct statement of the opponents’ views. Indeed, it is phrased in terms of a direct quotation (ὁ ἀρνούμενος ὅτι Ἰησοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστός). To argue that anti-docetism is only implied in 2:22 is to grasp at straws. The confession that Jesus is the Christ contains nothing intrinsically antidocetic. It is not surprising, then, that there is no record of any docetist (such as Cerdo, Marcion, or Saturninus) who denied that Jesus was the Christ, nor are they ever accused of doing so by their orthodox opponents.19 The more subtle argument—that the author in 2:22 is mischaracterizing his opponents as non-Christians by virtue of their docetism—is harder to refute. In one sense it does not need any refutation, since it admits that 2:22 read by itself provides no basis for believing that the opponents were docetists. Nevertheless, to respond more directly to this reading, we may ask whether it is valid to argue that the author misrepresents his opponents here. Certainly rhetorical overstatement, caricaturing and straw-man argumentation are common in polemical situations.20 But, how do we know that 2:22 misrepresents the opponents unless we have a clear and accurate description of the opponents elsewhere? Such a description, proponents claim, may be 17

18

19 20

See Uebele, Verführer, 136–37, who believes that 1 John 2:22; 4:15; 5:1, 5 are primitive confessional formulas previously used in the struggle with the Jews (as seen in the Fourth Gospel) over the messiahship of Jesus. The epistolary author has fallen back on these old confessions even though they do not fit the new situation with the docetists. For this view, see William R. G. Loader, The Johannine Epistles (Epworth Commentaries; London: Epworth, 1992), 30, 49; Kruse, Letters, 104–5; J. Kügler, “In Tat und Wahrheit: Zur Problemlage des ersten Johannesbriefes,” BN 48 (1989): 61– 88, calls the characterization a fictive device. Houlden, Epistles, 83, asserts that it is “inference not exact reporting.” Marcion did, of course, argue that Jesus was not the Messiah prophesied in the OT, but he nevertheless did not deny to Jesus the appellation “Christ” itself. Wisse, “Use,” 180, 185. On the use of rhetorical straw-men in 1 John, see Barfield, “1 John.”

138

1 John 2:18–27: Jesus is the Messiah

found in 1 John 4:2 and 5:6. Because of this, the full discussion of the anti-docetic view must be deferred until the next two chapters, which discuss each of these key passages.

E. Against Devaluation of Jesus A view that is gaining in popularity among Johannine scholars is that the opponents were neither true docetists in the sense that they denied Jesus’ physicality, nor were they Cerinthians who held to a temporary possession-Christology. Rather, they were Johannine Christians who, most likely on the basis of the Johannine tradition, devalued in one way or another the human life and ministry, and especially the death, of Jesus.21 Hall Harris, for example, argues that the opponents would not have disagreed with the predicates (“Christ” and “Son of God”) in 2:22, but with the subject (“Jesus”): “When the author of 1 John talks about Jesus, he is talking about Jesus come in the flesh (1 John 4:2–3, 2 John 7), that is, the importance of the earthly career of Jesus, including His sacrificial death (“the blood,” 1 John 5:5–6).”22 Harris thus takes the name “Jesus” in 2:22 to be shorthand for a theologically developed account of Jesus’ life and death and its significance. Similarly, R. Brown holds that the opponents so emphasized Christ’s pre-existence that they downplayed the significance of his earthly existence as Jesus of Nazareth.23 Therefore, when 1 John 2:22 accuses the opponents of denying that Jesus is the Christ, it is addressing the secessionists’ reluctance to confess that Jesus’ “humanity and the way he lived were essential for understanding his role as the Christ, the Son of God.”24 As Udo Schnelle explains, “for the opponents only the Father and the heavenly [pre-existent] Christ were relevant for salvation, but not the life and death of the historical Jesus of Nazareth.”25

21 22 23 24

25

See above, pp. 77–90, for discussion of this view. W. Hall Harris, III, 1, 2, 3 John: Comfort and Counsel for a Church in Crisis: An Exegetical Commentary on the Letters of John (Dallas: Biblical Studies Press, 2003), 28. Brown, Epistles, 368. Ibid., 352; cf. 54, 368. Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 200–206, also argues that the opponents questioned the significance of Jesus’ humanity for his identity as Messiah. The opponents accepted the “lofty claims of Johannine Christology” but were not comfortable applying such terms to the human being Jesus (200). Cf. Trebilco, Early Christians, 286. Schnelle, Antidocetic, 62.

Major Interpretations of this Passage

139

A slightly different take is offered by K. Grayston and U. Von Wahlde, who suggest that the issue stems from the opponents’ pneumatology. The opponents claim that because they have received the Holy Spirit (the “anointing”), they have no need for a mediator (the Son) in order to have access to the Father. 26 As those anointed by the Spirit, they are “Christs” and “sons” in the same sense as Jesus. The epistolary author, in response, accuses them of denying that Jesus is the Christ, that is the unique Christ, whose life and death were the key redemptive events.27

F. Weaknesses of the Anti-Devaluation View The explanations offered by such scholars fail to convince at several points. It simply does not make much sense why the author of 1 John would respond to the opponents as he did in 2:22–23 if the opponents were advocating the views these scholars suggest. Indeed, Brown acknowledges that on his reconstruction the secessionists would very likely have been willing and able to confess that Jesus is the Christ. 28 Why, then, does the author accuse them of denying that confession?29 Furthermore, if the secessionists downplayed the life of Jesus, why does 1 John portray them as denying the Son (2:22–23)? On Brown’s view, it is precisely the opponents’ emphasis on the eternal Son which has led to their problematic Christology. Similarly, Grayston and Von Wahlde must each add the word “unique” to the confession of 1 John 2:22 in order to make it combat their proposed opponents. There is, however, no indication in the passage itself that the opponents were disputing the uniqueness of Jesus’ messiahship. Rather, the statement in 2:22 is fairly plain: the opponents denied his messiahship altogether. There is also no indication that the opponents claimed direct access to God by virtue of their possession of the Spirit.

26 27 28 29

Grayston, Epistles, 91; Von Wahlde, Commandments, 145–46. Grayston, Epistles, 78; Von Wahlde, Commandments, 145–46. Brown, Epistles, 368. Ibid., 371. Brown resorts, as do proponents of the anti-docetic view discussed above, to the argument that the author wanted to frame the debate rhetorically as one which called into question the very confession his readers made at their baptism or initiation. Cf. also Whitacre, Polemic, 125; M. C. de Boer, “Jesus the Baptizer: 1 John 5:5–8 and the Gospel of John,” JBL 107 (1988), 88. For a response to this suggestion, see Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 18.

140

1 John 2:18–27: Jesus is the Messiah

The burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of anyone who wants to claim that 1 John 2:22 does not refer to the basic Christian claim that Jesus is the Messiah prophesied by the Scriptures. The interpretations proposed by Brown, Grayston, and Von Wahlde are unable to bear that burden. They all require a much more subtle and nuanced Christological statement than may be found in the text itself.

G. Anti-Ebionite Another view, popular especially in the nineteenth century, asserts that the teaching opposed in 1 John 2:22–23 is the Ebionite denial of the Johannine tradition’s high Christology.30 The Ebionites (Ἐβιωναῖοι) are named in numerous ancient sources as an early Jewish-Christian sect that professed faith in Jesus as the Messiah prophesied in the Scriptures.31 Although they confessed his messianic status and his death and resurrection, they erred, early heresiologists claimed, in requiring observance of the Torah (i.e., “Judaizing”) and in denying the pre-existence and divinity of Jesus.32 On the anti-Ebionite reading, the author’s use of terms Χριστός in 1 John 2:22 and υἱός in v. 23 are both intended to denote the pre-existent and divine being [ὁ λόγος] who took on human flesh and became Jesus of Nazareth (cf. John 1:14). The Ebionites, by denying the divine pre-existence of Christ, thereby deny that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God.33 As F. Lücke explains, “Ebionitism reduced the Messiahship of Jesus to a mere Prophetship,

30

31

32

33

For discussion, see above p. 101. Cf. Clemen, “Beiträge,” 272–75; Richter, “Blut,” 126; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, xxi, 108, 111; Tertullian, Praescr. 33.11; Carn. Chr. 1, 214, is the first to suggest that 1 John 2:22 is aimed at the Ebionites. Ancient sources include Irenaeus, Haer. 1.26.2; 3.11.7; 3.21.1; 5.1.3; Justin Martyr, Dial. 47; Origen, Cels. 2.1; Pseudo-Tertullian, Haer. 11; Tertullian, Praescr. 33; Hippolytus, Haer. 7.22, 34; 9.13–17; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.27; Epiphanius, Pan. 29–30. Tertullian appears to have been the first to posit that the sect derived its name from its founder, Ebion. Much more likely is Origen’s theory that the name derived from the Hebrew for “poor” (nwyba), although he implausibly thinks this was related to their poor, or low, Christology rather than their humble lifestyle. For contemporary discussions of the Ebionites, their teachings, and their place within early Jewish Christianity, see H. J. Schoeps, “Ebionite Christianity,” JTS 16 (1955): 219–24; Sakari Häkkinen,. “Ebionites,” in A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics” (ed. Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen; VCSupp 76. Leiden: Brill, 2005), 247–78. See Clemen, “Beiträge,” 272–75.

Major Interpretations of this Passage

141

and only recognized Christ according to the flesh, but not the higher dignity of Jesus, as the Son of God in the eminent sense of the word.”34

H. Weaknesses of the Anti-Ebionite View The main weakness of this interpretation is that almost every ancient source makes it clear that the Ebionites did in fact unashamedly confess Jesus as the Messiah. In order for the anti-Ebionite reading to stand, it must be shown that the Johannine literature uses the terms Χριστός and υἱός specifically to denote Jesus’ divinity. But, such does not appear to be the case. The title Χριστός appears in the Fourth Gospel 18 times, often on the lips of disciples who call Jesus the Messiah, but do not intend thereby to denote Jesus’ pre-existence or divinity.35 Similarly, the title Son of God, when applied to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, has no necessary reference to his divinity.36 Nathanael (John 1:49) uses it synonomously with “king of Israel,” while Martha uses it in apposition to “Messiah” (11:27). If the issue behind 1 John 2:22 has to do with the divinity of Jesus, we would expect the author to use terms and titles from his tradition which had a closer connection with the high Christology at issue. For example, he might accuse the opponents of denying that Jesus is the ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεός (1 John 5:20), ὁ κύριoς καὶ ὁ θεός (John 20:28) or even simply θεός (John 10:33). Why not say that the opponents deny that Jesus is one with the Father (John 10:30), “equal with God” (ἴσος τῷ θεῷ, John 5:18), or “I AM” (ἐγὼ εἰμί, John 8:58)?

34 35 36

Lücke, Commentary, 70. Lücke himself does not hold to this explanation but finds much to commend it. Andrew in John 1:41; the Samaritan woman in 4:29; the crowds in 7:31, 41; Martha in 11:27; cf. 9:22; 10:24. I am not arguing that the author would think that someone who denied Jesus’ divinity had properly understood or confessed Jesus’ messiahship. I only wish to assert that if the opponents explicitly accepted Jesus as Messiah, but refused to regard him as divine, it is inexplicable why 1 John would focus on the title Messiah. If I am correct that the opponents have returned to non-Christian Judaism and have rejected Jesus’ messiahship, they would obviously also reject Jesus’ divinity, but it was the issue of Jesus’ messiahship, not his divinity, which demarcated their return to Judaism.

142

1 John 2:18–27: Jesus is the Messiah

II. An Alternative: Jewish-Christian Apostates All of the views discussed above suffer from the same weakness: they each make the opponents’ denial (“Jesus is not the Messiah,” 2:22) mean something other than what it actually says. In this section, I will argue that such complicated interpretations are not necessary and in fact serve to obscure the text’s rather straightforward description of the secession and its causes. I will attempt to demonstrate that the “leavers” of 1 John 2:19 were individuals who participated in the community and confessed that Jesus was the messianic redeemer foretold in the Scriptures. At some point, for reasons unstated in the text, they turned back on their confession of Jesus and on the community, leaving both behind to (most likely) return to the Jewish communities they had been part of prior to their confession of Jesus. In order to demonstrate this, I will provide a close reading of 1 John 2:18–27, tracing its flow of thought and noting along the way aspects of the text and its argumentation that will shed light on what was at the heart of the secession.

A. The Eschatological Setting of the Secession (v. 18) Our passage follows on the heels of the author’s general exhortation in 2:15–17. There he warns his audience not to love the world or the things of the world, which he explains in v. 16 as involving the various sins (lust and pride) in which the world engages. Clearly κόσμος is not neutral here, but has a negative connotation; it is the sinful world as it is opposed to God.37 Two reasons are given not to love the world. First, it is impossible to love both God and the world.38 There can be no dual 37

38

For a recent discussion of κόσμος terminology in the Johannine literature, see Lars Kierspel, Jews and the World in the Fourth Gospel: Parallelism, Function, and Context (WUNT 2.220; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 155–212; cf. H. Sasse, “κοσμέω, κτλ,” TDNT 3.867–98; H.-J. Klauck, “In the World – of the World (1 Jn 2:15–17),” TD 37 (1990): 209–14; N. H. Cassem, “A Grammatical and Contextual Inventory of the Use of ‘κόσμος’ in the Johannine Corpus,” NTS 19 (1972): 81–91; Andreas Lindemann, “Gemeinde und Welt im Johannesevangelium,” in Kirche. Festschrift für Günther Bornkamm zum 75. Geburtstag (ed. Dieter Lührmann, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1980), 133–61; Takashi Onuki, Gemeinde and Welt im Johannesevangelium: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach de theologischen und pragmatischen Funktion des johanneischen “Dualismus” (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984). It is unclear whether ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ πατρός is a subjective or objective genitive. That is, does a person’s love for the world demonstrate that she does not love the Father?

An Alternative: Jewish-Christian Apostates

143

allegiance to both God and his enemies. Second, one ought not to devote one’s resources and energy to the world because, unlike the one who does God’s will and lives forever, the world is “passing away.” This is not simply a way of stating the timeless truth that “things” are temporal and temporary, and that eternity is the only thing that matters. Rather, the author here is announcing that in light of the Messiah’s coming, the eschatological events leading to the defeat and dissolution of the world-system have been set in motion.39 In many ways, these verses summarize the message of 1 John. While the letter mentions secessionists and false prophets, in the author’s view these opponents are merely a subset of the true opponent, the world-system. They are only properly understood when they are seen to be part of the larger diabolically-empowered antichrist system, which, in the face of its inevitable destruction, has mounted a final surge. By providing his audience with this eschatological perspective, the author hopes to encourage them not to participate in the world’s sin (1 John 2:1) and rebellion (3:4, ἀνομία), but to remain faithful and loyal to God and his Son.40 The eschatological note sounded in 2:17 is continued in 2:18, as the author exclaims, Παιδία, ἐσχάτη ὥρα ἐστίν.41 The Fourth Gospel commonly speaks of ἡ ἐσχάτη ἡμέρα rather than ἡ ἐσχάτη ὥρα.42 Other Biblical authors prefer αἱ ἐσχάται ἡμέραι,43 ὁ ἔσχατος καιρός,44 or ὁ ἔσχατος τῶν χρόνων.45 It is likely that ἐσχάτη ὥρα is simply another way of referring to the same concept. 46 In the Fourth Gospel

39 40

41 42 43 44 45 46

Or is the author saying that the Father does not love the person who loves the world? For a discussion of the options, see Brown, Epistles, 254–57, 306. The parallel in 1 John 2:5 favors an objective reading. Cf. 1 John 2:8, “The darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining.” It is also notable that v. 28 continues this section’s eschatological theme by introducing the topic of Christ’s coming in order to ground the admonition to continue in Jesus. Brooke, Johannine Epistles, 49, notes that the natural transition between v. 17 and v. 18 depends upon the common eschatological theme. Cf. also Plummer, Epistles, 55. John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 7:37; 11:24; 12:48. Acts 2:17; 2 Tim 3:1; Heb 1:2; James 5:3; 2 Pet 3:3. 1 Pet 1:5. 1 Pet 1:20. Cf. 1 Cor 10:11. Schnackenburg, Epistles, 133; Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 148. The terms καιρός, χρόνος, and ὥρα overlap considerably in semantic range. Brown, Epistles, 331, notes that Dan 8:17–19 LXX may be a relevant parallel. There judgment is appointed for “an hour of time” (εἰς ὥραν καιροῦ). Likewise, in Mark 13:11, the persecution of the saints takes place in “that hour” (ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ). Cf. also Rev 3:3, 10; 14:7, 15, all of which use ὥρα to refer to an eschatological period. For discussion of 1 John’s eschatology, see Donald W. Mills, “The Eschatology of 1 John,” in Looking into the

144

1 John 2:18–27: Jesus is the Messiah

Jesus speaks of his coming “hour” when he will be betrayed, lifted up, and subsequently return to the Father. 47 He similarly tells his disciples that their “hour” is also coming in which they too will be betrayed and persecuted.48 That hour, although it brings great pain, will ultimately issue in the joy of new creation (John 16:21). It is likely that 1 John 2:18 takes up this theme in order to portray the community’s present as the predicted apocalyptic crisis. In the second part of the verse the author explains why he believes the last hour has come. It is antichrist’s advent (ἀντίχριστος ἔρχεται)— perhaps a diabolical parody of Christ’s coming49—that signals the last hour’s arrival. The audience had evidently been taught beforehand about this figure, most likely from both the Scriptures and the Jesustradition.50 The prefix ἀντί in the designation, ἀντίχριστος, could denote a substitute Messiah, but more likely carries the idea of opposition.51 While early Judaism spoke of eschatological deceivers and false prophets, it is not clear that there was a definite expectation of a

47 48 49 50

51

Future: Evangelical Studies in Eschatology (ETS Studies; ed. David W. Baker; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 97–111, who believes that 1 John stresses future eschatology in order to refute an overrealized view propounded by the opponents. John 12:23, 27; 13:1; 17:1. John 16:2, 4. See Grayston, Epistles, 82. Schmid, Gegner, 168, calls it a “Karrikatur des Kommens Christi.” Cf. Brown, Epistles, 686; Plummer, Epistles, 156–57. Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 352, writes, “what is said about the Antichrist here is but the tip of the iceberg of tradition that lies submerged by the drifts of time.” For a discussion of eschatological instruction in the Johannine communities, see J. Frey, “Eschatology in the Johannine Circle,” in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by the Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminary (ed. G. Van Belle, J. G. van der Watt, and P. Maritz; BETL 184; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 59. From 2 Thess 2:5 it is clear that instruction about the antichrist was also part of the Pauline παράδοσις. On the function of the prefix, see S. Sznol, “Compounds with ‘Anti’ in Hellenistic Jewish Sources,” FN 3 (1990): 109–14; B. Prete, “Anticristo ed anticristi in 1 Giov. 2,18,” in Testimonium Christi: Scritti in onore di J. Dupont, (Brescia: Paideia, 1985), 439– 52. Tertullian, Marc. 5.16.4; Praescr. 4.4, took it as denoting opposition to Christ. Those who favor the idea of substitution include Sznol, “Compounds,” 112, and Brown, Epistles, 333. Brown, however, notes that the idea of substitution in the case of the Messiah implies the substitution of the false for the true and thus connotes opposition as well. Grayston, Epistles, 76, notes a relevant parallel in Philo where the adjective ἀντίθεος is used to describe the mind opposed to God (Somn. 2.183; cf. Conf. 1.88). Plummer, Epistles, 159, offers ἀντικείμενος in 2 Thess 2:4 as a parallel. Many believe that the term is of Johannine coinage, since it is unattested prior to 1 John, and is not used in passages where it might be expected (such as 2 Thessalonians 2; see Lieu, Theology, 29; Griffith, Keep, 167). For the opposite view, see Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 93–96; Horbury, “Antichrist,” 117.

An Alternative: Jewish-Christian Apostates

145

single figure who would oppose the coming Messiah. 52 By the time of 1 John’s composition, though, early Christians had fused together many different strands of Scriptural tradition in order to speak of an eschatological false prophet or king who would deceive both Israel and the world.53 One finds many of the same stock apocalyptic motifs in 1 John 2:18–27 as in other antichrist texts: in 1 John, 2 Thessalonians 2, and Revelation 13, Antichrist is a diabolically empowered figure whose coming is the antithesis of the Messiah’s coming, and whose arrival is closely associated with a great apostasy fueled by his deception.54

52

53

54

For an overview of the development of the antichrist concept in early Judaism and Christianity, see W. Bousset, The Antichrist Legend (trans. A. H. Keane; London: Hutchinson, 1896); G. C. Jenks, The Origins and Early Development of the Antichrist Myth (BZNW 59; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991); Geert Wouter Lorein, The Antichrist Theme in the Intertestamental Period (JSPSupp 44; London: T&T Clark, 2003); L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte, The Antecedents of Antichrist: A Traditio-Historical Study of the Earliest Christian Views on Eschatological Opponents (JSJSup 49; Leiden: Brill, 1996); Stefan Heid, Chiliasmus und Antichrist-Mythos: eine frühchristliche Kontroverse um das Heilige Land (Bonn: Borengässer, 1993). While the consensus holds that the idea of an eschatological anti-Messiah figure was a Christian development (see, e.g. Brown, Epistles, 333; Rensberger, 1 John, 78, who says such a concept is “not found at all in Jewish literature” prior to the Christian era), several recent works have challenged that view. P. Rainbow, “Melchizedek as a Messiah at Qumran,” BBR 7 (1997): 179– 94, argues that the figure of Melchiresha in 11QMelchizedek is not an angel, as commonly thought, but a human kingly opponent of Melchizedek, a human kingly Messiah. Horbury, “Antichrist,” 114–17, believes the antichrist concept was developed prior to the Christian Era through exegesis of passages such as Isa 11:4, where the Messiah slays the “wicked one.” Israel Knohl, “‘By Three Days, Live’: Messiahs, Resurrection, and the Ascent to Heaven in Hazon Gabriel,” JR 88: (2008): 147–58, discusses the pre-Christian lithograph tentatively titled the Apocalypse of Gabriel. He believes the “branch of wickedness” spoken of in the text is an antimessiah, as jmx is an OT messianic designation. OT sources for the idea include Deuteronomy 13; Daniel 7–12; Isa 11:4; 14:14; Ezek 28:2; in the NT, see 2 Thess 2:1–12; Revelation 13. Cf. the helpful chart in Kruse, Letters, 100. For discussion of the relevant texts, see Plummer, Epistles, 156–60; Strecker, Letters, 62–63; idem, “Der Antichrist: Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund von 1 Joh 2,18.22; 4,3 und 2 Joh 7,” in Text and Testimony: Essays on NT and Apocryphal literature in honour of A.F. J. Klijn (ed. T. Baarda, et al. Kampen: Kok, 1988), 247–54. See Rusam, Gemeinschaft, 203–205; Neufeld, Reconceiving, 106; J. Ernst, Die eschatologischen Gegenspieler in den Schriften des Neuen Testaments (Regensburg: Pustet, 1967), 168–77; E. E. Popkes, “Von Antichristen und Weltenherrschen: zur Funktion der eschatologischen Gegenspieler Jesu in den johanneischen Schriften,” in Alles in allem: eschatologische Anstöße J. Christine Janowski zum 60. Geburtstag (ed. Ruth Heß; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2005), 231–44.

146

1 John 2:18–27: Jesus is the Messiah

First John appears to be distinctive, however, in two ways. First, the antichrist arises from the believing community itself.55 Second, the antichrist is preceded by many forerunners who anticipate his final mission and perhaps pave the way for his arrival. 56 Indeed, some have supposed that by introducing “many antichrists,” 1 John has “demythologized”57 or “rationalized”58 the expectation of Antichrist by finding its fulfillment in the present secession. 59 Others, probably more accurately, see this as one more example of the tension between realized and future eschatology in the Johannine literature.60 Not much different is the Pauline statement that while ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας has not yet been revealed, τὸ μυστήριον τῆς ἀνομίας is already at work. In 1 John, then, the fact that many antichrists have already come on the scene does not nullify the traditional expectation of the single final antichrist, but actually reinforces it.

B. The Secession and its Purpose (v. 19) In v. 19, we discover what event has prompted the author to announce the arrival of many antichrists. The antichrists are identified as those who “went out from us.” To what group does “us” refer here? 55

56

57

58 59

60

See J. Frey, Die johanneische Eschatologie: Band III – Die eschatologische Verkündigung in den johanneischen Texten (Tübingen: Mohr, 1999), 26–27. I argue below, p. 148, that this derives from an exegesis of Deut 13:14 (ἐξ ὑμῶν). For another description of false teachers arising “from among you,” see Acts 20:30. A. Schmidt, “Erwägungen zur Eschatologie des 2 Thessalonicher und 2 Johannes,” NTS 38 (1992), 477–80, argues that 2 Thessalonians is a pseudepigraphon written to oppose the Johannine realized view of the antichrist, which he believes arose in Ephesus ca. 95 C.E. Bultmann, Epistles, 36, 62; Strecker 63; Brown, Epistles, 337; Schnackenburg, Epistles, 134; Frey, “Eschatology,” 59, argues that in 1 John the antichrist tradition has been “interpreted contrary to its original shape.” Dodd, Epistles, 49–50, believes that 1 John has reduced Antichrist from a personal eschatological figure to an “idea” that energizes opposition to the Messiah. On the basis of 2:19’s description of the antichrists as “many,” some have supposed that the secession was numerically strong (Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 94). The description is probably, though, meant to highlight the contrast between the traditional expectation of one antichrist, and its preliminary fulfillment in more than one figure. Or, it may derive from the dominical prediction that many false prophets and many false Messiahs would come (Matt 24:5, 11). See the discussion below (p. 231) on 1 John 4:1, where the same description is used. See, e.g. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 93–94; Brooke, Johannine Epistles, 50; Zahn, Introduction, 3:371. Lorein, Antichrist, 29, writes that 1 John pays “more attention to the forerunners of the Antichrist, but…he assumes that an eschatological Antichrist is coming.”

An Alternative: Jewish-Christian Apostates

147

Traditional exegesis commonly held that the Apostle John, as the author of 1 John, was referring to the apostolic circle, whether the Twelve, or the Seventy(-Two), or a broader group of early Judean and Galilean disciples who would have been included among the eyewitnesses of 1 John 1:1–4 (ἡμεῖς).61 Others, like J. C. O’Neill, suggest that the author is a Jew who is referring more broadly to all Israel, which has been split, in the author’s mind, into faithful and apostate by the advent of the Messiah.62 More likely, however, ἡμεῖς includes both the author and the group of communities he is addressing. 63 This means that the “antichrists” were once a part of the community but have now left.64 There is no basis in the text for many of the speculations in which scholars frequently engage. It is not stated whether the secession occurred all at once, over a long period of time, in one specific community or in several—the historical details of the event cannot be retrieved. Aside from a virtual quotation of the antichrists in 2:22, all we have is the author’s theological portrayal and evaluation of the event. The author’s theological analysis of the event is made clear by his choice of language. The apostasy of these community members is seen as part of the eschatological sequence. It marks out the arrival of the “last hour” because it fulfills the expectation of an end-time apostasy from the people of God. Such an expectation is widely witnessed in the

61

62 63

64

See John Owen, The Works of John Owen (ed. Thomas Russell; London: Paternoster, 1826), 7:246; William Burkitt, Expository Notes on the New Testament (London: Paternoster, 1832), 2:762; Zahn, Introduction, 3:370, speaks of a group of Asian disciples, which may have included Andrew, Aristion and Philip the Evangelist, as well as the Apostle John. Such a view may have support if Deuteronomy 13 is functioning as a subtext, but O’Neill himself does not argue on that basis. Cf. γινώσκομεν in 2:18, and before that in 2:5. Zahn, Introduction, 3:364, sees the apostasy more broadly, asserting that “they have gone forth from Christianity—not specifically from the circle of the present readers.” That the antichrists left of their own accord has been repeatedly challenged by scholars who attempt to read between the lines. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 97, thinks on the basis of 3 John 9 that it was really the secessionists who attempted to excommunicate the orthodox. Similarly, Brown, Epistles, 368, speculates that 1 John 2:19 is the author’s attempt to gloss over the fact that it was his own group that actually seceded and that the “antichrists” were in the majority. Zahn, Introduction, 3:364, says the opponents were “expelled…against their will” and cites as evidence the statement in 1 John 4:4 that the readers have “overcome” the opponents. The readers’ victory, however, more likely refers to their success in withstanding the teaching and seduction of the false prophets rather than a forcible expulsion of them.

148

1 John 2:18–27: Jesus is the Messiah

NT.65 The designation of the apostates as antichrists indicates their alliance with the eschatological enemy of God, his Anointed One, and his anointed ones. The Antichrist, like the Christ, will have his φανέρωσις (John 1:31; 1 John 1:2; 2:28; 3:5, 8). The many antichrists have made their φανέρωσις (1 John 2:19), just as the anointed ones will at the coming of the Messiah (1 John 2:19; 3:2). The end-time mystery of who constitutes the children of God and the children of the devil has begun to be revealed;66 the departure of the antichrists is to be viewed, the author urges, as a necessary step to this end—a common notion echoed in several NT texts.67 The predicted hour of eschatological testing brings purification to the people of God.68 This explanation of the divine purpose behind the apostasy is meant to reassure the audience that everything is going according to plan and that none of the true children of God has perished. 69 Only those who remain with the community during the time of testing truly belong to the community.70 The language of 1 John 2:18–27 betrays an exegetical dependence upon Deuteronomy 13 and 18, both of which provide instructions about how Israel should deal with false prophets.71 The following connections may be noted: 65

66

67 68 69 70

71

See Matt 24:9–11; Acts 20:29–30; 2 Thess 2:3; 1 Tim 4:1; 2 Tim 3:1–5; 2 Pet 2:1–3; Jude 17–21. The expectation appears to have had its source in an apostolic prophecy (cf. Jude 17; Acts 20:28–29), which may itself have been grounded in a typological reading of the OT wilderness apostasy (cf. 1 Cor 10:1–22; 2 Pet 2:1–3; 3:3). See 1 John 3:10, ἐν τούτῳ φανερά ἐστιν τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὰ τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου. Cf. Brown, Epistles, 339, who also notes this parallel. See Luke 12:2–3 for the tradition of eschatological revelation of mysteries. Cf. also Rom 8:19. See Matt 18:7; 1 Cor 11:19 (note esp. the use of the φανερ- root, as in 1 John 2:19). See Schmid, “Non-Polemically,” 34–35. See Dan 11:35; 12:10 for this tradition. Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 204. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 98, writes, “the schism is part of a divine purpose.” See John 6:64 for a similar thought. Brown, Epistles, 339, helpfully notes that in Johannine theology, μένειν cannot be separated from εἶναι. Some commentators have mirror-read 2:19 as indicating that the secessionists are still claiming to be Christians, and that the author must therefore counter such a claim. Bultmann, Epistles, 36, is representative: “That the false teachers claim [note the present tense] to be Christians follows from v19.” This is an unjustified inference. It is clear from the text that the author presumes that his audience is in agreement with him that the antichrists have made a willful, public break from the basic confession of the community. Thus, the author is not interested in proving that fact, but only in reassuring his audience that the antichrists’ departure does not call into question the truth of the community’s foundational message. Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 211; Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 153; Brown, Epistles, 367; G. Sánchez Mielgo, “Perspectivas Eclesiológicas en la Primera Carta de Juan,”

An Alternative: Jewish-Christian Apostates

149

a) Use of ἐξέρχομαι ἐξ ὑμῶν to describe the false prophets’ departure (1 John 2:19; Deut 13:13).72 b) The prophets entice the people to serve gods whom they have not known (οὓς οὐκ οἴδατε; Deut 13:2, 6, 13); 1 John stresses that the readers know the truth (οἴδατε πάντες) and therefore do not listen to the deceivers who counsel them to turn away from what they know (2:20–21, 27). c) The false prophets of Deut 13:6 attempt to deceive the people (LXX: ἐλάλησεν γὰρ πλανῆσαί σε); so also the antichrists have tried to deceive the audience (1 John 2:26, τῶν πλανώντων ὑμᾶς). d) The false prophets are the way God tests whether Israel loves the Lord (Deut 13:3); 1 John 2:19 explains that the antichrists have been manifested to make clear who really belongs to the people of God. e) Perhaps most striking, Deut 13:13 designates the false prophets as “sons of Belial” (luylb).73 By the time of 1 John, “son of Belial” had become a designation for the eschatological opponent of the Messiah, the Anti-Messiah.74 Indeed, both Deuteronomy 13 and 18:20–22 were being read as prophecies of an eschatological figure who would oppose the messianic prophet like Moses described in Deut 18:15–18.75 Qumran’s 4QTestimonia (4Q175) midrashically juxtaposes Deuteronomy 18 with a prophecy about the rise of a “man of Belial”

72

73

74

75

Escritos del Vedat 4 (1974): 9–64; Lorein, Antichrist, 30, 181; Lampe, “Grievous Wolves,” 262. Peerbolte, Antecedents, 99, surprisingly denies any connection. See below, ch. 4, for discussion of the connection between 1 John 4:1–6 and the Deuteronomic instructions. One may find the same dependence upon these passages in both 2 Peter and Jude. This suggests a common exegetical tradition in early Christianity. Cf. Nah 1:11. S. Lieberman, Studies in Palestinian Talmudic Literature (Jerusalem, 1991), 281, discusses the use of the verb axy to refer to apostasy or becoming a heretic. See also Israel Knohl, The Messiah before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 127–28, who cites b. Hag. 16b, 15a; Midr. Song of Songs Zuta 8:14, where the verb is also used with such a sense. The meaning of ἐξέρχεσθαι may be slightly different in 1 John 4:1 and 2 John 10, where it probably indicates itinerancy in addition to apostasy (see below, ch. 4, 6). Both of these meanings are present also in Deuteronomy 13. In Deuteronomy itself, luylb is probably not personified, as it came to be in later tradition. The phrase is therefore best translated, “sons of wickedness/ worthlessness.” Second Thessalonians 2:3 describes the apostasy which accompanies ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἀνομίας. The LXX uses ἀνομία to translate luylb in 2 Sam 22:5 and Ps 17:5; ἀνόμημα is used in Deut 15:9. See also 2 Cor 6:15; T. Dan 5; Sib. Or. 2.37; 3.63, 73; Ascen. Isa. 4.2. See F. Manns, “‘Le Péché, c’est Bélial’: 1 Jn 3.4 à la lumière du Judaïsme,” RevScRel 62 (1988): 1–9. See Wayne A. Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 47–55; Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 150; Brown, Epistles, 335.

150

1 John 2:18–27: Jesus is the Messiah

(line 23). Similarly, 4QFlorilegium (4Q174) envisions an eschatological scenario in which the “sons of Belial” plot against the people of God (1.8–9). These numerous linguistic and conceptual links between Deuteronomy and 1 John indicate that the way the Johannine author understands and addresses the apostasy of the antichrists is grounded in his eschatological interpretation of the material about false prophets in Deuteronomy.76

C. Anointing and Knowledge (vv. 20–21) 1. Reassurance of the Audience’s Status In the next two verses, the author assures his audience that they all possess everything, especially the requisite knowledge, they need to weather the eschatological crisis: οἴδατε πάντες.77 The sequence of 1 John 2:18–20 indicates that the author likely has in mind the preceding statements about the necessity and purpose of the antichrists’ advent.78

76

77

78

Another possible link exists between Deut 13:9 and 1 John 2:26. Deuteronomy 13:9 requires the Israelite who discovers an idolatrous family member to make a public announcement about him (ἀναγγέλλων ἀναγγελεῖς περὶ αὐτοῦ). In 1 John 2:26, it appears that the author is doing just that: ταῦτα ἔγραψα ὑμῖν περὶ τῶν πλανώντων ὑμᾶς. The text-critical question surrounding 2:20 (οἴδατε πάντες vs. οἴδατε πάντα) is particularly vexing, as the external evidence is equally divided and the internal evidence is ambiguous. I favor the reading οἴδατε πάντες slightly (the absolute use of οἴδατε is certainly the lectio dificilior; cf. Brown, Epistles, 348; Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 199), but my interpretation would not be affected if the alternative is correct (the reference would then be to the readers’ knowledge of “all these things” just discussed, i.e., the antichrists and their place in the eschatological schema). The background for the expectation of universal eschatological knowledge in Jer 31:34, as well as the parallel in John 6:45, weighs heavily in favor of the reading πάντες (see Brown, Epistles, 370; Kruse, Letters, 104; Rusam, Gemeinschaft, 150). Those who favor πάντα include D. A. Black, “An Overlooked Stylistic Argument in Favor of panta in 1 John 2:20,” FN 5 (1992), 205–8, who argues for that reading on the basis of the parallel in 2:27, where the anointing teaches the audience about all things (διδάσκει ὑμᾶς περὶ πάντων). Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 102, cites the parallel in John 16:13, where the Spirit of truth will teach the disciples “all things.” Cf. John Breck, “The Function of PAS in 1 John 2:20,” SVTQ 35 (1991): 187–206; Kruse, Letters, 103. The idea that the end-time remnant would possess special knowledge or insight crucial for their survival has its background in Dan 12:10; Hos 14:9. Relevant parallels to 1 John 2:20 include Jude 5; 1 Thess 3:3–4; 5:1–2; 2 Thess 2:5–6, all of which allude to their audience’s knowledge of the eschatological schema. See Mills, “Eschatology, 109. Perhaps more relevant, however, is Jer 31:31–34 (cf. also Isa 54:13), which speaks of the eschatological internalized knowledge of God. For an

An Alternative: Jewish-Christian Apostates

151

The readers all know about the nature of the antichrists’ apostasy and they are able to discern between those who are “of us” and those who are not. The readers’ ability to discern friend from foe comes from their knowledge of the truth, which they already possess (v. 21). The “truth” here is nothing other than the basic message (ἀγγελία) disputed by the ἀντίχριστοι, namely that Ἰησοῦς ἔστιν ὁ Χριστός.79 The author emphasizes that the audience knows this, has confessed it, has received God’s testimony to it, and therefore has no need to be taught it again by the author or by anyone else (see v. 27).80 The truth, in the form of the message and confession, forms the foundation of the community’s existence as well as the line which divides the community from the world in the eschatological struggle. These verses, then, make it clear that the author has not written to rebuke his audience or even to warn them, but to reassure them of their standing.

2. The Anointing from the Holy One The readers’ knowledge of the truth and ability to discern between the truth and a lie comes from their “anointing,” which they have “from the Holy One” (χρῖσμα ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου). Both the nature of the anointing and the identity of the “Holy One” have been hotly disputed.81 Is the author referring to an initiation ritual in which the

79

80

81

exhaustive treatment of the way 1 John adapts the motif of interiority and knowledge in the new covenant see Malatesta, Interiority, 220–25. The use of ἀλήθεια as shorthand for the message that Jesus is the Messiah can be seen in John 8:32, where the “truth” liberates those who believe it, and in 2 John 1, where believers are defined as those who have come to know the “truth.” Thus, that the readers’ knowledge referred to in 1 John 2:21 encompasses both the status of Jesus as the Messiah and the apocalyptic scenario involving the antichrist is not unexpected. To declare that Jesus is the Messiah is necessarily to declare his place within the larger eschatological scenario, which includes the coming of the antichrist to oppose the Messiah. Of course, it would be going too far to say that the meaning of ἀλήθεια in 1 John is exhausted by the claim that Jesus is the Messiah. See Witherington, Letters, 487. For parallels, see 2 Pet 1:12; Jude 5; Rom 15:14–15; 1 Cor 1:5. Each of these passages stresses that the audience already knows the foundational truths of the Gospel and only needs to be reminded of them. For an overview of the issue, see Ignace de la Potterie, “Anointing of the Christian by Faith,” in The Christian Lives by the Spirit (eds. I. De la Potterie and Stanislaus Lyonnet; New York: Alba House, 1971), 79–143. The debate over the nature of the anointing concerns whether the author is referring to a ritual action or figuratively alluding to the reception of the Holy Spirit or the knowledge which would have been received at initiation. It appears from Tertullian (Bapt. 7.1–2) that some early Christian groups practiced chrismation or unction following baptism. Other sources

152

1 John 2:18–27: Jesus is the Messiah

audience was anointed with oil, or is “anointing” figurative for baptism?82 Perhaps χρῖσμα more specifically focuses not on the act of anointing, but its result, as the -μα ending usually suggests.83 In that case, does χρῖσμα refer to the Holy Spirit or more generally to the salvific teaching which the readers would have received at their entrance into the community?84 Is the “Holy One” from whom they have received this anointing God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, all of whom are referred to in these terms at one point or another in Scripture?85 It may be that the correct answer to these questions is “yes.” Early Christian initiation closely connected baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit, both of which could be pictured as “anointing.”86 Both baptism

82 83 84

85

86

(Didascalia Apostolorum, Acts of Thomas and the Pseudo-Clementines) testify to a prebaptismal anointing with oil practiced by Syrian churches. See Brown, Epistles, 343, for discussion. Grayston, Epistles, 84, refers to the Nag Hammadi Gos. Phil. 44 and 68, which speak of a “mystery” of anointing in addition to baptism and the Eucharist. He suggests that the opponents were practicing this kind of ritual anointing, which they claimed constituted the recipient not merely as a Christian, but as a “Christ,” thereby denying the unique status of Jesus. Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 197–98, views it as a figurative reference to initiation. See BDF §109. In favor of the anointing being a figure for the Holy Spirit is v. 27, where the anointing is personified as teaching the audience. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 100, notes numerous OT passages where the Spirit is connected with the ritual of anointing. In the NT, 2 Cor 1:21 is an important parallel, where χρῖσμα could either be taken as identical with the Spirit (which is spoken of in the following verse), or as a special commissioning unique to the members of Paul’s missionary team. See the discussion in Brown, Epistles, 347–48. Those who believe the Spirit is the reference include Strecker, Letters, 64–65; Houlden, Epistles, 131. It is possible to read both τοῦ ἁγίου in 1 John 2:20 and αὐτοῦ in 2:27 as neuter, referring to τὸ πνεῦμα, in which case the phrase is best read as a partitive genitive rather than a subjective genitive. Thus, it is not the Spirit who gives the anointing; rather, the anointing is a portion of the Spirit. See 1 John 3:24; 4:13, both of which refer to God giving “from the Spirit” (ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος αὐτοῦ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν); cf. John 3:34. In favor of a reference to God as the Holy One is the frequent use of this designation throughout the OT and rabbinic literature. See, e.g. Isa 1:4; Ps 71:22; Hab 3:3. For those who favor a reference to Jesus, see Brown, Epistles, 348; Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 198; Wilckens, “Gegner,” 99; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 102, believes that ὁ ἅγιος is an established messianic title by the time of 1 John. Jesus is called the “Holy One” in Mark 1:24/Luke 4:34 (notably, immediately after his baptism/anointing); Acts 3:14; Rev 3:7. Most important for our purposes is John 6:69, where Peter confesses that Jesus is the “Holy One of God” (ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ). On the whole, the evidence favors a reference to Jesus. This seems to be patterned on Jesus’ baptism, which is his anointing as well as the point at which he receives the Holy Spirit. See Luke 4:18; Acts 4:27; 10:38; Heb 1:9. Cf. also Ign. Eph. 17:1–2. For a similar opinion, see Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 197–98; Bonnard, Épitres, 57. For a different opinion, see C. Clifton Black, “The Johannine Epistles and the Question of Early Catholicism,” NovT 28 (1986), 152; Strecker,

An Alternative: Jewish-Christian Apostates

153

and the giving of the Holy Spirit were tightly linked to the reception of salvific knowledge, issuing in recognition and confession of Jesus as the Messiah.87 Likewise, God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit were all thought to be involved in this initiatory “anointing,” so that it could be rightly said to be from any one of the three.88 It is best, therefore, to treat χρῖσμα as a “tensive symbol” that invokes a complex of related images and concepts.89 More important than nailing down a specific referent, then, is to discern the function of the χρῖσμα in the author’s rhetoric. From the context, the following characteristics of the χρῖσμα may be noted: 1) Its reception was a past event that has continuing effects (v. 27).90 2) It is pictured as teaching the readers the knowledge of the truth and eliminating the need for teaching (vv. 20–21, 27).91 3) It is probably

87

88

89 90 91

Letters, 65, both of whom distinguish the anointing from baptism since the opponents were presumably also baptized but were not prevented by it from apostatizing. This ignores 1 John 2:24, which stresses the need to remain in the teaching received from the beginning. In the author’s theology, the anointing does not necessarily guarantee perseverance but does provide everything necessary for it. For the connection between baptism, reception of the Holy Spirit, and acceptance of doctrine, see Houlden, Epistles, 79, 87; Bonnard, Épitres, 57; de la Potterie, “Anointing,” 79–143; Dodd, Epistles, 63. In 2 Cor 1:21, God is said to anoint Paul and his fellow workers. Likewise, in John 14:16, 26 the Father sends the Spirit-Paraclete. In John 15:26 Jesus sends the Spirit, but the Spirit proceeds from the Father. John 16:7 also attributes the sending of the Spirit to Jesus. According to Acts 2:33, God gave Jesus the Spirit upon his exaltation and Jesus subsequently pours the Spirit out upon his people at Pentecost. The term tensive symbol was made popular by Norman Perrin, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), 30. Brown, Epistles, 343. Many have seen 2:20 and the parallel statement in 2:27 as a sign that that the author and his communities were opposed to a formal teaching role or to the office of teacher. Brown, Epistles, 509–10, for example, believes that the Johannine community de-emphasized human teachers and focused on the Paraclete as the teacher. Cf. Von Wahlde, Commandments, 119, who distinguishes the author’s role as “witness” and exhorter from the role of “teacher,” which the author supposedly rejects. Cf. H.-J. Klauck, “Gemeinde ohne Amt? Erfahrungen mit der Kirche in den johanneischen Schriften,” BZ 29 (1985): 193–220. Rensberger, 1 John, 42–43, writes “The Johannine tradition was an egalitarian one, without hierarchy or offices, instead emphasizing unity, mutual love, and access to the Spirit.” The Paraclete, as an anointing possessed by all believers, would lead them into “all truth” (John 16:13) and eliminate the need for a formal teaching office. Brown, Epistles, 509–10, concludes that a human teaching authority “would have been an intrusive novelty on the Johannine scene.” This accords with his belief that Johannine Christianity was sectarian and structurally different from other Christian groups. Another explanation is that 1 John is not opposing the concept of a teaching office per se, but rather a specific group of teachers, namely those threatening his audience with their deceptive teaching (2:26). Indeed, Brown, Epistles, 374–75, sees 1 John here as opposing the secessionist teaching both because it claims formal teaching authority

154

1 John 2:18–27: Jesus is the Messiah

to be associated with the message the readers “heard from the (the χρῖσμα) and also because it is propagating false teaching. It is doubtful, however, that we should make the blanket claim that the Johannine community had no teaching office based on the very limited and circumstantial evidence provided by the Epistles. To begin with, it is, at root, an argument from silence. Proclamations such as that of Rensberger, 1 John, 43, that “there is no theology of the church in the epistles,” certainly go too far. Second, it would be the height of irony if the epistolary author inveighed against all teaching while he himself devoted an entire letter to teaching his audience. It could be responded, though, that the author would think of his own letter not as teaching, but as merely reminding the audience of what they already know. In 2:21, he implies that he has not written his letter because his audience lacks the needed knowledge, but simply to assure them that they have the knowledge they need for this crisis. If this is the case, then it would appear that the author is not denying that his audience will ever need teaching, but only that in this case, they already know what they need to know. Third, as discussed above, p. 150, the likely background of the expectation is to be found in Jeremiah 31, where it is not promised that no teacher will ever be needed in any case whatsoever, but only that God’s people will not need anyone to provide them with the knowledge necessary for a proper covenant relationship with God. It might also be noted, that if the author does express some sentiment against an official teaching office, he would not necessarily thereby be adopting a sectarian position, as Brown supposes. A very similar thought appears in Matt 23:8: ὑμεῖς δὲ μὴ κληθῆτε ῥαββί· εἷς γάρ ἐστιν ὑμῶν ὁ διδάσκαλος, πάντες δὲ ὑμεῖς ἀδελφοί ἐστε (for a full exploration of the Matthean tradition, see S. Byrskog, Jesus the Only Teacher: Didactic Authority and Transmission in Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism and the Matthean Community [ConBNT 24; Lund: Gleerup, 1994]). Some have detected in the background of 2:18–27 signs of a gnostic claim to secret or elite knowledge. Dodd, Epistles, 60, translates καὶ ὑμεῖς in 2:20 as “you too,” an indication that the opponents were claiming an anointing that authorized them to teach. (He derives support for this from the initiation practices of the Naassene sect, which included anointing. See Irenaeus, Haer. 1.21.3–5, for a description of gnostic initiation rites that included anointing with oil. Cf. Grayston, Epistles, 78.) If Dodd is correct, the author would then be assuring his audience that they do not fall short of the opponents in any respect. They too have the anointing. This assurance would be especially needed if the opponents were gnostic elitists who asserted that they had some special knowledge or superior spiritual revelation. (For those who see an elitist claim in the background of this passage, see Filson, “I John,” 269; Wengst, Brief, 65; Kruse, Letters, 104, 108; Bogart, Orthodox, 128, speaks of “some form of secret, gnostic teaching.” For the view that χρῖσμα was originally the opponents’ term, see Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 198; Grayston, Epistles, 83.) There are several reasons, though, to question this attempt to mirror-read the author’s statement about the audience’s knowledge and to deduce that the opponents are attempting to transmit deeper teaching. It may be noted that a) there is no clear reference to any secret, esoteric, or elitist teaching on the part of the opponents or secessionists; they are characterized only by their denial; b) if the author were attempting an ironic rebuttal of gnostics, we would expect him to use the terms γνῶσις or γινώσκω; instead, he uses οἶδα (2:20, 27); c) the assumption that claims to special revelatory knowledge necessarily indicate the presence of Gnosticism would entail that we identify the Johannine tradition itself as gnostic, since it claims special knowledge of God that separates it from the world. Cf. Strecker, Letters, 65.

An Alternative: Jewish-Christian Apostates

155

beginning,” and would therefore have been received at the readers’ initiation into the community (v. 24).92 4) It unites the audience with Jesus, the “anointed one” (ὁ Χριστός, v. 22) in a relationship likely characterized as κοινωνία (1:3).93 5) It sets the audience in opposition to the ἀντίχριστοι, or “anti-anointed-ones.”94 6) The function of the χρῖσμα is similar to the activity of the Spirit in the rest of the letter. Both prompt confession of Jesus, provide saving knowledge, and unite the recipient to God and his Son (3:24; 4:2, 6, 13; 5:6). 95

D. The Antichrists’ Denial (vv. 22–23) 1. Truth and Falsehood in the Eschatological Crisis While v. 21 establishes a strong antithesis between the Truth, known and confessed by the audience, and the Lie, vv. 22–23 specify what these terms are referring to. Both have to do with the central confession of the community that Jesus is the Messiah. In v. 22, the author identifies the “liar” (ψεύστης) with the “antichrist” and specifies his defining mark: the lie or falsehood (ψεῦδος) of the liar is his denial that Jesus is the Messiah.96 The phrasing of 2:22 is reminiscent of the pesher formula (“this is that”) common in Qumran interpretation and also

92

93 94

95

96

Grayston, Epistles, 87, calls it the original baptismal tradition of the community. The phrase ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς probably refers properly to the beginning of the community or the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. See below, p. 168. Each individual, however, would have received the message at the beginning of her own initiation into the community. Marshall, Epistles, 153. O’Neill, Puzzle, 29, is one of the few to emphasize the way the χρῖσμα sets the community in opposition to the ἀντίχριστοι and to recognize the eschatological protective function of the anointing: “God, the Holy One, has anointed a community to withstand the attacks of their enemies in the last hour of world history” (cf. also Ibid., 23). Cf. Brooke, Johannine Epistles, 55; Neufeld, Reconceiving, 107; Marshall, Epistles, 153, calls χρῖσμα a “pun” on the word ἀντίχριστος. Brown, Epistles, 345–46; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 100–101. The χρῖσμα is also in many ways parallel to the Paraclete or Spirit of Truth in the Fourth Gospel. The Paraclete is “received” and its reception brings knowledge (14:17; 15:26) and teaches the disciples “all things” (πάντα, 14:26; 16:13). Like the anointing, the Spirit-Paraclete abides or remains (μένω; 1:32–33; 14:17). For an argument against reading the anointing of 1 John in light of the Fourth Gospel’s Paraclete texts, see Grayston, Epistles, 88. Cf. Wilckens, “Gegner,” 93.

156

1 John 2:18–27: Jesus is the Messiah

employed by early Christians (see Acts 2:16).97 It is likely that ὁ ψεύστης refers to a known entity, an eschatological deceiver or false prophet expected by the audience. Such an expectation may be found at Qumran, where several texts speak about “the man of the lie” who leads a mass apostasy.98 Similarly, in 2 Thess 2:9–11, the “man of lawlessness” performs deceiving signs and wonders (σημείοις καὶ τέρασιν ψεύδους) which lead those who do not love the “truth” (ἀλήθεια) to believe the “lie” (ψεῦδος).99 The author of 1 John, then, seems to be claiming that the “antichrist” and “liar” the audience has been taught to expect is in fact at work presently and that he may be identified by his denial that Jesus is the Messiah. 100

2. Proper Relation to the Father Depends upon Confession of the Son In 2:22b the author elaborates upon the antichrists’ denial. The liars and antichrists deny both the Father and the Son. From 2:23 it is clear that this claim is disputed; the author must argue for it. The antichrists themselves almost certainly would not have admitted to denying the Father. In their mind, they denied only that Jesus is the Christ, God’s Son. The author reasons that the opponents’ denial of the Son logically entails their denial of the Father, since in Johannine theology, it is the Father who has declared Jesus to be the Son and has set his seal upon 97

The same type of formula may be at work in 1 John 4:3 (τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου), which has the same subject matter as 2:22 and likewise alludes to the present fulfillment of a prophecy known by the audience. For a discussion of pesher interpretation at Qumran, see Bilha Nitzan, “The Pesher and Other Methods of Instruction,” in The Teacher of Righteousness: Literary Studies (ed. Zdzislaw J. Kapera; Kraków: Engima, 1993), 209–11; Fröhlich, Ida. “Caracteres formels des Pesharim de Qumran et la Litterature Apocalyptique,” in “Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden” (ed. Matthias Augustin and Klaus-Dietrich Schunk; BEATAJ 13. Frankfurt: Lang, 1988), 449–56; S. Berrin, “Qumran Pesharim,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (ed. M. Henze; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 110–33. 98 See CD 20.14–15; 1QpHab 2.1; 5.11; 10.9; 4QPs 37 1:17–19; 4:13–14. Such an expectation may have its roots in Dan 8:25; 11:23, which would have been read as referring to an eschatological opponent who deceives the nations as well as part of Israel. 99 A similar apocalyptic use of ψεῦδος terminology may be found in Rev 14:5; 21:27; 22:15. 100 Brown, Epistles, 351: “in each verse the author shows how the apocalyptic expectation is fulfilled in the secessionists of his own time.” Cf. Witherington, Letters, 489; Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 205. The same formula appears in 2 John 7, but there ὁ ψεύστης is replaced by ὁ πλάνος: οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ πλάνος καὶ ὁ ἀντίχριστος.

An Alternative: Jewish-Christian Apostates

157

Jesus, signifying this very fact (John 3:33; cf. 6:27). To deny that Jesus is the Son is therefore to declare the Father a liar (1 John 5:10), and even to “hate” the Father (John 15:24). Verse 23 continues this logic: if someone denies the Son, he does not “have” the Father either, and vice versa. The language of “having” (ἔχειν) has been shown by E. Malatesta to derive from Jewish covenantal thinking. 101 The author is thus saying that a proper covenantal relationship with God depends upon acceptance and acknowledgement of his messenger.

3. The Main Issue: Jesus’ Messiahship Verses 22–23 provide numerous reasons for believing that the central issue in the antichrist secession was Jesus’ messiahship. If this is the case, then the Johannine Epistles address substantially the same context and set of issues as the Fourth Gospel. The following points are especially significant: First, the confession in 1 John 2:22 that serves as the dividing line between the antichrist secessionists and the anointed believers contains exactly the same wording as the confession in John 20:31. There the author of the Fourth Gospel announces that his purpose in writing is to convince his readers that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.102 As in 101 Malatesta, Interiority, 204–206. Second Clement 2:3 is a helpful parallel, as it speaks of Jews who claim to “have God.” Brown, Epistles, 353, offers a plausible background in Exod 20:3, which commands the Israelites not to “have” any other gods. He also points to Num 18:20 and Deut 12:12, which describe Levi as “possessing” the Lord. Cf. Olsson, “History,” 39. 102 A long running debate has been conducted over the purpose statement in John 20:31. Four issues are involved. First, there is the text-critical question: does John 20:31 read ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται ἵνα πιστεύσητε (aorist) or ταῦτα δὲ γέγραπται ἵνα πιστεύητε (present)? Second, there is the question of whether the statement indicates that the Gospel is evangelistic, i.e., aimed at convincing unbelievers, or didactic, i.e., aimed at instructing believers and strengthening their faith. Third, there is the question of how the text-critical issue affects our understanding of the Gospel’s purpose. Fourth, there is the question of precisely what claim the statement ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ χριστός is making. The relevant arguments may be found in L. C. McGaughy, Towards a Descriptive Analysis of ΕΙΝΑΙ as a Linking Verb in New Testament Greek (SBLDS 6; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1972); E. V. N. Goetchius, “‘A Descriptive Analysis of ΕΙΝΑΙ’ by L. C. McGaughy,” JBL 95 (1976): 147–49; D. A. Carson, “The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: John 20.31 Reconsidered,” JBL 106 (1987): 639–51; Gordon D. Fee, “On the Text and Meaning of John 20.30–31,” in The Four Gospels (ed. F. Van Segbroeck, et al.; BETL 100; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 19923: 2193–2205; D. A. Carson, “Syntactical and Text-Critical Observations on John 20:30–31: One More Round on the Purpose of the Fourth Gospel,” JBL 124

158

1 John 2:18–27: Jesus is the Messiah

John 20:31, so also in 1 John 2:22–23 the author uses the titles Χριστός103 and ὁ υἱός (τοῦ θεοῦ) synonymously to refer to Israel’s eschatological (2005): 693–714; Gordon D. Fee, “The Use of the Definite Article with Personal Names in the Gospel of John,” NTS 17 (1970–71): 168–83. For our discussion, the fourth issue is the most important. Is John 20:31 claiming that “Jesus is the Christ” or that “the Christ is Jesus?” In other words, which term (Ἰησοῦς or ὁ χριστός) is the subject and which is the predicate? Generally, scholars have attempted to solve this debate on “objective” grammatical grounds by examining the use of articular nouns in copulative clauses. McGaughy found that in such clauses the articular noun is the subject and the anarthrous noun is the predicate (Analysis, 36–54). Thus, in John 20:31, “the Christ” should serve as the subject, while “Jesus” is the predicate. McGaughy himself, however, believed that John 20:31 (as well as 1 John 2:22; 4:15; 5:1, 5) was an exception to the rule (ibid., 51– 52). In his review of McGaughy’s work, E. Goetchius argued that McGaughy’s exception was no exception at all. He claimed McGaughy had been misled by the common translations of those texts. Carson, “Purpose,” 639–51, agreed with Goetchius, and argued that John 20:31 was attempting to answer the question, “Who is the Messiah?” rather than “Who is Jesus?” (cf. Carson, “Syntactical,” 695). G. Fee demurred, and argued that McGaughy was correct to make the exceptions he did, since John 20:31 involves a personal name (Jesus), and personal names are typically anarthrous in ὅτι clauses where the personal name precedes the verb. Thus the fact that Ἰησοῦς is anarthrous in John 20:31 is no reason to think that it cannot be the subject (see Fee, “Text,” 2205; Fee “Use,” 179). In my opinion, arguments from the grammar of the passage are not decisive. It is more helpful to realize, as Carson, “Syntactical,” 711–12, points out, that John presupposes a messianic concept and attempts to show that Jesus fits the “job description” of Messiah (while, of course, expanding the meaning of the term). 103 There can be no doubt that Χριστός in 2:22 is a title. First, its articular form will not allow any other interpretation. Second, the use of ὁ Χριστός in parallel with υἱός implies that Χριστός is not a personal name but a title. Third, the wordplay involving ἀντίχριστος, χρῖσμα, and Χριστός demonstrates that Χριστός still carries the significance, “anointed one.” Cf. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 100; Griffith, Keep, 173; Thyen, “Johannesbriefe,” 192; Okure, Approach, 250; Michael Wolter, “Die anonymen Schriften des Neues Testaments: Annäherungsversuch an ein literarisches Phänomen,” ZNW 79 (1988), 9; Rusam, Gemeinschaft, 184; W. Horbury, Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 103. Χριστός maintains its predominantly titular significance in the Fourth Gospel. This is made explicit by the author when he translates Μεσσίας twice as Χριστός (John 1:41; 4:25). See Griffith, Keep, 171. It is quite suprising, then, to find statements such as that of Whitacre, Polemic, 124, claiming that 1 John’s use of Χριστός is “distinctively Christian.” Grayston, Epistles, 78, claims that the messianic significance of Χριστός dominates in the Fourth Gospel, but 1 John 2:22 does not speak of Jesus’ messiahship. The titular use of Χριστός continues well into the second century. Melito’s Paschal Homily (ca. 170), for instance, uses the phrase Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστός (10), and later places the title ὁ Χριστός in parallel with ὁ βασιλεύς, ὁ στρατηγός, and ὁ κύριος. These appositive titles flesh out the meaning Melito assigns to the title and make it clear that the royal associations of the title did not fall away, even in the Hellenistic context where Melito ministered as bishop of Sardis. Justin Martyr also uses the

An Alternative: Jewish-Christian Apostates

159

deliverer expected on the basis of OT prophecy.104 Thus, the phrase “to confess/deny the Son” in 22b–23 is a shorthand summary of the articular form throughout his works to speak of Jesus’ messiahship (1 Apol. 49; 53; 54; 58; 63; Dial. 8.1; 32.2; 35.1; 39.3; 48.2; 108.1; 131.1; 142.2). Tertullian, Prax. 28, is early evidence that “Christ” in 1 John 2:22 (and 5:1) was interpreted as a title for at least a century after 1 John was written. For a different perspective, see Whitacre, Polemic, 124; Barry S. Crawford, “Christos as Nickname,” in Redescribing Christian Origins (ed. Ron Cameron and Merrill P. Miller; SBLSymS 28; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004), 337–48; M. de Jonge, “The Use of the Word ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ in the Johannine Epistles,” in Studies in John (ed. W. C. Van Unnik; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 71, who believes the title had by the time of 1 John lost its “Jewish” meaning. D. Moody Smith, “Epistles,” 377, argues that if Jesus’ messiahship is in view, we should expect μεσσίας rather than Χριστός, as the former is the preferred Johannine term. This is rather puzzling given a) the fact that the Fourth Gospel clearly prefers Χριστός to μεσσίας, b) the direct equivalence between the two in the Fourth Gospel in the two instances where μεσσίας is used, c) the numerous undisputedly titular uses of Χριστός at key junctures in the narrative and exposition of the Gospel. For broader treatments of the title Χριστός, see S. A. Cummins, “Divine Life and Corporate Christology: God, Messiah Jesus, and the Covenant Community in Paul,” in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments (ed. S. E. Porter; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 190–209; C. Blomberg, “Messiah in the New Testament,” in Israel’s Messiah in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Richard S. Hess and M. Daniel Carroll R.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 111–42. 104 In the OT, “Son (of God)” is used of the Israelite king in line with Ancient Near Eastern royal ideology. See esp. 2 Sam 7:14; Psalm 2:7, 12; 80:15; 89:26–27. Such a royal significance is widely attested at Qumran, as well. As noted above (p. 141), the title maintains its OT kingly connotations even in the Fourth Gospel. For example, Nathanael calls Jesus the “Son of God, the King of Israel” (John 1:49). In the trial narrative, the charge that Jesus claimed to be the “Son of God” (19:7) is paralleled by the accusation that he claimed to be “king of the Jews” (19:12, 21). In the Johannine Epistles, the title is used to draw out the familial aspects of Jesus’ relationship with God, and, derivatively, believers’ relationship as children of God through Jesus. See Lieu, Theology, 71; Griffith, Keep, 173; Strecker, Letters, 68; D. G. van der Merwe, “‘Having Fellowship with God’ According to 1 John: Dealing with the Intermediation and Environment Through Which and In Which It is Constituted,” in The Spirit That Moves: Orientation and Issues in Spirituality (ed. P. G. R. de Villiers, et al.; AcTSup 8; Bloemfontein: UFS, 2006), 165–92. In favor of the virtual interchangeability of the two titles “Christ” and “Son of God” is John 11:27, where the titles are used in tandem to refer to the expected figure who “comes into the world.” In John 10:24 Jesus is asked if he is the Messiah and he responds affirmatively that he is the Son of God (10:36). In the Johannine Epistles, see 1 John 1:3; 3:23; 5:1–5; 5:20; 2 John 3, 7, 9. Those who see the titles ὁ Χριστός and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ as basically synonymous in 1 John 2:22–23 include Erlemann, “Trennungsprozess,” 288; Jonge, “Use of the Word ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ,” 67–68; Lücke, Commentary, 289; Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 206; Neufeld, Confessions, 70–71; Brown, Epistles, 353; Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 234; Ashton, Understanding, 245; James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Enquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (London: SCM, 1989), 15, 47. Elsewhere in the NT, the same holds; cf. Matt 16:16; Mark 14:61; Acts 9:20–22.

160

1 John 2:18–27: Jesus is the Messiah

lengthier form in 22a: “to confess/deny that Jesus is the Christ.”105 Likewise, the child of God’s most basic confession may be stated in terms of believing that “Jesus is the Messiah” (1 John 5:1), and only a few verses later restated in terms of believing that “Jesus is the Son of God” (5:5). By shifting from one title to the other the author emphasizes the filial relationship between God and the Messiah and thereby demonstrates that confessing Jesus as the Messiah is a sine qua non for a relationship with God.106 It is now widely recognized that the messiahship of Jesus is the central issue in the Fourth Gospel.107 As J. L. Martyn states, “both for

Often the title “Son of God” is thought to carry a higher Christological significance than “Messiah.” See, e.g., Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 206; Griffith, Keep, 174; Schnackenburg, Epistles, 145. It is certainly the case (as stated above) that “Son” indicates a close relationship between the Son and the Father, and thus focuses on a slightly different aspect of messiahship than “Messiah,” which is perhaps a more general term. But, it is difficult to demonstrate that the language of sonship has clearly taken on metaphysical notions of divinity by the time of the Johannine literature, or that the title “Son of God” primarily denotes Jesus’ divinity. See above, p. 141, where this issue is discussed in conjunction with the argument that the opponents were Ebionite. For extensive discussion of the title “Son of God,” see most recently Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), where the human messianic significance of the title is defended at length. On the use of the title at Qumran, see W. Grundmann, “Die Frage nach der Gottessohnschaft des Messias im Lichte von Qumran,” in Bibel und Qumran: Beiträge zur Erforschung der Beziehungen zwischen Bibel- und Qumranwissenschaft (ed. S. Wagner; Berlin: Evangelische Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft, 1968), 86–111. For an examination of the way the title becomes extended to believers in 1 John, see Rusam, Gemeinschaft. 105 Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 234; Brown, Epistles, 353. Contra Schnackenburg, Epistles, 145, who believes that the shift to “Son” indicates a “decisive…shift from the Jewish concept of Messiah.” 106 This thought is probably drawn from the words of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, but it also has a background in Psalm 2:7, 12, where honoring the Son determines one’s fate before the Lord. 107 It is the main issue in John 1:42, 46, 50, 52; 4:25–26, 29, 39, 42; 6:6; 9:26, 27, 31, 41, 42, 9:22, 9:35; 11:27; 12:13–16. See, e.g., Rudolf Schnackenburg, “Die Messiasfrage im Johannesevangelium,” in Neutestamentliche Aufsätze (ed. J. Blinzler, O. Kuss, F. Mussner; Regensburg: Pustet, 1963), 240–64, who argues that Jesus’ messianic identity is the central question of John, and notes that “Christ” is used as a title 15x in the Fourth Gospel “to refer to the Jewish (or Samaritan, 4:25, 29) expectation of the salvation bringer” (240). Cf. M. de Jonge “Christology, Controversy and Community in the Gospel of John,” in Christology, Controversy and Community: New Testament Essays in Honour of David R. Catchpole (ed. David G. Horrell and Christopher M. Tuckett; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 216; Wilckens, “Gegner,” 97; Wurm, Irrlehrer, 26. Dodd, Epistles, 58, calls the confession of Jesus as Messiah “the

An Alternative: Jewish-Christian Apostates

161

John and for his conversation partners in the synagogue, the technical issue of Jesus’ messiahship is of paramount importance.”108 In John the recognition of Jesus as the Messiah is the path to eternal life (17:3; 20:31) as well as the road to expulsion from the synagogue (9:22). Most, however, are convinced that the situation has changed by the time of 1 John. The community’s interaction and debate with the synagogue has ended, and the community has turned its attention away from the messianic identity of Jesus, as intramural struggles over the nuances of Christology now threaten to tear the fellowship apart.109 First John 2:22–23 militates strongly against such a notion.110 It indicates that 1 John was written at a time when debate over Jesus’ messiahship was still very much alive. Indeed, it is difficult to find any book of the NT which does not reflect a continuing emphasis on Jesus’ messianic status. Even the latest writings of the NT frequently employ traditional messianic titles and prooftexts; the struggle with the synagogue and the threat of governmental persecution fueled by that struggle continue. Debate with the synagogue over messianic expectations continued apace well into the second century, if Justin Martyr’s writings are any indication. He engages Trypho at length over messianic prophecy and—most important for my purposes—remarks that some Jews “have confessed and known this man to be Messiah” yet “have gone back for presupposition of all Christian doctrine, namely, the fundamental content of the Gospel.” 108 Martyn, History, 92; cf. p. 91: “the issue of Jesus’ messiahship stands at the center of the synagogue-church discussion. Indeed the more we read John’s Gospel with this issue in mind, the more obvious it is that the title ‘Messiah’ occupies an important place in the whole of John’s thought.” 109 Regarding the confession in 1 John 2:22, Law, Tests, 93, writes: “here the assertion or denial that Jesus is the Christ has no relation to the early controversy regarding the Messiahship of Jesus in the Jewish sense, a controversy which now could possess little more than an antiquarian interest.” Cf. Burge, Letters, 129; Whitacre, Polemic, 125; Brown, Epistles, 352; Grayston, Epistles, 78. Most of those who deny the messianic meaning of 1 John 2:22 do so because they presuppose that the opponents are still claiming to be Christians and could not therefore deny the basic Christian confession. D. Rensberger acknowledges that 1 John 2:22 is a very “awkward way” (1 John, 80) to refute docetic or Cerinthian opponents, but concludes that must be the purpose, since “It is hard to imagine Christians in the Johannine tradition saying, ‘Jesus is not the Messiah’” (ibid., 81). 110 Those who believe that 1 John 2:22–23 addresses the messianic question include Neufeld, Confessions, 88, 94, 101–102, 106; Donelson, Hebrews to Revelation, 117; Stegemann, “Kindlein,” 292–93; Thyen, “Johannesbriefe,” 191–92; Rusam, Gemeinschaft, 192; Lampe, “Grievous Wolves,” 262; Witherington, Letters, 486; Anderson, “Sitz im Leben,” 46–47.

162

1 John 2:18–27: Jesus is the Messiah

some reason to the legal dispensation, and have denied that this one is Messiah” (Dial. 47.4).111 There is therefore no reason to presume that the Johannine churches did not suffer the loss of members who reneged upon their original confession and returned to the relative security of the synagogue. Given the very basic and fundamental nature of the confession in 2:22, not only in the Johannine literature but in every strand of early Christianity, it is inconceivable that its meaning could shift so dramatically without any clear statement to that effect. 112 Second, the dramatic way the confession is presented in 1 John 2:18–27 as the crucial issue in the apocalyptic-eschatological struggle between truth and falsehood, believers and antichrists, shows that what is at stake is the community’s most central belief, not a peripheral issue dealing with the details of the hypostatic union. At the heart of the controversy is the very confession that has created and presently defines the community. The very fact that our passage uses the language of confessing and denying (ὁμολογέω/ἀρνέομαι) suggests that it preserves a fixed traditional formula, a succinct summary of the faith, which one might be required to affirm publicly for membership

111 τοὺς δὲ ὁμολογήσαντας καὶ ἐπιγνόντας τοῦτον εἶναι τὸν Χριστὸν καὶ ᾑτινιοῦν αἰτίᾳ μεταβάντας ἐπὶ τὴν ἔννομον πολιτείαν, ἀρνησαμένους ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, καὶ πρὶν τελευτῆς μὴ μεταγνόντας, οὐδ᾿ ὅλως σωθήσεσθαι ἀποφαίνομαι. Cf. Neufeld, Confessions, 87–88. See also 1 Apol. 35, which uses a phrase almost identical to that in 1 John 2:22 to speak of Jews “speaking against him and claiming that he [Jesus] was not the Messiah” (ἀντιλεγόντων αὐτῷ καὶ φασκόντων μὴ εἶναι αὐτὸν Χριστόν). In Dial. 68.16, Justin claims that many Jews acknowledge that the Scriptures speak of a Messiah who was to suffer and be worshipped as divine, but they “assert that this man [Jesus] is not the Christ” (τοῦτον δὲ μὴ εἶναι τὸν Χριστὸν τολμῶσι λέγειν); cf. Dial. 89.1, where a suffering Messiah is conceded by Trypho. From numerous passages in Justin, it is evident that the basic confession of a Jew who embraced Christianity continued to be that “Jesus is the Messiah.” See Dial. 95.1: “If you repent of your sins and recognize him as the Messiah…” (εἰ μὲν οὖν μετανοοῦντες ἐπὶ τοῖς ἡμαρτημένοις καὶ ἐπιγνόντες τοῦτον εἶναι τὸν Χριστόν); Dial. 39.3: “You perhaps hesitate to confess that Jesus is the Christ, as the Scriptures demonstrate” (ὑμεῖς δὲ ἴσως καὶ διὰ τοῦτο διστάζετε ὁμολογῆσαι ὅτι οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, ὡς αἱ γραφαὶ ἀποδεικνύουσι). In Dial. 16.1 he speaks of synagogue Jews cursing those who believe in the Messiah. In Dial. 131.1, Justin describes the tortures suffered by Christians who refuse to deny the Messiah. In 1 Apol. 31, he relates how during the Bar Kochba rebellion, Simon Bar Kochba ordered Christians to be tortured unless they would deny that Jesus was the Messiah (εἰ μὴ ἀρνοῖντο Ἰησοῦν τὸν Χριστὸν καὶ βλασφημοῖεν). For the language of confessing and denying Jesus as Messiah, see 1 Apol. 11.1; Dial. 9.1; 39.3. 112 For a similar point, see Thyen, “Johannesbriefe,” 191; Wurm, Irrlehrer, 51.

An Alternative: Jewish-Christian Apostates

163

in the community,113 or be asked to deny in the context of persecution.114 In short, the confession is the boundary marker of the Johannine community and its litmus test for teachers. As such, it is

113 It seems plausible to suppose that such a confession would be made by initiates at their baptism. Cf. Lieu, Theology, 71: “the fundamental confession made at baptism and elsewhere”; Brown, Epistles, 352: “a Johannine initiation/baptismal formula.” I see no reason to limit such a confession to Johannine circles, especially in light of passages such as Acts 5:42; 9:20–22; 17:3; 18:5, 28. 114 The use of ὁμολογέω and ἀρνέομαι in 1 John 2:22–23 hints at the possibility that 1 John envisions a context of persecution and a possible threat of martyrdom. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 110, notes the use of the same terms in Heb 13:15 and 1 Pet 4:16, both of which likely have persecution as their context. Dodd, Epistles, xxxix, 56, notes the verbal echoes of Jesus’ synoptic sayings, which promise that a person’s public confession or denial of Jesus in situations of persecution will result in Jesus’ confession or denial of that person before the Father (Mark 8:38; Matt 10:32–33; Luke 9:26; 12:8–9). He notes that 1 John 2:22–23 contains the same idea that confession of Jesus is the grounds for approval from God. Similarly, Jesus promises that he will be “ashamed” of those who deny him, and 1 John 2:28 echoes the thought, reminding the audience that those who remain faithful will not be “ashamed” at Jesus’ coming. In the Fourth Gospel, John the Baptist is the model “confessor.” When interrogated by the authorities, he confesses and does not deny (John 1:20; cf. Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 161). John 9:22 also speaks of the persecution attending the confession of Jesus, as do 12:42 and 16:2. On the more general topic of Roman persecution of the Johannine communities, see Warren Carter, John and Empire: Initial Explorations (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2008). M. Edwards, “Martyrdom and the First Epistle of John,” NovT 31 (1989), 166, perhaps overstates his case a bit when he asserts that “there can be little doubt” that the secessionists of 1 John 2:19 “were men who had failed the trial of martyrdom.” Edwards believes that Revelation is the NT writing closest in setting to 1 John. He understands the use of νίκη and νικάω in 1 John to refer to legal trials (ibid., 166–70). A reference to martyrdom could possibly be discerned in 1 John 3:16, which speaks of laying down one’s life for his brothers— the same thing Jesus is said to have done in his death (John 10:11, 15, 17; in 13:37–38, martyrdom is contrasted with denial of Jesus). In the same vein, J. Chapman, “The Historical Setting of the Second and Third Epistles of St. John,” JTS 5 (1904), 358, theorized that those who “went out for the sake of the name” in 3 John 7 were fleeing Roman persecution under Nero and were thus in need of hospitality from fellow Christians. Stegemann, “Kindlein,” 284–94, believes that 1 John addresses a situation where Johannine Christians have denied Jesus under Roman persecution and have subsequently engaged in pagan idolatry (cf. 1 John 5:21). Cf. Thyen, “Johannesbriefe,” 192; Wengst, Häresie, 225. Erlemann, “Trennungsprozess,” 290, favors a context of Jewish persecution, but a firm distinction between synagogue and Roman persecution is hard to maintain, since the NT portrays synagogues as handing over Christians to the Roman authorities. Neufeld, Confessions, 63, compares the setting to that depicted in Mart. Pol. 8.2; 9.2, where Polycarp is ordered by the Romans to curse Jesus. He also references Pliny’s letter to Trajan (Ep. 10.96), which speaks of demanding Christians to curse (maledicere) Christ. Lieu, I, II, & III John, 105, on the other hand is not convinced that the letter contains even a “hint” that the community was experiencing persecution.

164

1 John 2:18–27: Jesus is the Messiah

unlikely that it would take on a meaning in 1 John different from that which it carried in the Fourth Gospel.115 Third, the argument of 1 John 2:22b–23 implies that the “antichrists” who deny that Jesus is the Messiah would claim to “have the Father.” This would suggest that such “antichrists” are Jews who understand themselves to be in a proper relationship with God, despite their rejection of Jesus as Messiah. 116 The same argument is used by Jesus in his dispute with Jews who claim to “have God” as their Father (John 8:41).117 Jesus replies that if they had God as their Father, they would love the one sent by God, namely Jesus (John 8:42; cf. 15:23). By virtue of their rejection of Jesus, they are shown to be “liars” (ψεῦσται, cf. John 8:44, 55) who have believed the “lie” of the Devil. These are the same terms (ψεύστης/ψεῦδος) 1 John 2:21–22 uses to describe the “antichrists” and their denial of Jesus’ messiahship. The same type of logic is used frequently throughout the Fourth Gospel to show that the Jewish claim of faithfulness to God is disproved by rejection of Jesus, God’s Son. Thus, Jesus tells the Jews that because they do not acknowledge him, they do not know the Father (John 8:19). Because

115 As I have noted, most commentators recognize this fact. On the basis of 1 John 4:2–3 and 5:6, however, they argue that the author is using the community’s basic statement of faith as a smokescreen to cloud the real issue, which is docetism, separation Christology, or a devaluation of Jesus’ ministry or redemptive death. See, e.g., Brown, Epistles, 355, who believes that the “secessionist interpretation of this confession is tantamount to a denial.” Cf. Strecker, Letters, 68; Uebele, Verführer, 136– 37; Boer, “Jesus the Baptizer,” 88; Sloyan, Walking, 27; E. Haenchen, “Neuere Literatur zu den Johannesbriefen,” TRu 26 (1960), 274, admits that the formula is ancient and primitive but believes it has been transformed to combat Gnosticism. Rensberger, 1 John, 23, writes, “Both the author and his opponents were reinterpreting Johannine tradition in a new situation, and these passages may be appealing to the central confessional statements of that tradition in order to accuse the opponents of contradicting these statements rather than reporting what the opponents themselves actually said.…By presenting the opponents’ devaluation of Jesus’ humanity as a rejection of the classical Johannine confession of Christ, 1 John can declare it a lie ipso facto.” See above, p. 137, for discussion. 116 See Casey, Prophet, 158; Thyen, “Johannesbriefe,” 194; Griffith, Keep, 174; Okure, Approach, 249; Erlemann, “Trennungsprozess,” 288. As I noted above, 2 Clem. 2:3 shows that such a description may have been a common Christian way to refer polemically to Jews. “Clement” writes, “We believers have now become more numerous than those who think they have God” (νυνὶ δὲ πιστεύσαντες πλείονες ἐγενόμεθα τῶν δοκούντων ἔχειν θεόν). 117 See Schmid, Gegner, 110–11, for a discussion of the Fourth Gospel as a subtext for this passage. See also Matt 3:9; Luke 3:8, where John the Baptist anticipates a possible objection to his baptism on the grounds that Jews “have” Abraham as their “father.”

An Alternative: Jewish-Christian Apostates

165

they do not honor him, they do not honor the Father (5:23). 118 He is the only way to the Father (John 14:6).119 Along the same lines, the Fourth Gospel depicts certain individuals who believe in Jesus and follow him for a little while, but eventually turn back for one reason or another. These “apostates” are described in the same terms used of the secessionists in the Johannine Epistles. “Many”of them “go away” when Jesus’ teachings become too difficult.120 They do not truly believe from the beginning (John 6:64), perhaps because they do not have the anointing of the Spirit (6:63). They refuse to “confess” Jesus because they are afraid of being put out of the synagogue (12:41). Although they initially believe, they do not abide in the word Jesus speaks to them (8:31).121 The most prominent example of an apostate in the Fourth Gospel is, of course, Judas Iscariot. The description of 1 John’s secessionists echoes several aspects of Judas’s portrait in the Fourth Gospel.122 Although Judas was originally part of Jesus’ select band of disciples,

118 Other passages in the Fourth Gospel that contain the same thought include: John 3:36; 5:23, 39–47; 6:29, 40; 7:16–17; 8:19, 55; 12:44; 14:7, 20, 23; 16:3; 17:2–3. 119 Those who believe the polemic of the Johannine Epistles has been modeled upon the anti-Jewish polemic in the Fourth Gospel include Perkins, Epistles, 4–5, 35–36; Witherington, Letters, 526; Kügler, “Tat und Wahrheit,” 82–85; Neufeld, Reconceiving, 96–132; Rensberger, 1 John, 81; Wolfgang Trilling, “Gegner Jesu - Widersacher der Gemeinde - Repräsentanten der ‘Welt.’ Das Johannesevangelium und die Juden,” in Studien zur Jesusüberlieferung (SBAB 1; Stuttgart: Katholische Bibelwerk, 1988), 209– 31; Witetschek, “Pappkameraden,” 530; Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 161; Thyen, “Johannesbriefe,” 191. 120 John 6:66, ἀπέρχομαι. A synonym (ὑπάγω) is used in 6:67. 121 Cf. 1 John 2:24. 122 See especially Wurm, Irrlehrer, 4; Strecker, Letters, 64; Klauck, “Internal,” 61; Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 154; Alan Culpepper, The Anatomy of John (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 125; Houlden, Epistles, 78; Grayston, Epistles, 80; Witetschek, “Pappkameraden,” 530; M. W. Martin, “Judas the Secessionist: Reading Johannine Syncrisis in its Mediterranean Milieu” (Ph.D. diss., Baylor University, 2005). See Griffith, “Non-Polemical,” 273, for a helpful list of parallels. Wolfgang Langbrandtner, Weltferner Gott oder Gott der Liebe. Der Ketzerstreit in der johanneischen Kirche. Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung mit Berücksichtigung der koptisch-gnostischen Texte aus Nag-Hammadi (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1977), 375, believes that a later redactor of the Fourth Gospel portrayed Judas this way under the influence of the community’s struggle with the apostates. Further parallels with Judas may be found if 1 John 3’s description of the lawless children of the devil is understood to refer to the secessionists. Judas is described as a devil (John 6:70; 13:18) who effectively murders Jesus. The author may view Judas’s apostasy as an example of the “sin unto death.” See below, p. 254, for a parallel between Judas and the antichrists of 1 John 4:1–6.

166

1 John 2:18–27: Jesus is the Messiah

Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas would betray him.123 The manifestation of Judas’s true character came on the night of Jesus’ last supper when Judas “went out” (ἐξῆλθεν) to betray Jesus.124 Judas is later called “the son of destruction” (ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας, 17:12), a title used elsewhere in the NT by Paul to refer to the coming antichrist figure (2 Thess 2:3).125 The fact that 1 John uses the same polemical language and arguments against the secessionists that the Fourth Gospel used against Judas and the Jews who rejected Jesus as Messiah strongly suggests that both 1 John and the Fourth Gospel address the same situation (tension or competition with the Jewish synagogue) and the same key issue (Jesus’ messiahship).126

E. Maintaining the Original Message (vv. 24–25) In v. 24, the author urges the audience to do the opposite of the antichrist secessionists.127 While the antichrists renounced their initial confession and departed from the community, the audience must

123 See John 6:70, which describes Judas as being ἐξ ὑμῶν, in reference to the Twelve; cf. also 13:21. The same type of language is used to describe the secessionists in 1 John 2:19 who were ἐξ ἡμῶν in one sense, but not in another. 124 John 13:30–31; see the same term in 1 John 2:19. This connection is made by Origen, Comm. Joh. 32.301. 125 On the use of the title in John 17:3, see Peerbolte, Antecedents, 76; C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (2nd ed; London: SPCK, 1978), 508; Alfred Loisy, Le Quatrième Êvangile: Les Épitres dites de Jean (Paris: Nourry, 1903), 546; W. Sproston, “Satan in the Fourth Gospel,” in Studia Biblica 1978. Vol. 2: Papers on the Gospels (ed. E. A. Livingstone; JSNTSup 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1980), 307–11; U. Von Wahlde, “Judas, the Son of Perdition, and the Fulfillment of Scripture in John 17:12,” in The New Testament and Early Christian Literature in Greco-Roman Context: Studies in Honor of David E. Aune (NovTSup 122; ed. John Fotopoulos; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 167–82. The title is later used of Satan himself in Gos. Nic. 20. 126 Of course, this is not a conclusive proof. First John could simply be recycling the polemic of the Fourth Gospel and applying it to new opponents. See, e.g. Wisse, “Use,” 185; Olsson, “History,” 33; Brown, Epistles, 92–93. Lieu, Theology, 100, asserts, “1 John uses against internal enemies language which in the Gospel is used of those outside, chiefly the Jews.” Cf. Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 36, who writes, “Zugeben wird man, daß der Brief beim Angriff auf die Gegner Klischees reaktiviert, die im Evangelium eine antijüdische Zuspitzung tragen, aber man darf sich von dieser Neuverwendung älteren Materials nicht täuschen lassen.” The simpler explanation, though, is that the opponents are the same or very similar and thus a natural fit for such polemic. 127 The fronting of ὑμεῖς emphasizes the contrast of the audience with the antichrists. The NASB’s translation, “As for you,” captures the transition nicely.

An Alternative: Jewish-Christian Apostates

167

ensure that the message they heard from the beginning continues to be at the center of its communal existence. 128 The author uses the key word μένω three times in this verse.129 The word’s broad semantic range is exploited by the author to describe several distinct aspects of Christian existence under the same rubric.130 Thus it can be used to describe realities that “dwell” in believers, such as the anointing, the seed, love, life, the word of God, or even God himself.131 It can also be used to indicate the permanence of eternal life,132 the perseverance required of believers,133 or simply the relationship that believers have with Jesus and God.134 In our passage, the logical connection between these various senses becomes evident. If believers maintain their participation in the community, and correlatively maintain the presence of and obedience to the original message in/among themselves, it will ensure their relationship with the Son and the Father, which will in turn ensure that they will remain, or live, forever and not be ashamed at Jesus’ coming.

1. The Nature of the Message The nature of the “message heard from the beginning” (ὃ ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς) can be discerned from the context. The letter opens with a reference to “that which was from the beginning, that which we have heard” (ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, ὃ ἀκηκόαμεν, 1:1). It is a “message” (ἀγγελία) about “the word of life” (περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς, 1:1). The message forms the content of the author’s witness (1:2). Reception of the message brings “fellowship” (κοινωνία) with the Father and the Son (1:4). In 2:22–23 we find a more specific description: the message 128 The third person imperative μενέτω is to be taken as an instruction to the audience to hold onto the message and not to forsake it. It is not clear whether ἐν ὑμῖν speaks of the message dwelling in each individual or the community as a whole. A choice between the two may not be necessary. At the very least, it must be acknowledged that maintaining the message has a distinctly communal aspect, so that to fail to remain in the community, as the antichrists have done (2:19), is to fail to maintain the message as well as to fail to maintain fellowship with the Father and the Son (2:24). 129 It appears 24x in 1 John as a whole, and 7x in the present section (2:18–28). 130 The same may be said of the author’s use of τηρέω. 131 First John 2:14, 24; 3:9, 17; 4:12–13. 132 First John 2:17. 133 First John 2:19, 28. 134 First John 2:6, 10, 24, 27; 3:6, 14, 24; 4:13, 16. In this sense μένω in 2:24 is equivalent to ἔχω in 2:23.

168

1 John 2:18–27: Jesus is the Messiah

which the audience must maintain and continue to believe if it wishes to have continued fellowship is the basic confession that Jesus is the Messiah, God’s Son.135 To neglect or reject this message is to cut off fellowship with God and his Son. Verse 25 fleshes out the meaning of the confession: to confess that Jesus is the Messiah is to acknowledge that he is the bringer of unending eschatological life (ζωὴ αἰώνιος). The original ἀγγελία can thus be characterized also as ἐπαγγελία.136

2. The Beginning What is the “beginning” the author refers to? At the very least it must speak of the audience’s initial encounter with the message, since they are said to have “heard from the beginning” (2:24).137 Elsewhere the author uses the same phrase as he reminds the audience of the love commandment, which also seems to have been part of that initial message (2:7; 3:11; 2 John 5–6).138 The way the author characterizes the essential message as having been heard by the audience “from the beginning” lends support to my contention that the central issue in the secession was the claim of Jesus’ messiahship, not a newly developed theory about the interplay of Jesus’ two natures, the metaphysical 135 See Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 111. 136 See Brown, Epistles, 357–58, for discussion of αὕτη and whether it refers forward or backward. I take it to refer backwards (in a constructio ad sensum) to the message heard from the beginning, and forward to ζωή, with which it agrees grammatically, and which provides the content of the promise. 137 First John 2:13–14 may also refer to the message heard from the beginning. The “fathers” are told, ἐγνώκατε τὸν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς. The grammatical referent of τόν could be either Jesus (who is referred to in 2:12), or the message (λόγος), which is referred to in 2:14. 138 In some places, ἀρχή must denote the beginning of creation itself, since the devil is said to have sinned ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς (3:8; cf. John 8:44). John 1:1–2 also uses the term in this sense. It is possible that the author envisions the community’s ἀρχή as coterminous with the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. Such a usage is attested in John 8:25, where Jesus tells the “Jews” that he has spoken clearly about his identity from the beginning (τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅ τι καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν). The grammar of the passage is disputed, but τὴν ἀρχὴν is generally taken as a temporal adverbial accusative, yielding a sense close to that of ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς. See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 200–201; Chrys C. Caragounis, “What Did Jesus Mean by τὴν ἀρχὴν in John 8:25?” NovT 49 (2007): 129–47. The same idea appears in John 16:4, where Jesus prefaces his instruction about the Paraclete by noting that he did not tell his disciples these things ἐξ ἀρχῆς. In both John 8:25 and 16:4, Jesus’ baptism by John is the likely referent for ἀρχή, since it is the first time in the Fourth Gospel that Jesus is designated Messiah and Son of God, and it is also the point at which Jesus’ disciples begin to follow him.

An Alternative: Jewish-Christian Apostates

169

makeup of his body, or the precise redemptive relationship between his baptism and death.139 The secessionists’ error, as the author describes it, is the abandonment and rejection of the original message altogether.140

F. Further Reassurance (vv. 26–27) In v. 26, the author explicitly announces his motivation for speaking of the anointing and the necessity of abiding. It is the manifestation of the antichrists that has occasioned his discussion of these topics.141 The author describes the antichrists here as οἱ πλανῶντες, which ties into the motif of eschatological deceit employed in vv. 21–22.142 It also indicates that although the apostasy is depicted as a past event in v. 19, pressure to leave the community has not ceased. This is congruent with my proposed context for the letter. Jews who had confessed Jesus as Messiah would have been under constant social, economic, political, and theological pressure to turn back from their decision. We know from 1 John 4:1–6 that one form in which such pressure might occur would be visitors whom the author characterizes as “false prophets” inspired by the “spirit of deceit.”

139 John 8:30–31 is an intertext for 1 John 2:24–25. There Jesus cautions the Jews who had believed in him that their temporary faith would not suffice; they must remain (μένω) in his word to be true disciples. The response of the Jews, who proved themselves to be children of the devil by attempting to kill Jesus, is paralleled by the actions of the antichrists, who have denied Jesus after initially believing in him. The promise of eternal life in 1 John 2:25 may be found in John 8:51, which states that those who keep Jesus’ word will never see death. The crucial aspect stressed in both 1 John 2 and John 8 is continuation in faith and obedience to Jesus’ word. The way that the rhetoric and theology of John 8 has been recycled for use in the secessionist crisis suggests that the antichrists have repeated the error of the Jews in John 8: initial faith in Jesus followed by denial, apostasy, and opposition. 140 See Schmid, “Tradition,” 503–17, for a text-pragmatic discussion of the argument from tradition. 141 ἔγραψα is best taken as an epistolary aorist referring to the immediately preceding verses. See Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 201. There is a slim possibility, however, that it could refer to the letter of 2 John, which discusses the antichrists and calls them πλάνοι (2 John 6), just as the author here designates them οἱ πλανῶντες. On the question of the order in which the Epistles were written, see below, p. 338. 142 See Brown, Epistles, 358–59; Meeks, Prophet-King, 47–55. Cf. also Mark 13:6; 2 Tim 3:13; Rev 12:9; Did. 16:4. The verb is conative; it does not necessarily indicate that the deceptive actions of the antichrists have been successful, only that they have been attempted. This is reflected in most translations: “trying to lead you astray” (NIV); “trying to deceive you” (NASB), “those who want to lead you astray” (NLT).

170

1 John 2:18–27: Jesus is the Messiah

The author is confident, however, that the audience will remain in the teaching. In v. 27, he explains the basis for his confidence. Repeating much of what he said in vv. 20–21, he reminds the audience that the anointing they have received from Jesus (or the Father) is dwelling in them and providing them with the knowledge and discernment they need for this situation. The anointing has instructed them, and instead of being deceived by the antichrists, the audience continues to remain faithfully obedient to Jesus.143 It is probable that 1 John is here (and in 2:20)144 alluding back to the new covenant promise of Jeremiah 31. In 2:20, if πάντες is the correct reading, there is a virtual quote of Jer 31:34 (38:34 LXX), which promises that in the new covenant all Israel will know God (πάντες εἰδήσουσίν με) by virtue of having the Torah internalized. Because of this shared knowledge, Israel will no longer need mediatorial teachers, such as the Levitical priests: καὶ οὐ μὴ διδάξωσιν ἕκαστος τὸν πολίτην αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕκαστος τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ λέγων γνῶθι τὸν κύριον ὅτι πάντες εἰδήσουσίν με ἀπὸ μικροῦ αὐτῶν καὶ ἕως μεγάλου αὐτῶν.

First John 2:27 evidently equates Jeremiah’s prophesied internalization of the Torah with the community’s reception of the anointing, and thus draws the conclusion that, in light of the anointing, the community has no need for a teacher. When 1 John 2:27 states that the anointing teaches περὶ πάντων, it does not mean that it has granted the audience omniscience. The scope of περὶ πάντων is limited both by the allusion to Jeremiah 31:34 and by the immediate context. The immediate context suggests that περὶ πάντων should perhaps be taken to refer to “all these things,” namely the antichrists and their deception; i.e., the anointing has alerted the audience to the nature of the antichrists. In the same vein, the allusion to Jeremiah 31:34 indicates that περὶ πάντων has in view the knowledge necessary for initiation and maintenance of the covenant 143 The verb ἐδίδαξεν in 2:27 may have as its assumed subject either Jesus or the anointing. Either subject yields essentially the same meaning, since the function of the Spirit-Paraclete in John is to teach and remind believers of Jesus’ own teaching. More important is the question of whether μένετε in 2:27 should be construed indicatively or imperativally. In favor of the indicative reading, note that the context of the verse is reassurance. The author is confident that his audience does not need anyone to teach them because they have the anointing and continue to remain in Jesus. In addition, the same verb in 2:28 is clearly imperative and would constitute a very awkward repetition if it were also imperative in 2:27. See the discussion in Brown, Epistles, 361. 144 See above, p. 153.

Conclusion

171

relationship.145 The deceivers of 1 John cannot teach the audience how to relate properly to God because they have rejected the central element of that relationship, namely belief in Jesus as Messiah.

G. Summary In 1 John 2:18–27, the author attempts to reassure his audience in the wake of a recent apostasy. In order to do so, he places the apostasy in eschatological perspective and identifies those who have left the community as participants in the eschatological rebellion. This rebellion, he reminds the audience, was not unexpected, for the audience has been previously taught about antichrist and his coming. At the heart of the antichrist’s deception, the author explains, is the denial of Jesus’ messiahship, which entails the rejection of God the Father. The audience is reassured that the apostasy happened, in part, to make it clear who really belonged to the community. As those who have remained, the audience may be assured of their standing. They have the anointing and the discernment to survive the last days’ trial. They have a proper relationship with God and Jesus, and therefore possess the promise of eternal life. Unlike the antichrists, the audience should maintain its confession of Jesus and continue its obedience to his commandments.

III. Conclusion In this chapter, I addressed 1 John 2:18–27, the first passage in the Letter explicitly to mention the opponents. I surveyed the four major views of how the teachings of the “antichrists” should be understood in light of 1 John 2:18–27, especially v. 22, which describes the antichrists as denying that “Jesus is the Christ.” Each of the interpretations surveyed had weaknesses that pointed to the need for a different explanation. I proposed that 1 John 2:22 should be taken to mean that the antichrists denied Jesus’ messiahship. Their departure from the community, mentioned in 2:19, was not a sectarian schism but a clear and intentional rejection of their initial confession of Jesus,

145 That is, the “teaching about the Messiah,” as it is called in a similar context in 2 John 9–10.

172

1 John 2:18–27: Jesus is the Messiah

accompanied by a return to the synagogue.146 In favor of this interpretation, I noted the following points: 1) The main point of the Fourth Gospel is that Jesus is the Messiah. Since 1 John 2:22 contains an identical statement, it is best to read it as reiterating this foundational claim, and to understand the antichrists as having repudiated this basic confession. 2) The rhetoric of 1 John 2:23 makes most sense if it is aimed at Jews who are claiming to have a proper relationship with God as Father, while rejecting Jesus’ messianic sonship. 3) The author’s appeal to the anointing and the message heard from the beginning indicate that the dispute with the secessionists centered on a rejection of the community’s basic teaching and not a doctrinal innovation. 4) The way the opponents are described in terms that evoke Judas and the Jews of the Fourth Gospel suggests that the opponents have committed the same sin as the Jews: rejecting Jesus’ messiahship. 5) The apocalyptic rhetoric of the passage shows that the author believed the secessionists had engaged in a full-scale rejection of the community’s message, not just an heretical modification of a nuanced Christological doctrine.

146 Again, I wish to emphasize how anachronistic our language is in describing these phenomena. As I understand the situation, the Johannine communities would have been viewed by the majority of Jews as sectarian synagogues, while the Johannine community itself would have seen the majority of synagogues as apostates from the faith of Israel.

Chapter 4

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh The second passage that provides a basis for every historical reconstruction of the opponents and their views is 1 John 4:1–6. This passage raises several issues that occupy interpreters and play a central role in how the opponents are imagined. The major questions have to do with the confessional criterion offered in 4:2–3 by which the audience may test the spirits. The spirit from God, the author writes, confesses Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα (4:2). How should the grammar of the confession be construed?1 What is the subject and what is the predicate in the sentence? There are four possibilities: 1) Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν can be taken as a personal name. What is to be confessed about him is that he has come in the flesh. Thus we may translate, “confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.” 2) Χριστόν can be taken as part of the predicate, so that one would “confess that Jesus is the Christ having come in the flesh.” 3) Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα can be taken as a twopart predicate so that “Jesus” is confessed both as the “Christ” and as “having come in the flesh.” 4) Some scholars propose that the focus is on confessing Jesus as such, not on any specific description of him. Thus, one must confess “Jesus-Christ-having-come-in-the-flesh.” It is difficult, though, to see how such a rendering differs substantially from the first three options. Even if the confession is translated this way, the confession must still contain some kind of predicative relationship between the three constituent parts of the confession: Ἰησοῦν, Χριστόν and ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα. Therefore, the fourth proposal is not a helpful solution.

1

For discussions of possible renderings, see Neufeld, Reconceiving, 117; Brown, Epistles, 492–93; Westcott, Epistles, 140–41; Witherington, Letters, 524.

174

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

Regardless of how the content of the confession is understood grammatically, the most important questions regarding the confession still remain. First, how is Χριστός to be understood? Does it retain a titular/functional force? Does it refer to a divine person, nature, or entity distinguishable from Jesus? Is it merely a second name? Second, what is the focus of the confession about Jesus, or Jesus Christ? Does the emphasis fall on a) the fact of his coming, b) the manner of his coming (i.e., ἐν σαρκί), c) the significance of his coming (as the Messiah), or d) some combination of the above? In other words, is there a specific part of the confession that the author believes the opponents are denying? And, if the opponents do not make this confession, what are they teaching in its place? Commentators have answered these questions in very diverse ways. In this chapter, I will summarize the basic positions and note the problems or shortcomings of each. Then, I will offer my own reading of the passage.

I. Opposing Overspiritualized Christianity The first view to be considered is certainly a minority view, but deserves a brief discussion nonetheless. It was first championed by P. Minear in 1970,2 but has recently been taken up again by A. Callahan in his monograph on the Johannine Community, A Love Supreme.3 Both of these scholars hold that the crisis confronting the Johannine community at the time of 1 John was primarily ethical, not doctrinal. The opponents were Johannine Christians who were failing to love their fellow believers in concrete terms, i.e., by providing economic assistance or expressing social solidarity (e.g. 1 John 3:15–17; 4:7–12, 20– 21). When 1 John 4:2 depicts them as failing to confess Jesus Christ as come in the flesh, the point is not that they deny the incarnation, life, and death of Jesus Christ as a human being (i.e., “docetism”).4 Rather, Minear argues, Christ’s coming “in the flesh” refers to Christ’s present presence in the believing community—“the experienced actuality of the indwelling of Christ in the believer and the church.” 5 That is, Christ is “incarnate” presently in the flesh of the members of the community— 2 3 4 5

Paul Minear, “Idea of Incarnation in First John,” Int 24 (1970): 291–302. Allen Dwight Callahan, A Love Supreme: A History of the Johannine Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005). Minear, “Idea,” 297. Ibid., 292; cf. p. 302.

Opposing Overspiritualized Christianity

175

the concrete local “body” of believers. Thus, the author speaks of Jesus as “he who is in you” (1 John 4:4). Because the opponents do not grasp the presence of Christ in the community, they refuse to express love to the brothers in tangible ways. As Callahan puts it, the problem is an overspiritualized idea of Christianity that fails to realize its effects on physical, fleshly existence. To make the confession of 1 John 4:2, then, “is to bear witness to Jesus in one’s own flesh, in one’s own sanctified carnality.”6 While admirable for their boldness, these arguments fail to convince and have not gained much of a following. They rightly recognize the strong connection in 1 John between ethics, community and Christology, but they fail to allow the confessional statement of 4:2–3 to play its distinct role in this nexus. They subsume Christology into ecclesiology in a way the Epistles do not. Minear and Callahan’s reading would carry much more weight if 1 John spoke, like Paul, of the church as the σῶμα of Christ.7 Furthermore, this view must ignore the very numerous clear verbal and conceptual parallels to 1 John 4:2–3 in early Christian literature,8 all of which use language of Jesus’ “coming in flesh” to speak of his incarnation and earthly ministry. In the conceptual world of 1 John, Jesus is presently a heavenly resident— the παράκλητος πρὸς τὸν πατέρα—whose second appearance is still awaited (2:28; 3:2).

6

7 8

Callahan, Love, 41–42. Origen seems to have taken this line of interpretation, although neither Minear nor Callahan appeals to him for support. The Alexandrian alludes to or quotes from 1 John 4:2 on several occasions and gives no indication that he detects anti-docetic polemic there. Instead, he stresses that the Christological creed of 4:2 can only be truly confessed when it is lived out practically: “What does it profit if I should say that Jesus has come in that flesh alone which he received from Mary and I should not show also that he has come in this flesh of mine?” (Hom. Gen. 3.7; trans. in Homilies on Genesis and Exodus [FC 71; Washington, D. C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1982], 101; cf. Hom. Exod. 7). On another occasion he links 1 John 4:2 with Gal 2:20 and 2 Cor 4:10–11, implying that the Johannine confession of Christ’s coming in the flesh is equivalent to the Pauline statement, “Christ lives in me, and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God,” or Paul’s reference to the death and life of Jesus being manifested in his “mortal flesh” (Comm. Rom. 5.8.10). See, however, perhaps John 2:21. See below, p. 204.

176

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

II. Opposing Anti-Sacramentalism Another interpretation which has not been very well-received by scholarship is that the issue addressed by 4:2 is anti-sacramentalism. F. Vouga has been the primary advocate for this reading.9 According to Vouga, the Johannine community represents a gnostic form of early Christianity that emphasizes sacramental initiation through baptism and the Eucharist. The emphasis in 1 John 4:2 (and 2 John 7) on Jesus Christ coming ἐν σαρκί is not aimed at a docetic Christology, but at those who deny the Revealer’s presence in the sacrament.10 Vouga bases his argument on the way σάρξ is used in John 6:51–58, where the Eucharist is in view. Vouga’s view, however, is likely to remain a minority report since 1) there are no explicit indications in the Epistles that the sacraments are an issue, 2) it would be very strange to refer to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist as a “coming” expressed with a perfect tense participle (ἐληλυθότα), as 1 John 4:2 does, and 3) the language of coming in flesh is used elsewhere in early Christian literature to refer to the incarnation or mission of the Son.

III. Opposing Cerinthian Christology As I discussed in previous chapters, many interpreters believe that 1 John is addressing Cerinthian opponents who are propagating a kind of separation-Christology, in which the “Christ” is a divine spirit-being, or power, who comes upon the purely human Jesus at his baptism, empowers Jesus’ miracles and teachings, and departs prior to his death.11 According to those interpreters, 1 John 2:22 attacked the

9 10 11

F. Vouga, “The Johannine School: A Gnostic Tradition in Primitive Christianity?” Bib 69 (1988): 371–85; cf. idem, “Réception,” 288–302. Vouga, “Johannine School,” 376. Those who see 1 John 4:2 as aimed at a possession- or separation-Christology include Stott, Letters, 154; Westcott, Epistles, 139; Yarbrough, 1–3 John, 35, 38, 224; Marshall, Epistles, 205; Kinlaw, Christ, 101; Zahn, Introduction, 3:366; Goulder, Tale, 122; Rensberger, 1 John, 112; Theobald, Fleischwerdung, 412, 419–20; Blank, “Irrlehrer,” 75–76; Wengst, Häresie, 24–34; M. Hengel, The Johannine Question (London: SCM, 1989), 59–63, 105–106; Andrew J. Heffern, Apology and Polemic in the New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1922), 340; Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, 172–73; Carson, “Witnesses,” 216–32; Law, Tests, 32, 94; Brooke, Johannine Epistles, xliv, xlvi, sees 4:2 directed against “the gnostic doctrine of the impossibility of any real and complete union between the spiritual seed and that which is flesh.” Bogart, Orthodox, 124,

Opposing Cerinthian Christology

177

Cerinthian separation of the human Jesus and the divine Christ, or Son of God. The current passage develops and clarifies 2:22.12 This understanding of the passage dates back at least as far as Irenaeus (ca. 180).13 Exactly how the passage refutes Cerinthianism is debated. There are three basic approaches. First, it may be, as P. Kinlaw 14 argues, that the author accepts the adoptionistic Christology of Cerinthianism—that Jesus was a natural human being upon whom the Christ-spirit came at his baptism. The author would depart from Cerinthianism, however, by stressing in 1 John 4:2–3 that the Christ and human Jesus are permanently united. This is why the author employs the perfect tense, ἐληλυθότα, to emphasize the enduring result of the union of the Christ and Jesus. For Kinlaw, to confess Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα is to affirm that Jesus continues presently to exist as the union of human flesh and the divine Christ-spirit; i.e., to confess Jesus as Christ having come and permanently abiding in flesh. J. Stott is representative of a second view, which has much in common with Kinlaw’s explanation, but fits better with later orthodox formulations of the incarnation.15 Like Kinlaw, Stott also believes that the confession presents Jesus as the Christ having come in the flesh, and therefore emphasizes the permanent union of the divine preexistent Christ and the human Jesus.16 But, he does not believe that 1 John affirms any form of adoptionism—just the opposite. Stott holds that 1 John has articulated the basics of Chalcedonian Christology, namely that the divine pre-existent Son of God took on flesh (i.e., human nature) in the birth of Jesus.17 Furthermore, the divine nature and the human nature are forever united in the one person Jesus— forever ἐν σαρκί. “Far from coming upon Jesus at the baptism and leaving him before the cross, the Christ actually came in the flesh and has never laid it aside.”18

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

127–28, uses the term “docetist” but makes it clear that he means docetism of the Cerinthian variety. Cf., e.g., Westcott, Epistles, 139. Haer. 3.16.8. Kinlaw, Christ, 101. Stott, Letters, 154. Ibid., 155. Cf. Westcott, Epistles, 142: “the union of the divine and human in one Person, a truth which finds its only adequate expression in the fact of the Incarnation.” Stott, Letters, 154.

178

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

A third version of the anti-Cerinthian reading is offered by I. H. Marshall.19 Like Stott, Marshall believes that 1 John is defending the unity of the divine and pre-existent Christ with the human flesh (nature) of Jesus. He believes, however, that the confession more likely affirms “Jesus Christ as come in the flesh.” The language of coming, he asserts, presupposes the “pre-existence of Jesus Christ before the incarnation.”20 The use of the double-name is how 1 John stresses the inseparability of Jesus and the divine Son of God.

A. Not Confessing “Jesus” Additional support for the anti-Cerinthian reading may be found in 1 John 4:3. M. Goulder21 highlights the use of the single name, “Jesus,” in 1 John 4:3, theorizing that the opponents, whom he identifies as holding to a Jewish-Christian possession-Christology,22 were willing to confess faith in the Christ, which they understood as the divine power or spirit-being, but were not willing to confess the human being Jesus, whom they saw as the temporary prophetic vessel for the Christ. First Corinthians 12:3 may provide an important parallel to 1 John 4:2–3.23 The passage has many elements in common with 1 John 4:2–3, since it deals with spirit-inspired prophetic activity and its legitimacy. Paul states that the Spirit of God will not inspire someone to say Ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦς. Likewise, without the Holy Spirit, no one can confess Κύριος Ἰησοῦς. Because of the focus on confession of “Jesus” in 1 Cor 12:3, Goulder believes that the issue addressed is the same as that of 1 John 4:2–3: an Ebionite prophetic-possessionist Christology which valorized the divine Christ to the exclusion of the human person, Jesus.

B. The Text-Critical Question in 1 John 4:3 The final piece of textual evidence adduced in favor of an antiCerinthian reading of 1 John 4:2–3 is the presence of a textual variant in

19 20 21 22 23

Marshall, Epistles, 205. Ibid. Marshall refers to statements that Jesus has been sent by the Father, or comes from the Father (John 1:9; 3:19, 31; 8:14) as parallels to 1 John 4:2. Goulder, Tale, 122. Also argued by Rensberger, 1 John, 112. Goulder argues that Cerinthus had much in common with the Ebionites. Goulder, “Poor Man’s,” 332–48.

Opposing Cerinthian Christology

179

4:3.24 The NA27 critical text reads πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν Ἰησοῦν. All extant Greek MSS contain this reading and all the early versions (except the Latin) reflect this text. In place of μὴ ὁμολογεῖ, patristic evidence suggests the reading, λύει.25 The Vulgate attests this reading with its translation, “omnis spiritus qui solvit Iesum.” This reading has found support from many notable scholars. 26 R. Schnackenburg, for example, argues that λύει is “so strange that it must surely be regarded as original.”27 If λύει is the original reading, then 4:3 may be opposing those who would “loose,” or divide, Jesus from the Christ, in the manner of Cerinthus. Several difficulties make this unlikely, however.28 First, the external evidence in favor of the reading μὴ ὁμολογεῖ is virtually unanimous, since it appears in all the Greek MSS, as well as Polycarp, To the Philippians.29 Second, with regard to the internal evidence, contra Schnackenburg, λύει is not actually the lectio dificilior. It might be explained as an “orthodox corruption” of the text that arose in the midst of the full-blown Cerinthian-gnostic controversy in the second century, as witnessed by Irenaeus.30 As Brooke explains, if μὴ ὁμολογεῖ were the secondary reading, it would be expected to appear at a time

24

25

26

27 28

29

30

For a full discussion, see M. Wallraff, M. “Das Zeugnis des Kirchenhistorikers Sokrates zur Textkritik von 1 Joh 4,3,” ZNW 88 (1997): 145–48; cf. Ehrman, “1 Joh 4:3,” 221–43. Irenaeus, Haer. 3.16.8; Clement of Alexandria, Frag. 35; Tertullian, Marc. 5.16.4, reads, “soluentes Iesum.” A possible, but questionable, witness is Origen, Comm. Rom. 1.5.3, where he comments on Rom 1:3 and warns against breaking apart the unity of Jesus’ flesh and spirit. Because this commentary survives only in Rufinus’ Latin translation (Orig. Comm. Rom.), it is not possible to know for certain whether Origen used λύει. A. Harnack, “Zur Textkritik und Christologie der Schriften des Johannes,” SPAW (1915), 556–611; Wengst, Brief, 171; Brown, Epistles, 494–96; Bultmann, Epistles, 62; Bonnard, Épitres, 86; Von Wahlde, Commandments, 159; O. A. Piper, “1 John and the Didache of the Primitive Church,” JBL 66 (1947), 443; Zahn, Introduction, 3:366, 371– 72; F. Büchsel, “δέω, λύω,” TDNT 2:60–61. Schnackenburg, Epistles, 201. For defenses of μὴ ὁμολογεῖ, see Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 644–45; Rensberger, 1 John, 113; Westcott, Epistles, 163–66; Ehrman, “1 Joh 4,3,” 221–43; Strecker, Letters, 71, 136. Pol. Phil 7.1. Notably, Polycarp has the “correct” subjunctive form: μὴ ὁμολογῇ. See Paul A. Hartog, “The Opponents of Polycarp, Philippians, and 1 John,” in Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers (ed. Andrew F. Gregory and C. M. Tuckett; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 384–85, for discussion. Ehrman, “1 Joh 4,3,” 222.

180

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

when λύει could no longer be understood.31 But, just the opposite is in fact the case, since according to proponents of the theory, μὴ ὁμολογεῖ arose during the second century, when λύει should have easily been comprehended in light of the current gnostic crisis.32 In addition, the use of μή with the indicative ὁμολογεῖ is grammatically irregular, since it is usually employed with imperatives and participles.33 This is not the kind of grammar that one would expect to be present in a “correction.” Finally, even if λύει τὸν Ἰησοῦν is the original reading, it should probably not be taken in an anti-Cerinthian way. In order for it to function as an attack on dividing Jesus from Christ, it would need to read λύει τὸν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. That is, it would need to state the two parts being divided from one another, since Cerinthians do not divide Jesus, but divide Jesus from the Christ.34 Because of the grammar of the passage, most who advocate λύει as the original text do not interpret the term in the sense of a Cerinthian separation Christology.35

C. Weaknesses of the Anti-Cerinthian Interpretation 1. The Meaning of Χριστός The anti-Cerinthian interpretation of 1 John 4:2–3 has several weaknesses. To begin with, if the author is refuting the Cerinthian separation Christology here, he seems to be accepting one of the major tenets of Cerinthian teaching, namely that the term Χριστός refers to a divine spirit who is united to a human being Jesus (whether at incarnation or later). This seems, however, to be an understanding of the term foreign to primitive Christian theology, and certainly to Johannine theology, where Χριστός is used in a titular sense.36 For the

31 32

33 34

35 36

Brooke, Johannine Epistles, 114. Because of these considerations, Ehrman, “1 Joh 4,3,” 221, calls the case against λύει “quite overwhelming.” Piper, “1 John,” 443, though, argues that the church fathers actually had difficulty with the reading λύει. Piper contends for an understanding of λύει in the sense it is used in Matt 5:19 and 16:19. For a response to this argument, see below, fn. 199 in this chapter. Ehrman, “1 Joh 4,3,” 222. See Piper, “1 John,” 443. This is demonstrated by Irenaeus, Haer. 3.16.8, “omnis spiritus qui solvit Iesum Christum.” Here Irenaeus uses the double name, “Jesus Christ,” which is not used in 1 John 4:3. This allows Irenaeus to shift the meaning of the passage to a division between Jesus and the Christ. See below, p. 168. See above, p. 104.

Opposing Cerinthian Christology

181

author to concede such a key point to the Cerinthians would be very surprising.

2. Could a Cerinthian Confess Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα? Furthermore, it is not clear that the statements of 1 John 4:2–3 would actually refute Cerinthian teaching. If the focus of the confession is on Jesus as the “Christ-come-in-the-flesh,” (as Stott holds), Cerinthians could heartily affirm such a statement, since they believed that Jesus was the human receptacle for the Christ-spirit. Similarly, if the confession emphasizes (as Marshall claims) the unity of Jesus and the Christ by the use of the double name, Cerinthians could also affirm this, since they believed that Jesus and the Christ were in fact united during the key salvific events. 37 First John 4:3 would not pose any problem to the Cerinthians, either (pace Goulder), since they were more than happy to “confess Jesus” and to affirm that he was a righteous man (even one raised from the dead) and a key figure in the redemption of humanity.

3. Does the Perfect Tense Indicate Permanence? Both Kinlaw and Stott believe that the perfect tense ἐληλυθότα in 1 John 4:2 emphasizes the permanency of Christ’s fleshliness. This, however, introduces two problems. First, if the author really wishes to say that Jesus Christ is still ἐν σαρκί, he would be in the definite minority among early Christians. Paul, in 1 Cor 15:45, 51, characterizes the post-exaltation Christ as a πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν and denies that σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα can inherit God’s kingdom. First Timothy 3:16 indicates the same transition (ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι). Hebrews seems to share this view when it refers to Jesus’ ministry prior to his exaltation as the “the days of his flesh” (5:7; cf. 2:14; 9:13–14). Likewise, 1 Peter 3:18 and 4:1–3 both apply σάρξ to Christ’s preexaltation ministry and πνεῦμα to his post-exaltation state. The second problem is that this explanation places more weight on the perfect tense in 1 John than it can bear. Traditionally, Koine grammarians explain the perfect tense as describing a past event with a 37

See Lieu, Second, 81–82; Griffith, Keep, 180.

182

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

view to its present results.38 Thus, ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα means that Christ came in the flesh, and that his coming has present effects or results which are the focus of the statement. Kinlaw and Stott misinterpret the function of the perfect tense ἐληλυθότα by treating it as if it indicated that Christ is necessarily still in the flesh, not simply that his past coming in the flesh has present effects (e.g. salvation, etc.). A helpful parallel is 1 John 4:9, which states that God has shown his love in that he sent (perfect tense: ἀπέσταλκεν) his Son into the world. If the tense is pressed too far, this could be taken to say that the Son is still in the world, but that is clearly not the intention.39 Indeed, it is not at all certain that John uses the perfect tense in a way clearly distinguishable from the aorist. Brown rightly cautions against placing too much weight on the perfect tense in 1 John 4:2. He notes that “such tense value is probably foreign to the Epistles,” and points to 2 John 7 (ἐρχόμενον) and 1 John 5:6 (ἐλθών) as equivalents to 1 John 4:2.40 Brown’s instincts are verified by C. Caragounis, who demonstrates that by the time of the Johannine Epistles, the perfect and aorist had become virtually interchangeable, especially in the nonliterary Koine represented in 1 John.41 If the emphasis of 1 John 4:2 is indeed where Stott and Kinlaw claim, one would expect the author to make that much clearer, perhaps by using μένω or ἐπιμένω.42 Such a crucial theological refutation would not be so subtly and obscurely expressed by the simple use of the perfect tense.

38 39

40 41

42

Cf., e.g., Wallace, Grammar, 573. Taking the perfect tense the way Stott and Kinlaw do would lead us to believe that Heb 4:15 (πεπειρασμένον) means that Jesus remains tempted, that the secret of Rom 16:25 remains unspoken (σεσιγημένου), and that Paul preaches that Christ remained crucified (1 Cor 1:23, κηρύσσομεν Χριστὸν ἐσταυρωμένον). Also worthy of mention is John 8:31, where the Jews who deny Jesus are described as τοὺς πεπιστευκότας. See T. Griffith, “‘The Jews Who Had Believed in Him’ (John 8:31) and the Motif of Apostasy in the Gospel of John,” in The Gospel of John and Christian Theology (ed. R. Bauckham and C. Mosser; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 183; James Swetnam, “The Meaning of πεπιστευκότας in John 8:31,” Bib 61 (1980): 106– 109, for discussion of the tense and its value. Brown, Epistles, 493. Chrys C. Caragounis, The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission (WUNT 167; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 154–55. Or, given the thesis of Kinlaw, Christ, 101, one would expect language that denotes possession. While Kinlaw discusses many ancient texts that describe possession of humans by divine beings, none of them ever uses language of “coming in the flesh” to describe such a phenomenon.

Opposing Docetic Christology

183

IV. Opposing Docetic Christology By far, the dominant interpretation of 1 John 4:2–3 holds that John is opposing advocates of a docetic Christology.43 As I am using the term, docetism means the denial that Jesus possessed a real human nature or a real physical body.44 Thus, docetism is to be distinguished from the separation-Christology of the Cerinthians, as well as from those who, for one reason or another, denied that Jesus truly suffered, or denied salvific value to his suffering.45 On the anti-docetic reading, the confession in 1 John 4:2, Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, focuses on the phrase ἐν σαρκί. The docetic opponents would certainly affirm that Jesus46 had come, and could also affirm that he was the Messiah. But, they would deny that he was truly human. Instead, he only appeared (δοκεῖν) to be human. Thus, docetism denies the incarnation, as it is traditionally understood. It seems fairly certain that such docetism was advocated at least as early as Marcion (ca. 144), and probably by the time of Ignatius (ca. 110). It is usually thought to have sprung from a Christology so high that it left no room for Jesus’ humanity. Both Jewish and Greek accounts of angels or gods taking on human form might have encouraged docetists in their formulations.47

43

44 45 46 47

Supported by Wengst, Brief, 169; Bultmann, Epistles, 62; Smith, First, Second, and Third John, 68, 103; Strecker, Letters, 73; Morland, “Om a avslore og avsondre vranglaerere,” 95–112; Dodd, Epistles, xliv, xxx, 99; Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 162; Johannes Schneider, Die Briefe des Jakobus, Petrus, Judas und Johannes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967), 172; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 211–12; Ehrman, “1 Joh 4,3,” 235; Schnelle, Antidocetic, 67–68; Kruse, Letters, 147; G. W. MacRae, “Why the Church Rejected Gnosticism,” in Studies in the New Testament and Gnosticism (GNS 26; ed. George W. MacRae, Daniel J. Harrington, and Stanley B. Marrow; Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, 1987), 260–61; Anderson, “Sitz im Leben,” 46–47; Lütgert, Christologie, 10–12, 45; Jonge, “Use of the Word ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ,” 69; Culpepper, Gospel, 268; Uebele, Verführer, 136–37, 147–52; Richter, “Blut,” 120–42; Neander, First Epistle, 12; G. Sevenster, “Remarks on the Humanity of Jesus in the Gospel and Letters of John,” in Studies in John (ed. W. C. Van Unnik; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 188. Witherington, Letters, 494, thinks the opponents may be docetists who thought of the Messiah in angelomorphic or purely supernatural terms. This is close to Müller, Geschichte, 53–79. For discussion of the textual evidence for angelomorphic Christology, see Charles A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence (AGJU 42; Leiden: Brill, 1998). See discussion above, pp. 38–48. See the discussion above, p. 48, of those who held that Simon took Jesus’ place on the cross. Or, “Jesus Christ,” if it is to be taken as a double name. For discussion of the nature and origins of docetism, see above, p. 38ff.

184

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

On this view, the confession of 1 John 4:2 is taken to be an expansion of that in 2:22. While 2:22 simply reiterated the community’s traditional language, calling Jesus the Messiah (cf. John 20:30), 4:2 represents a new formulation designed to deal with a new situation and new opponents.48 While 2:22 was concerned with Jesus’ identity as the Jewish Messiah, 4:2 emphasizes the mode or nature of his identity as Messiah. At this point in the community’s history, it was no longer enough simply to affirm that Jesus was the Messiah. A teaching had arisen which affirmed that point, but denied that Jesus was truly human in a physical, fleshly sense.49 Thus, G. MacRae states that the term σάρξ had become “virtually a shibboleth” in the argument against docetism.50 This docetic understanding of Jesus is often thought to have arisen from an interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. 51 E. Käsemann, for example, strongly argued that the Fourth Gospel was “naively docetic” in its Christology.52 Jesus is portrayed in such divine terms that it seems his humanity is merely for show—he wears the “absolute minimum of

48

49 50 51 52

See Dodd, Epistles, xxx; 99; Jonge, “Use of the Word ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ,” 69; Bonnard, Épitres, 85; Culpepper, Gospel, 268; Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 233; Strecker, Letters, 62; Haenchen, “Neuere Literatur,” 36. According to Uebele, Verführer, 136–37, 1 John 2:22, 4:15, and 5:1, 5 are old confessions used in an earlier stage of the community’s history, when its external struggle with synagogue Jews was ongoing. When a new, internal controversy over docetism arose, the epistolary author fell back on these old confessions even though they did not adequately deal with, or fit, the new situation: “Angesichts der gnostisch-doketistischen Gefahr scheint die johanneische Schule nun auch auf altes Traditionsgut zurückgegriffen zu haben, das jedoch auf die neuen Gegner nicht mehr wirklich paßt” (137). Cf. Gerd Schunack, Die Briefe des Johannes (ZBKNT 17; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1982), 75, who sees 4:2 as a “Neufassung des Bekenntnisses in der Auseinandersetzung mit den Gegnern.” Black, “Catholicism,” 134, calls 1 John 4:1–3 and 5:5–8 “formulas,” but does not see them as part of the original Johannine tradition, preferring to describe them as “a reformulation of that tradition in the face of a new challenge.” Heckel, “Historisierung,” 440, believes that they derive from John 1:14, which in the internal community struggle was raised to the level of a confessional distinctive. See above, p. 137, for discussion of the way the anti-docetist interpretation deals with the confession of 1 John 2:22. First John 5:6, with its focus on “blood and water” is thought to continue this focus on the physicality of Jesus. MacRae, “Why the Church,” 261. Ibid., 260; cf. above, fn. 169 in Ch. 1. E. Käsemann, The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17 (London: SCM, 1968), 26. Cf. recently Kasper Bro Larsen, “Narrative Docetism: Christology and Storytelling in the Gospel of John,” in The Gospel of John and Christian Theology (ed. R. Bauckham and C. Mosser; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 346–58.

Opposing Docetic Christology

185

costume.”53 He remains calm and collected throughout his passion. He knows all things ahead of time. He asks questions but already knows the answers. Despite John 1:14, Käsemann asserts, the incarnation does not play any real role in John, as the emphasis always falls on the fact that Jesus has come down from heaven or God. Käsemann’s reading, however, is challenged by numerous passages where Jesus’ humanity seems to take center stage: Jesus becomes tired and thirsty (John 4:6–7); he gives his flesh to his followers to eat (6:51– 59); he grieves at Lazarus’s death (11:33, 35, 38); he agonizes over his own impending death (12:27); he is explicitly hailed as ὁ ἄνθρωπος (19:5) and, most importantly, despite Käsemann’s downplaying, he is the enfleshed Logos (1:14), who even upon his resurrection, is both visible and tangible (20:17, 27).54 At the least, though, Käsemann has shown how the Fourth Gospel could plausibly have been read so as to emphasize Jesus’ divinity at the expense of his humanity. The possibility that docetic opponents in 1 John derived their Christology from the Fourth Gospel is even stronger if the passages cited above were part of an anti-docetic redaction made in the midst of the “antichrist” crisis of 1 John.55

A. Early Anti-Docetic Interpretation of 1 John 4:2 1. Polycarp There are several indications that 1 John 4:2 was taken by many early interpreters as anti-docetic polemic. The earliest (ca. 120–140) extant citation of the text appears in Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians, where he warns against deceptive teachers (οἵτινες ἀποπλανῶσι κενοὺς

53 54

55

Käsemann, Testament, 10. See M. M. Thompson, The Humanity of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), for extensive arguments against Käsemann’s reading. She contends that Jesus’ humanity is not proved in the Fourth Gospel so much as it is presupposed. Thus, John cannot be rightly called either docetic or anti-docetic. Cf. Hengel, Johannine Question, 68; Schnelle, Antidocetic; H. Kohler, Kreuz und Menschwerdung im Johannesevangelium: Ein exegetisch-hermeneutischer Versuch zur johanneischen Kreuzestheologie (ATANT 72. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987). Those who take this route include Theobald, Fleischwerdung; Richter, “Fleischwerdung,” 149–98; Schnelle, Antidocetic, 228, speaks of the Fourth Gospel as “a reaction to a docetic Christology” and as undertaking “a comprehensive theological combat with docetism.”

186

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

ἀνθρώπους, 6:3). In 7:1, he offers the criterion for discerning such misleading teachers: Πᾶς γὰρ ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι ἀντιχριστός ἐστιν καὶ ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ σταυροῦ ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν καὶ ὃς ἂν μεθοδεύῃ τὰ λόγια τοῦ κυρίου πρὸς τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας καὶ λέγῃ μήτε ἀνάστασιν μήτε κρίσιν οὗτος πρωτότοκος ἐστι τοῦ σατανᾶ.

In 7:2 he urges this response to the false teachers: διὸ ἀπολιπόντες τὴν ματαιότητα τῶν πολλῶν καὶ τὰς ψευδοδιδασκαλίας ἐπὶ τὸν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἡμῖν παραδοθέντα λόγον. While scholars have disputed the nature of the connection between Polycarp’s letter and 1 John, there can be little doubt that some link exists, whether oral, traditional, or literary.56 Most striking, of course, is the virtual quotation of 1 John 4:2 in Phil. 7:1.57 56

57

For a summary of the debate, see Hartog, “Opponents,” 375–92. Hartog believes that literary dependence is “almost certain” (383). Cf. D. R. Stuckwisch, “Saint Polycarp of Smyrna: Johannine or Pauline Figure?” CTQ 61 (1997), 120; W. Bauer, Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiocha und der Polykarpbrief (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1920), 290– 91; K. Berding, Polycarp and Paul: An Analysis of Their Literary and Theological Relationship in Light of Polycarp’s Use of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Literature (VCSupp 62; Leiden: Brill, 2002), 90–91; H. J. Bardsley, “The Testimony of Ignatius and Polycarp to the Writings of St John,” JTS 14 (1913), 218; P. N. Harrison, Polycarp’s Two Epistles to the Philippians (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936), 300– 301. Strecker, Letters, xxix, refers to it as an “indirect citation” of 1 John 4:2–3. Grayston, Epistles, 28, favors oral dependence. Several scholars find any dependence unlikely, and argue instead that Polycarp is just using a common early Christian tradition; see H. von Campenhausen, Polykarp von Smyrna und die Pastoralbriefe (Heidelberg: Winter, 1951), 40–41; Johnson, “Parallels,” 329. Several other turns of phrase also evoke various statements from 1 John: Polycarp, Philippians ἀποπλανῶσι (6:3)

First John περὶ τῶν πλανώντων ὑμᾶς (2:27) τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς πλάνης (4:6) πολλοὶ πλάνοι (2 John 7) τὸ μαρτύριον τοῦ σταυροῦ (7:1) τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες (5:7) ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ (5:9) ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν (7:1) ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστίν (3:8) πρωτότοκος τοῦ σατανᾶ (7:1) τὰ τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου (3:10) Κάϊν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν (3:12) τὴν ματαιότητα τῶν πολλῶν (7:2) ἀντίχριστοι πολλοί (2:18) πολλοὶ ψευδοπροφῆται (4:1) πολλοὶ πλάνοι (2 John 7) τὸν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἡμῖν παραδοθέντα (7:2) Ὃ ἦν ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς (1 John 1:1) λόγον (7:2) περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς (1 John 1:1) For further discussion, see Harrison, Polycarp’s Two Epistles, 300–301; Hartog, “Opponents,” 380; N. Dahl, “Der Erstgeborene Satans und der Vater des Teufels (Polyk. 7,1 und Joh 8,44),” in Apophoreta: Festschrift für Ernst Haenchen zu seinem

Opposing Docetic Christology

187

Polycarp is thought by many to be fighting a docetic theology.58 Irenaeus (Haer. 3.3.4) reports that when Polycarp was bishop of Smyrna, he traveled to Rome during the time of Anicetus (ca. 150) to settle the Quartodeciman controversy. 59 While in Rome, he encountered Marcion, whom he branded, “the firstborn of Satan.” In this context, it makes sense that Polycarp would write the Philippians to warn them about docetic heretics who were similar to those 1 John opposed and whose doctrines resembled the new teachings of Marcion. Thus, he recycles the Johannine polemic as he urges his audience to give no heed to “antichrists” who “do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” (ὃς ἂν μὴ ὁμολογῇ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι).

2. Tertullian A second early source for the anti-docetic interpretation of 1 John 4:2–3 is Tertullian, who famously opposed the teachings of Marcion.60 He cites 1 John 4:2 in four passages. In his treatise on The Flesh of Christ, he writes, “Certainly, ‘Whoever denies that Christ has come in the flesh— this is the antichrist,’ using the word ‘flesh’ unadorned and unqualified and in the straightforward sense of its own nature, strikes a blow at all who initiate discussions about it.”61 In his treatise Against Marcion, he refutes the teaching that “Christ was a phantasm” by appealing to 1 John 4:2–3, where, according to Tertullian, John was opposing “premature and abortive Marcionites,” or, we might say, proto-Marcionites.62 The proto-Marcionites, thinking it absurd that God could become flesh, denied that Christ had come in the flesh, but had not yet embraced the Marcionite theory of the “unknown God.”

58

59 60 61 62

siebzigsten Geburtstag am 10. Dezember 1964. (ed. W. Eltester et al.; BZNW 30; Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964), 70–84; Berding, Polycarp, 90–91. Many scholars propose a link between Polycarp’s opponents and those of the Johannine Epistles. See, e.g., Harrison, Polycarp’s Two Epistles, 173; Stuckwisch, “Polycarp,” 115; Johnson, “Parallels,” 327–38. Cf. also Irenaeus’s letter to Victor, preserved in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.24; cf. Jerome, Vir. ill. 17. See MacRae, “Why the Church,” 261, who appeals to Tertullian as a parallel for 1 John. Carn. Chr. 24. Marc. 3.8.

188

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

Later, he again counters those who “deny that Christ has come in the flesh and dissolve Jesus.”63 Tertullian finds this “dissolution” of Jesus in Marcion’s teaching, which denies that in Jesus true divinity and true humanity were united. He also alludes to the way Marcion denies that Jesus is the Messiah promised by the Creator God of the Old Testament. Marcion held that Jesus was the Christ of the Unknown God, but that the Christ of the Creator God would come in the future to establish an earthly Jewish kingdom. In this way, Tertullian thinks, Marcion “divides” Christ. Finally, in his Prescription against Heretics, Tertullian traces the heresies he is fighting back to their origins in the apostolic age, where the apostles’, he believes, provided the antidote to such false teachings. First John 4:2–3, as he sees it, refutes the progenitors of Marcion, since, like Marcion, John’s opponents denied that Christ came in the flesh.64 From all these citations, it is clear that Tertullian understood 1 John 4:2– 3 as a blow against monophysite docetism.

3. Third Corinthians One might also find in the early (ca. 125–160) pseudepigraphon preserved in the Acts of Paul, 3 Corinthians, an allusion to 1 John 4:2–3. While the setting for 3 Corinthians is not certain, it appears to be aimed at a variety of “gnostic” teachings, with Marcionite thought in the forefront.65 The false teachers opposed by the letter are accused of propagating a number of errant doctrines: 63 64 65

Marc. 5.16. Praescr. 33. In 1:2, though, it explicitly names “Simon” (presumably Simon Magus) as one of the heretics it opposes. For discussion of the text, date and setting of 3 Corinthians, see Vahan Hovhanessian, Third Corinthians: Reclaiming Paul for Christian Orthodoxy (StBibLit 18; New York: Lang, 2000); M. Rist, “Pseudepigraphic Refutations of Marcion,” JR 22 (1942), 46–50, who takes 3 Corinthians to be aimed at Marcion; A. F. J. Klijn, “The Apocryphal Correspondence between Paul and the Corinthians,” VC 17 (1963): 2–23; Gerard Luttikheizen, “The Apocryphal Correspondence with the Corinthians and the Acts of Paul,” in The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Theckla (ed. Jan Bremmer; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996), 75–91, who opposes any specific identification of the opponents; M. Testuz, “La Correspondance apocryphe de saint Paul et des Corinthiens,” in Littérature et Théologie Pauliniennes (RechBib 5; Louvain: Desclée de Brouwer, 1960), 217–23, who believes that it opposes several false teachings, but not docetism. W. Rordorf, “Héresie et Orthodoxie selon la correspondance apocryphe entre les Corinthiens et l’Apôtre Paul,” in Lex orandi, lex credendi (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1993), 389–431, believes the opponent in view

Opposing Docetic Christology

189

They say that we must not use the prophets, and that God is not Almighty, and that there shall be no resurrection of the flesh, and that man was not made by God, and that Christ did not come in the flesh, and was not born of Mary, and that the world is not of God, but of the angels.66

Most important for my purposes is 1:14, which is a very close (though not exact) quote of 1 John 4:2. The text reads, οὐδὲ ὅτι εἰς σάρκα ἦλθεν ὁ Χριστός. Other passages in 3 Corinthians clearly indicate knowledge of the Johannine Epistles. In 3:36–38, “Paul” speaks of receiving a reward (μισθός) for remaining (μένω) in the rule of the Gospel; he contrasts those who remain with those who transgress (παραβαίνω) the rule and make their way forward (προοδοιπορέω). These echo 2 John 7–9, which promise a reward (μισθός) to those who remain (μένω) in the teaching of Christ and do not go forward (προάγω).67 Thus, 3 Corinthians is another early example of Johannine polemic being directed against a docetic doctrine.

B. Weaknesses of the Anti-Docetic Interpretation Despite the evidence presented above, there are several reasons to reject an anti-docetic reading of 1 John 4:2–3.

1. Grammatical Issues First, it is not clear that the grammar of 1 John 4:2–3 supports a reference to the incarnation.68 As discussed above, the meaning of the confession denied by the opponents hinges on the relationship between the three parts of the confession: Ἰησοῦν, Χριστόν, and ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα. If the author wishes the opponents to confess that “Jesus Christ” (taken as a double name) has taken on flesh, i.e., become incarnate, then the author must conceive of Jesus Christ as pre-existent. This understanding would be a significant development (or regression)

66 67 68

is Saturninus. For a detailed analysis of NT parallels in 3 Corinthians, see Thomas W. MacKay, “Content and Style in Two Pseudo-Pauline Epistles (3 Corinthians and the Epistle to the Laodiceans),” in Apocryphal Writings and the Latter-Day Saints (ed. C. Wilfred Griggs; Salt Lake City: Brigham Young University, 1986), 215–40. 1:10–15 Noted by Lieu, Second, 98. The Byzantine tradition reads παραβαίνων instead of προάγων in 2 John 9. See below, p. 352352, for a full discussion. My objection here is similar to that made above (p. 177) to the anti-Cerinthian reading.

190

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

of the way other early Christians (as well as the Fourth Gospel) speak of Jesus. While the NT authors may speak of the Son or the Logos as preexistent, they seem to uniformly understand Jesus as a historical human being.69 This is also the way the orthodox creeds would later express the doctrine of the incarnation. Likewise, 1 John is consistent in its usage of “Son” instead of “Jesus” to refer to the pre-incarnate emissary of God (cf. 3:8; 4:9–10, 14; 5:20).70 Perhaps, it might be objected, even if “Jesus Christ” is not taken as a double name, a reference to the incarnation can be salvaged. The text could be construed as saying that Jesus is the Christ who has come in the flesh. This would then be a reference to the pre-existent, preincarnate Christ who becomes incarnate (i.e., comes in flesh) as Jesus of Nazareth. The problem with this reading, though, is similar. It is simply not clear that either the Fourth Gospel or the Johannine Epistles use the term Χριστός as anything other than a title.71 Since I have discussed this at length in Chapter 3 above,72 it is not necessary to rehearse those arguments here. It will be sufficient to reiterate that the Johannine tradition does not appear to conceive of Χριστός as referring

69

70

71 72

In the language of the later creeds, Jesus is the “enfleshed Logos” (λόγος ἔνσαρκος), the union of the preexistent Son/Logos (λόγος ἄσαρκος) with human nature/flesh. It is, perhaps, reasonable to argue from the Fourth Gospel, especially those parts where Jesus refers to himself as preexistent (e.g. John 17:5), that the name Jesus can be applied to the pre-existent one, albeit in an imprecise way that would not satisfy the stringencies of later Christological debates. The anti-docetic reading of 1 John, however, requires that the epistolary author is, so to speak, proto-orthodox in insisting upon an understanding of the incarnation that depends upon such distinctions for its very coherence. One reasonable reading of the problematic preexistent “I” texts in the Fourth Gospel is offered by D. Boyarin, “The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John,” HTR 94 (2001), 275–76, who understands them in light of the Logos theology of the Prologue, which depicts the ministry of the pre-existent logos asarkos throughout the OT era—a depiction expanded upon in later passages such as John 8:58; 17:5; 17:24. These passages then would be understood as the logos ensarkos referring to his pre-existent ministry as the logos asarkos. Schnackenburg, Epistles, 201: “Nowhere else in the Johannine Epistles does the name ‘Jesus Christ’ refer to the pre-existent One.” Cf. Brown, Epistles, 493, who also denies that “Jesus Christ” refers to the pre-existent or pre-incarnate Savior in the Johannine literature; Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 162, depicts the opponents of 4:2 as rejecting the incarnation of God in Jesus, but his restatement simply draws attention to the fact that the confession itself does not speak of God taking on human flesh. Cf. also Okure, Approach, 248, who sees 4:2 as a statement implying Jesus’ divinity and transition from pre-existence to incarnation. Cf. Piper, “1 John,” 445. For an opposing viewpoint, see Boer, “Death,” 334; Bonnard, Épitres, 85; Brooke, Johannine Epistles, 108. See p. 134f.

Opposing Docetic Christology

191

to a pre-existent divine person who becomes incarnate, but rather thinks of the pre-existent Logos, or Son of God, who comes into the world as the human being, Jesus of Nazareth, a human who is anointed by God’s Spirit to carry out his messianic mission in fulfillment of the Scriptures.73 A further grammatical issue is the confession’s use of the perfect participle (ἐληλυθότα) in 4:2. The use of the participle instead of the infinitive (ἐληλυθέναι) puts the emphasis more on the identity of the person Jesus than on the fact of his coming. 74 This is clear from the way 73

74

It is questionable whether the language of “coming in flesh” in 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7 should be pressed to speak of any kind of pre-existence (for a similar opinion, see Brown, Epistles, 76; contra Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 303; Okure, Approach, 248. Schenke, “Schism,” 206–11, thinks these passages combat an Ebionite rejection of Christ’s pre-existence; cf. Clemen, “Beiträge,” 274, for a similar view). The same may be said about language of “coming into the world” or “sending into the world” (1 John 4:9–10, 14). This language is used elsewhere of prophets who are sent/commissioned by God (John 6:14) or merely of human birth. It is very doubtful that the crowd of John 6:14 is expecting a pre-existent prophet (ὁ προφήτης ὁ ἐρχόμενος εἰς τὸν κόσμον), or that Martha in John 11:27 thinks of the Messiah as pre-existent (ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἐρχόμενος). Similarly, 1 John 4:1 speaks of the false prophets as coming into the world (ψευδοπροφῆται ἐξεληλύθασιν εἰς τὸν κόσμον), as does 2 John 7 (πλάνοι ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὸν κόσμον), while 1 John 4:3 speaks of the antichrist’s coming (ἔρχεται), which results in him being in the world (ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐστίν). Are we to suppose that the author conceives of the opponents as pre-existent but now incarnate? Cf. also John 16:21, which speaks of a child’s birth (ἐγεννήθη ἄνθρωπος εἰς τὸν κόσμον), and John 18:37, where γεγέννημαι is apposite to ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν κόσμον (cf. 1 Tim 6:7, οὐδὲν γὰρ εἰσηνέγκαμεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον; 1 Clem. 38:3, ἀναλογισώμεθα οὖν ἀδελφοί ἐκ ποίας ὕλης ἐγενήθημεν ποῖοι καὶ τίνες εἰσήλθαμεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον). Strikingly, in John 17:21, Jesus says that he is sending the disciples into the world just as the Father sent him (καθὼς ἐμὲ ἀπέστειλας εἰς τὸν κόσμον, κἀγὼ ἀπέστειλα αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν κόσμον). Clearly, this is not meant to imply the preexistence of the disciples (cf. Mark 16:15, πορευθέντες εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἅπαντα κηρύξατε τὸ εὐαγγέλιον). All of this is not to deny that the Fourth Gospel or the Johannine Epistles speak of the Son’s pre-existence—they surely do—but only to say that pre-existence and incarnation need not be read into every reference to “coming” or being “sent into the world.” This is especially the case in 1 John 4:2, where the same language of advent is used twice in the surrounding verses without any indication of pre-existence (4:1, 3). See Westcott, Epistles, 141; Brown, Epistles, 493; Griffith, Keep, 186; Thyen, “Johannesbriefe,” 193; Erlemann, “Trennungsprozess,” 287; Vouga, “Johannine School,” 376. Vouga, “Réception,” 292, writes, “1 Jn 4,2 n’est en rien un slogan antidocète ou anti-gnostique. La construction participiale, à la différence de la proposition infinitive de Polycarpe, Phil. 7,1, est pour cela inadéquate.” Lieu, “Authority,” 217, asserts that the “primary force is not a statement that Jesus Christ came in the flesh as would be expected against docetism. The emphasis is instead a confession of Jesus who is the Christ and who came in the flesh.” For the opposite opinion, see Boer, “Death,” 334, who appeals to Smyth §2144, which states that

192

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

that later scribes and theologians, working in a context where docetism was a threat, consistently changed the participle to an infinitive, thus subtly shifting the focus of the confession so that it would speak to the pressing issue of their day.75 Finally, if the incarnation is in view, it is questionable whether ἐν σαρκί would be the most natural way to express the idea. Brown suggests that the more likely phrase would be εἰς σάρκα.76 This is borne out by the way that patristic authors, when they are not directly quoting 1 John 4:2, consistently express the incarnation using the latter instead of the former.77 Similarly, the pseudepigraphal 3 Corinthians refutes its opponents by affirming that εἰς σάρκα ἦλθεν ὁ Χριστός. One might also wonder why, if the incarnation was under fire, the epistolary author would not have simply restated John 1:14, ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, a relatively clear incarnational statement at home in the Johannine tradition.

2. The Use of “Jesus” in 4:3 The anti-docetic reading also cannot account for 1 John 4:3, which continues the thought of 4:2.78 While 4:2 stated the criterion for discerning the spirit from God in a positive form (πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ ὁμολογεῖ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν), 4:3 provides the negative counterpart: πᾶν πνεῦμα ὃ μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν

75

76 77

78

when ὁμολογέω is used with the participle or the infinitive, there is no, or only a slight, difference in meaning. In response, it could be said that the difference I am proposing for 1 John 4:2 is, indeed, just a slight shift in focus. See Polycarp, Phil 7.1; Tertullian, Marc. 3.8; Carn. Chr. 24 (“in carne venisse”); the infinitive also appears in the text of Codex Vaticanus. Epiphanius, Pan. 24.9.5 (cf. 26.15.4), quotes 1 John 4:2 as εἴ τις οὐ λέγει τὸν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθέναι, οὗτος ἀντίχριστός ἐστιν. He makes two significant changes: 1) he changes the participle to an infinitive, 2) he deletes Ἰησοῦς, which further enforces his reading of the passage as an anti-docetic defense of the incarnation, as by his time, Χριστός had definitively shed its default titular sense and had come to denote the pre-existent second person of the Godhead. Brown, Epistles, 493; cf. Witherington, Letters, 494. For this construction, see Acts Paul 8.26: ὁ θεὸς δι’ ἡμᾶς κατέπεμψεν εἰς σάρκα τοῦτ᾿ ἔστιν εἰς τὴν Μαρίαν τὴν Γαλιλαίαν; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 5.14.105: τὴν εἰς σάρκα κάθοδον τοῦ κυρίου; Herm. Sim. 5 6:5: τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον τὸ προόν τὸ κτίσαν πᾶσαν τὴν κτίσιν κατῴκισεν ὁ θεὸς εἰς σάρκα. Cf. Eusebius, Ecl. proph. 129, 3: ὁ Κύριος διὰ τῆς εἰς σάρκα ἐπιδημίας. Cf. Epiphanius, Pan. 3.198.14. The distinction between εἰς and ἐν should perhaps not be pressed too far, since they overlapped considerably in the first century; see BDF §205, 218. Schenke, “Schism,” 206.

Opposing Docetic Christology

193

Ἰησοῦν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν. This passage indicates that the opposite of confessing Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα is, simply, not confessing τὸν Ἰησοῦν. This is a firm basis for thinking that the opponents are not “Christians” who differ as to the mode of Jesus’ coming. Rather, they deny Jesus altogether. That is, they do not accept the messianic and soteriological claims made on his behalf and they do not profess allegiance to him.79 If docetism was at issue, it is very difficult to understand why the author would phrase the opponents’ denial in such terms. It would be more appropriate to say that they deny the “flesh” or his “humanity.” Perhaps, one might argue, for rhetorical purposes the author wishes to depict the opponents who deny Jesus’ physicality as denying Jesus altogether, and for this reason uses the simple τὸν Ἰησοῦν in v. 3. This, however, attributes far too much rhetorical subtlety to the author, who prefers to make his points by repetition. If he wanted to assert that denying the physicality of Jesus is tantamount to denying Jesus altogether, he would need to make that much clearer to have any hope of communicating his thoughts to his audience.

3. Methodological Issues The anti-docetic reading is also questionable on methodological grounds. It requires that 1 John 4:2 be taken as an expansion of the earlier confession in 2:22. That confession, identical to the one concluding the Fourth Gospel (20:31), had as its focus the messiahship of Jesus. Only in 1 John 4:2 (and, later, very obscurely, in 5:6) does the author make clear that the real point of contention with the opponents surrounds the true human nature of Jesus. But, the anti-docetic reading has great difficulty in offering a convincing explanation of why the author uses the confession of 2:22 at all.80 If the center of the debate is Jesus’ true humanity, it is baffling why the author would wait so long to broach the issue, and then do so only in such a brief way.

79

80

See John 1:20, where John the Baptist does the opposite of the opponents—he does not deny but confesses. For the language of denying, cf. also John 13:38; 18:25. Marshall, Epistles, 206–207, thinks that 1 John 4:3 speaks of “personal allegiance to Jesus” as opposed to what he sees as the more explicitly doctrinal confession of 4:2. As Lieu, Theology, 76, notes, the fact that “the author is content elsewhere [i.e., 2:22] to repeat the simpler formula rather than the expanded one” should caution exegetes not to read too much into 4:2.

194

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

4. The Value of Early Interpretations of 1 John 4:2 The evidence adduced from early interpreters of 1 John 4:2 is also less helpful than it may appear at first glance. For instance, with regard to Polycarp’s use in Phil. 7.1, there are several difficulties.81 1) The historical context for Polycarp’s epistle is very sketchy. It is not clear who his historical opponents were, or even if he had reliable knowledge of his opponents.82 2) Several of the issues Polycarp addresses are not mentioned at all in the Johannine Epistles, e.g., the denial of future resurrection and judgment. This may indicate that he is not addressing the same group. 3) It is not certain that the opponents of Polycarp are docetic. Indeed, the only way to conclude that the opponents are docetic is to mirror-read Polycarp’s quotation of 1 John 4:2.83 Thus, to argue on this basis that Polycarp’s opponents are docetists is to beg the question and to assume that 1 John 4:2 is intrinsically anti-docetic. Polycarp’s response to his opponents—whatever their views may be—is simply to rehearse the basic facts of salvation-history, including the coming of Jesus as Messiah (thus the quotation of 1 John 4:2), his crucifixion, resurrection, and his return to raise the dead and judge the world.84 His readers are instructed to stay away from anyone who denies these. 4) When Polycarp quotes 1 John 4:2, he changes the grammar from a participle to an infinitive. If he is facing docetic opponents, he may have modified the text to deal more directly with his opponent.

81 82

83

84

For discussion, see Hartog, “Opponents,” 388–91. Hartog, “Opponents,” 378, for example, holds that Polycarp is primarily concerned with the way his opponents twist Jesus’ sayings to argue against a future resurrection and judgment. Cf. C. Hill, “The Epistula Apostolorum: An Asian Tract from the Time of Polycarp,” JECS 7 (1999), 25–29, who also emphasizes the opponents’ use of Scripture. He finds Cerinthus the most likely opponent of Polycarp. Some hold that “the testimony of the cross” in Phil. 7:1 is aimed at docetists who taught that Christ only seemed to suffer. The phrase itself, though, is hardly a clear attack on such a teaching, since it is not stated precisely what is meant by the “testimony of the cross.” Berding, Polycarp, 38, tries to link the phrase to 1 John 5:6– 9, which speaks of the three witnesses, the water, blood, and Spirit. This link would be much stronger had Polycarp spoken of the “testimony of the blood,” or if 1 John 5:6–9 mentioned the “cross.” As it stands, the link is possible, but even if it were accepted, it would still not demonstrate anti-docetic intent. Cf. Campenhausen, Polykarp, 40–41.

Opposing Docetic Christology

195

5) Even if Polycarp is opposing docetism, it does not follow that 1 John 4:2 itself is anti-docetic. Polycarp elsewhere takes up NT polemic and uses it against opponents who were not originally in view.85 6) Because Irenaeus depicts Marcion as the great antagonist of Polycarp, it is often supposed that Polycarp’s epistle must be aimed at Marcionism. This is not likely, however, since a) Irenaeus does not say that Polycarp’s epistle was anti-Marcionite or anti-docetic, but merely that Polycarp the man opposed Marcion, b) Polycarp’s epistle shows no sign of opposing demiurgical teaching, which was Marcion’s (and, according to Irenaeus, Cerinthus’s) trademark, c) the only firm historical framework for the letter is the Philippians’ request that Polycarp send them copies of Ignatius’s letters, since Ignatius had recently been martyred. This dates the letter most likely between 120– 140 C.E., while Marcion did not arrive in Rome with his teachings until 144.86 Thus, it is unlikely that Polycarp had any knowledge of Marcion or Marcionism when he wrote his letter. Tertullian’s use of 1 John 4:2 likewise provides little help in discerning the original meaning of the text. First, like the other Fathers, Tertullian changes the grammar of 1 John 4:2 from a participle to an infinitive. Second, while Tertullian speculates that 1 John was written against “proto-Marcionites,” he does not provide any evidence for this. He is very free in the way he uses NT texts against his contemporary adversaries. In the same place he quotes 1 John 4:2 against Marcion,87 he quotes John 1:14 against “Ebion,” 1 Cor 8:6 against Cerinthus, and Gal 1:8 against “the energeme of Apelles’ virgin Philumena.” Obviously he is not interested in the original historical intention of those passages. Like other early polemicists, he is more concerned with showing how the apostles’ inspired foresight ruled these heresies out of bounds even before they arose. The allusion to 1 John 4:2 in 3 Corinthians is also not without its problems. The Johannine text is clearly being put to use for purposes far beyond its original purview. The heretics rebutted in 3 Corinthians deny the resurrection of the body, Jesus’ humanity, his virginal birth and Davidic descent, his suffering and crucifixion, and that the Father 85

86 87

See Phil. 12.3 and the discussion in Hartog, “Opponents,” 390. Cf. also P. Borgen, “Ignatius and Traditions on the Birth of Jesus,” in Paul Preaches Circumcision and Pleases Men and Other Essays on Christian Origins (Trondheim: Tapir, 1983), 157, who observes the same phenomenon in Ignatius, where the confession of Rom 1:3, originally non-polemical, is taken up and used polemically. According to Tertullian, Marc. 19. Carn. Chr. 24.

196

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

of Jesus is the Creator God. Thus, they appear to be full-blown gnostics. Moreover, 3 Corinthians dramatically changes the grammar of 1 John 4:2 so that it serves its anti-docetic purposes more effectively. The participle of 4:2 is changed into a finite verb (ἦλθεν), “Jesus Christ” is shortened to “Christ,” and ἐν σαρκί becomes εἰς σάρκα. These changes only reinforce my contention that the confession as it appears in 1 John is inadequate for rebutting docetism. It should be noted as well that the early use of 1 John 4:2 does not uniformly take it as anti-docetic polemic. Origen, most significantly, quotes 1 John 4:2 repeatedly. In his commentary on 1 Cor 12:3,88 he appeals to 1 John 4:1–2 as a criterion for distinguishing Christian prophets, who speak by God’s spirit, from Jewish prophets (which he describes as giving impressive public expositions of Scripture). While both may appear to be inspired, the Jew is disqualified on the basis of the tests given by Paul and John. Thus, Origen sees 1 John 4:1–2 as a dividing line between Jews and Christians, not between docetists and orthodox Christians. In his other quotations or allusions, Origen treats the passage as a simple statement that the divine Messiah has come, in human flesh, in fulfillment of OT prophecies which speak of God’s coming.89

5. The Brevity, Lack of Elaboration, and Obscurity of the Confession A further stumbling-block for the anti-docetic view is the marked brevity, not to mention imprecision, of the confessional criterion that 1 John puts forth in order to help its audience discern between spirits. If, as the anti-docetic view asserts, the schism in the community was the direct result of the opponents’ docetic teachings, one would expect the author to dwell on this very topic at much greater length than we find in 1 John 4:2.90 Instead the author makes use of an extraordinarily compact and concise confessional formula. Rather than clarify the doctrinal criterion by which to judge who rightly belongs to the 88

89 90

Fr. 1 Cor. 47.7 (for English translation, see J. L. Kovacs, 1 Corinthians: Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators (The Church’s Bible; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 197–98. Cf. Hom. Ps. 49:3, 67:5. See above, p. 175, for further discussion of Origen’s use of 1 John 4. Cf. Griffith, Keep, 180; Neufeld, Reconceiving, 119, asks, “If the confession were the direct result of a Docetic heresy would the author not need to give more context?”

Opposing Docetic Christology

197

community, the author offers no elaboration. This is all the more notable when we compare other early anti-docetic statements. Ignatius repeatedly rails against his opponents, directly rebutting them pointby-point and making reference to their own terminology (the use of δοκεῖν).91 He appends the emphatic ἀληθῶς to the traditional formulations to stress their trustworthiness. Tertullian found it necessary to pen a lengthy treatise entirely devoted to proving that Jesus was truly fleshly, and explaining how that flesh should and should not be understood. In contrast, as M. de Boer notes, in 1 John, apart from 4:2, “There is precious little indication of the humanity of Jesus Christ as such and certainly no discernible emphasis on it.”92 Indeed, the term σάρξ only appears twice in 1 John, once in 2:16, with an ethical connotation, and once in our passage, 4:2. If it truly was the watchword in the docetic debate, it is incomprehensible that it would appear only once, and only after four chapters, in an epistle forged in the fires of that very debate— and this from an author whose rhetorical modus operandi is repetitio.93 For purposes of comparison, we may note that the author uses terms for love 47x (ἀγαπάω, ἀγάπη), familial language 64x (υἱός, πατήρ, ἀδελφός, τέκνον, τεκνίον), sin 27x (ἁμαρτία, ἁμαρτάνω), life 14x (ζωή, ζάω), and commandment 14x (ἐντολή). His emphases come across very clearly. The flesh of Jesus is not one of them.

91 92

93

See the discussion of Ignatius’s anti-docetism above, p. 40. Boer, “Death,” 328. Cf. Whitacre, Polemic, 127, who notes the lack of emphasis on the flesh of Christ in both the Fourth Gospel and the Epistles. The fleshly nature of Jesus, he observes, is “evident through relatively incidental material” in the Johannine literature. This may seem to play directly into the hands of R.Brown, et al., when he argues that it is the very absence of any consideration of Jesus’ flesh in the Fourth Gospel which led the ultra-Johannine opponents to devalue or even deny it. Indeed, of the 13 uses of σάρξ in the Fourth Gospel, all but 3 appear in portions often considered secondary (1:13, 14; 6:51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56; 6:63; 17:2), perhaps the work of an anti-docetic redactor. The remaining instances (twice in 3:6; 8:15) betray a negative valuation of σάρξ, which the ultra-Johannine opponents would have maintained. This is misleading, however, since even in the supposedly secondary anti-docetic texts, there are negative references to flesh, in addition to the expected positive uses. For example, the prologue devalues both “flesh” (θέλημα σαρκός) and “blood” (αἷμα) in v13, and the Bread of Life discourse devalues the flesh (ἡ σὰρξ οὐκ ὠφελεῖ οὐδέν; 6:63), while valorizing the s/Spirit. It is thus difficult to say that the Johannine tradition, or any putative layer of it, has a distinctively negative or positive view of σάρξ. In fact, both a positive and a negative view of σάρξ appear in 1 John itself (negative: 2:16; positive: 4:2), which leads me to conclude that it is not the opponents’ valuation of σάρξ that is at issue. Grayston, Epistles, 121.

198

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

The author also refers to the Son’s advent in various ways at least nine times,94 but only in 4:2 does he include σάρξ terminology. For the author, then, the term hardly qualifies as a major descriptor of the Son’s coming. Most striking, perhaps, is the way the author does choose to describe the Son’s coming. Three times he uses the verb, φανερόω (1:2a,b; 3:8), a term that, were his opponents docetic, would be very conducive to their views, since it does not necessarily connote incarnation. It can hardly be imagined that the author would be so imprecise in his use of such terms if the physicality of Jesus were at stake. One might also wonder why, if docetism was the central issue, the author never explains, even in the most general terms, why it was so important to confess that Jesus possessed true human flesh. 95 He spends much time explaining why it is necessary to love the brothers, why it is necessary to keep the commandments and avoid sin, and why it is necessary to confess Jesus as the messianic Son, but he offers not even a hint of an explanation as to why it was necessary that Jesus possess human flesh. I am not arguing, of course, that the author does not believe the true humanity of Jesus was necessary, but only that if it were the splinter issue at the heart of the schism, he would certainly have offered some rationale for his position.

6. Docetist Confessions of the Flesh of Jesus Christ a. Ways of Affirming the Incarnation Docetically This is an even more pressing objection when we consider whether 1 John 4:2 would actually be found repugnant by most docetists. The evidence indicates that many docetists were able to affirm the flesh of Jesus in a certain sense,96 and thus the confession of 1 John 4:2 would not be necessarily repugnant to them. Many docetists were quite subtle 94 95 96

In 1 John 1:2ab; 3:5, 8; 4:2, 9, 10; 5:6, 20; cf. 2:28; 3:2, which speak of the second advent. Observed by Houlden, Epistles, 107. To say that docetists could affirm the flesh of Jesus in a sense may seem disingenuous, but it should be realized that the epistolary author himself can only ascribe flesh to Jesus in a limited sense. In 1 John 2:15–17 he speaks of the ἐπιθυμία attached to the flesh. This is a common way of speaking about the flesh’s inherent inclination to sin, but it is to be expected that 1 John would not say that Jesus suffered from these deficiencies. For a discussion of docetic use of John 1:14, see K. Berger, “Zu ‘Das Wort ward Fleisch’ Joh. I 14a,” NovT 16 (1974): 161–66.

Opposing Docetic Christology

199

in their descriptions of Jesus’ nature. Several paths were open to them. First, they could affirm that Jesus was in the flesh, but only as an appearance (δόκησις). That is, the flesh of Jesus was an apparition or phantom. The incarnation in this sense is understood along the lines of theophanies or angelophanies in the OT, where the guise of flesh is assumed, and even physical activities (such as eating, etc.) may be performed. This is only an appearance, however; it does not extend to the level of φύσις. This appears to have been Marcion’s strategy.97 Second, docetists like Valentinus could affirm the flesh of the Savior, but distinguish it from human flesh with regard to its precise nature. Thus, the Gospel of Truth (I,3) states that the Logos came into the midst of the world and became a body (26.4–8), but Valentinus’s writings make it clear that the heavenly, spiritual flesh borne by Jesus is to be distinguished from the natural flesh of normal humans.98 The Savior only took on the “form” of a human being (Phil 2:7) and was made “in the likeness of flesh” (Rom 8:3).99 These subtleties are the reason Tertullian must devote an entire treatise to the single topic of the flesh of Christ, and another treatise to refuting Marcion’s errors.100

b. The Excerpta ex Theodoto There are several texts commonly ascribed to gnostic or docetic groups which use the language of incarnation or embodiment to describe Christ.101 Among the Valentinian literature, the Excerpta ex Theodoto actually employ the language of the Fourth Gospel to speak of “a receptacle of flesh for the Logos, the spiritual seed; clad in it the Saviour descended” (1.1).102 In Exc. 59.1–4 the text speaks of Christ’s 97 98 99

According to Tertullian, Marc. 3.9; cf. Carn. Chr. 3. See Tertullian, Carn. Chr. 15.1; 19.5. Cf. Heracleon, fr. 8, for a parallel. See the Valentinian Gos. Truth 31.1–8. See the discussion of Valentinian anthropology and Christology in Williams, Biblical, 115–17; S. Arai, “Zur Lesung und Übersetzung des Evangelium Veritatis: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis seiner Christologie,” NovT 5 (1962): 214–18; C. I. K. Story, The Nature of Truth in the Gospel of Truth and in the Writings of Justin Martyr: A Study of the Pattern of Orthodoxy (NovTSupp 25; Leiden: Brill, 1970), 20; Yoshiie Shibata, “Non-docetic Character of Evangelium Veritatis,” AJBI 1 (1975): 127–34. 100 De Carne Christi; Adversus Marcionem. 101 Cf. the conclusion of K. King, Gnosticism, 213, after her survey of Gnosticism and its relationship to docetic Christology: “The cliché that gnostic Christology is docetic has to give way to a much more complex treatment of early Christian debates about Christology and anthropology.” 102 See Thomassen, Spiritual Seed, 41–42, for discussion.

200

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

incarnation in a “sensible body” that allows him to be manifest in the world. Later (in 60.1–2), reference is made to the “formation of the Lord’s body” in the “body of the Virgin.” These in no way compromise the staunch dualism of the rest of the work, but merely provide the nuance necessary to affirm the confession of the church while maintaining the dualistic denigration of the flesh.

c. The Gospel of Philip The Gospel of Philip (II,3), often identified as Valentinian, 103 is typically gnostic-docetic in that it repudiates sexual activity and finds the body to be a “contemptible” prison house for the soul (56.24–26). It depicts Jesus as a shape-shifting polymorph (57.28–58.10).104 Nevertheless, in 57.2–10, it quotes John 6:53, affirming that it is necessary to eat Jesus’ flesh and drink his blood, while also noting that Jesus interpreted these spiritually. In 57.9–22, it appears to affirm a resurrection of the flesh. Most importantly, 68.30–37 states that Jesus is “incarnate” but that his flesh “is true flesh” unlike that of humans, which is an image of true flesh. Later, 71.1–10 again speaks of the incarnation when Christ’s body came into being by the Virgin; i.e., he was “begotten.”

d. The Tripartite Tractate Similarly, the Tripartite Tractate (I,5), also heavily influenced by Valentinian thought, contains the typically gnostic themes of the Pleroma and its emanations, but nevertheless speaks unflinchingly of the “body” and “flesh” of the Son. In 66.14 the author alludes to Col 2:8–9, calling the Son “the body of the bodiless.”105 In 114.33–115.11, the text speaks of the Savior’s condescension, how he “let himself be conceived and born as an infant, in body and soul.” Even more, he took “upon himself the death of those whom he thought to save” and he suffered. These are hardly the sentiments of a naïve docetism, but instead reflect the nuanced theological constructions of one who is 103 See Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 325; W. W. Isenberg, “The Gospel of Philip (II, 3),” in The Nag Hammadi Library in English (3rd ed; ed. James M. Robinson; San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988), 139; F. Lapham, An Introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 97, finds it primitively Valentinian. 104 See Foster, “Polymorphic Christology,” 84. 105 Cf. 116.30, which speaks of “the Totality in bodily form.”

Opposing Docetic Christology

201

careful to use the language of the Scriptures while infusing it with new, and perhaps subversive, meanings.

e. The Treatise on the Resurrection The Treatise on the Resurrection (I,4), identified as docetic by its first editors,106 uses typically gnostic-dualistic terms to describe salvation as the mind or soul being freed from the bondage of the flesh and being restored to the Pleroma (44.13–34). Nevertheless, it describes Jesus as the Savior, a pre-existent being who was incarnated so that he “existed in flesh” (44.14–15) and possessed both humanity and divinity in order to deliver those who were slaves in the flesh (49.9–50.11).

f. The Trimorphic Protennoia The Trimorphic Protennoia (XIII,1), representative of Barbeloite or Sethian Gnosticism, also seems to be able to incorporate into its conceptual framework the notion of incarnation. Indeed, in 47.16, it seems to allude to the very language of the Johannine Prologue:107 “The Third time I revealed myself to them in their tents as Word, and I revealed myself in the likeness of their shape.108 And I wore everyone’s garment, and I hid myself within them, and they did not know the one who empowers me.” It is clear that even the Prologue of John, long cherished as the antidote to docetism, proved susceptible to the subtleties of gnostic readings.109 106 See M. Malinine et al., eds., De resurrectione (Epistula ad Rheginum), (Zürich: Rascher, 1963). More recent scholarship has questioned the designation; cf. M. L. Peel, The Epistle to Rheginos: A Valentinian Letter on the Resurrection (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 113, who thinks it is Valentinian. 107 On the relationship, see Gesine Robinson, “The Trimorphic Protennoia and the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel,” in Gnosticism and the Early Christian World (ed. James E. Goehring, et al; Sonoma: Polebridge, 1990), 37–50; C. Evans, “On the Prologue and the Trimorphic Protennoia,” NTS 27 (1981): 395–401; J. M. Robinson, “Sethians,” 643–61. 108 See J. Helderman, “‘In ihren Zelten…’ Bemerkungen bei Codex XIII Nag Hammadi p. 47:14–18, im Hinblick auf Joh i 14,” in Miscellanea Neotestamentica, Volumen Primum (ed. T. Baarda et al; NovTSup 47; Leiden: Brill, 1978), 181–211, esp. 207. 109 This lends support to the reading of Luise Schottroff, Der Glaubende und die feindliche Welt: Beobachtungen zum gnostischen Dualismus und seiner Bedeutung für Paulus und das Johannesevangelium (Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft: Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1970), 275–76, who thinks that John 1:14 is open to a gnostic or docetic reading, and is not

202

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

g. The Gospel of Thomas Finally, we might consider the Gospel of Thomas, which is often assigned to a docetic or gnostic milieu. Logion 28, however, contains a very strong statement about Jesus’ flesh: λέγει Ἰησοῦς· ἔστην ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ ὤφθην αὐτοῖς.110 This is followed by another saying (logion 29),111 in which Jesus expresses his amazement at the way the spirit had made its home in flesh, such wealth in such poverty. This is taken by some to be a statement of the incarnation, especially in its present context where it is linked to logion 28.112 Thus, it seems that many docetists—in light of their statements concerning the flesh of Jesus—would find nothing in 1 John 4:2 necessarily impossible to confess, given their equivocations on the term “flesh.”113 The docetist’s ability to incorporate ideas of incarnation and fleshliness into his system would allow him virtual immunity to 1 John’s attacks. The same also holds for other Johannine passages often taken as anti-docetic. We have seen above how docetists approvingly quote both John 1:14 and 6:51–58. Indeed, a passage such as 1 John 1:1– 3 uses language that could easily be co-opted by docetists.114 D. Neufeld, then, is right to argue that if the confession of 1 John 4:2 addressed a docetic heresy, the author would need to give more context if he wished his argument to be understood in such a manner, much less to be effective.115

110

111 112 113

114

115

anti-docetic in intention. One might also compare Käsemann, Testament, 233, who contends that, in order to be anti-docetic, John 1:14 needs to read ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος, since the terminology of σάρξ tends to connote more of a covering than a change in nature. P.Oxy. 1.11–21a. B. Gärtner, The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas (trans. E. Sharpe; New York: Harper, 1961), 142, thinks that the verb ὤφθη here does not describe incarnation in the later orthodox sense. Gärtner reads it as tending toward docetism. It is difficult, however, to draw a firm distinction between Thomas’s term, ὤφθη, and the Johannine use of ἐφανερώθη (1 John 1:2; 3:5, 8; cf. 1 Tim 3:16). Only extant in Coptic. See, e.g. E. Schweizer, “σάρξ, κτλ,” TDNT 7:149. Cf. Vouga, Johannesbriefe, 64; idem, “Réception,” 292; Lieu, “Authority,” 217, observes that “coming or appearing in the flesh could be interpreted docetically and used within a gnostic Christology.” See Lieu, “Authority,” 214, who challenges an anti-docetic reading and argues that “I John’s reference to ‘the life was manifested’ could be as congenial to docetics as to their opponents. The passage has less force as an anti-docetic polemic than at first sight.” Neufeld, Reconceiving, 119. He also observes, “I am not aware that any one ever claimed that Christ had not been, in some way, in the flesh” (ibid.).

Opposing Docetic Christology

203

7. A Possible Response One possible response to this line of argument is offered by L. Hurtado. He recognizes that texts such as the Gospel of Truth spoke of the Redeemer’s flesh, but he still thinks it likely that 1 John 4:2 is aimed at the teaching preserved in such a document. How can this be, when Valentinians spoke freely of the Savior’s flesh? Hurtado answers that the accusation in 1 John 4:2 “reflects the author’s polemical judgment about the teaching of the secessionists, not a simple quotation of their teaching. The secessionists could well have referred to Jesus’ ‘flesh,’ but if so, their interpretation of it was unsatisfactory to the author, and he judged it to be, to all intents and purposes, a denial of Jesus’ real fleshly existence.”116 In other words, the author is engaging in a fight to define flesh on his terms. He is denying that the Valentinians use the term properly.117 Hurtado’s argument, though, begs the question. He must a) assume that 1 John’s interpretation of the “flesh” of Jesus does actually differ from the Valentinian teaching (though there is no firm basis for this in the text), b) assume that “in flesh” is the main point of contention (though, again, there is nothing in the text that would support this), and c) ignore the fact that 1 John takes no great pains to define flesh or to elaborate on the term in any way, all of which would be expected if the debate were definitional. If the secessionists actually used the term σάρξ, surely we should expect some attempt to nuance and support the accusation that the opponents denied the flesh of Jesus.

116 Larry W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 547. 117 One might compare modern debates over terms like “Christian” (e.g., are Mormons “Christians” or not?), “evangelical,” or “inerrancy.” Cf. the arguments above (p. 137) concerning the confession of 2:22 that Jesus is the Messiah. With regard to that confession, some read 1 John as claiming that the opponents, although professing to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, do not really believe that he is the Messiah in the same sense as the author and his community. By denying some aspect of the community’s teaching, the opponents have effectively denied (in the eyes of the author) that Jesus is the Messiah.

204

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

8. Non-Polemical Parallels to 1 John 4:2 The final, and, in my opinion, most convincing, reason not to take 1 John 4:2 as anti-docetic polemic is the great number of parallels from early Christian texts118 that use the term σάρξ or a close equivalent to refer to the coming or the life of Jesus, but do not appear to have an anti-docetic intent (indeed, in most cases, they have no polemical intent at all). These parallels demonstrate that it was very common for early Christians, especially in their creeds and confessions, to hail Jesus as the Messiah who came in the flesh without necessarily having docetic opponents in mind.119

a. Romans 1:3–4 Occurring at the beginning of Paul’s letter, this summary of Paul’s gospel emphasizes the way that Jesus fulfills Scripture’s prophetic promises as the messianic Son of God, both as David’s descendant, and as the risen and enthroned Lord. The passage probably preserves some type of preformed tradition, whether oral or written,120 as indicated by 118 By “early,” I mean that they pre-date the docetism debate. Even in the case of texts often assigned to the late first century, or early second century (e.g., 1 Timothy, 1 Peter), such texts preserve confessions or traditions from a much earlier period. 119 For discussion of the evidence used to identify traditional material or confessions in the NT, see the classic discussion by E. Norden, Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede (Leipzig: Teubner, 1912), 240–308, who proposed four criteria: a) parallelismus membrorum, b) the use of introductory pronouns in the thirdperson singular (e.g., αὐτός, ἐν αὐτῷ, etc.), c) the use of relative clauses and participial syntax, d) an exalted writing style. An updated list may be found in Richard N. Longenecker, New Wine into Fresh Wineskins: Contextualizing the Early Christian Confessions (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999), 11, who adopts Norden’s basic criteria and also includes a) the presence of hapax legomena or phrasing unusual for an author, b) a preference for participles over finite verbs, reflecting oral provenance, c) contextual dislocations, d) affirmation of a basic Christian conviction, especially a Christological one, e) the use of the noun ὁμολογία or the verb ὁμολογέω with a double accusative or an infinitive, f) the use of ὅτι recitativum, g) the use of verbs such as εὐαγγελίζομαι, κηρύσσω, καταγγέλλω, διδάσκω, or μαρτυρέω. For a history of scholarship on the issue of early creeds and confessions, see Neufeld, Confessions, 6–7. E. Stauffer, New Testament Theology (New York: Macmillan, 1955), 246–47, provides twelve criteria for creedal statements in Appendix III of his work. 120 See Robert Jewett, “The Redaction and Use of an Early Christian Confession in Romans 1:3–4,” in The Living Text: Essays in Honor of Ernest W. Saunders (ed. R. Jewett and D. E. Groh; Washington: University Press of America, 1985), 99–122, for a survey of literature on the traditional nature of the creed. Cf. C. Talbert, Romans

Opposing Docetic Christology

205

a) the Christological content (a standard subject of confessions), b) the parallel structure with a two stage flesh-spirit pattern,121 c) the participle-driven syntax, d) the clustering of Christological titles (Son, Son of God, Seed of David, Messiah, Lord), e) the “un-Pauline” vocabulary.122 Furthermore, the contrast between σάρξ and πνεῦμα is not representative of Paul’s customary ethical usage. It would, of course, be rhetorically effective for Paul, at the beginning of a letter to a church he has never visited, to establish common ground on the basis of a common confession. If Rom 1:3–4 is indeed a preformed confession known to both Paul and the Romans, it is likely to be fairly early, at least dating back to the early 50s, and, if widely accepted, possibly formulated by the Jerusalem church. There is no hint of polemical intent in the confession’s use of σάρξ. The confession predates the docetic controversy and cannot have been formulated with a docetic threat in mind. The statement that Jesus is ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα articulates one of the foundational truths of the early Church’s message, namely that Jesus had the genealogical credentials to be Israel’s Messiah who fulfills the Scriptures.123 The term σάρξ is parallel to πνεῦμα; this sequence moves (SHBC 24; Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2002), 32; C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1985–1986), 1:57; James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1–8 (WBC 38A; Dallas: Word, 1988), 69; A. M. Hunter, Paul and His Predecessors (2nd ed.; London: SCM, 1961), 28; Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 45–46; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 234, calls it a “creedal formula”; Klaus Wengst, Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1972), 112–14; Schweizer, “Röm. 1,3f, und der Gegensatz von Fleisch und Geist vor und bei Paulus,” in Neotestamentica (Zürich: Zwingli, 1963), 185–87; P. E. Langevin, “Une confession prépaulinienne de la ‘Seigneurie’ du Christ: Exégèse de Romains 1,3–4,” in Le Christ hier, aujord’hui et demain (ed. R. Laflamme and M. Gervais; Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 1976), 284–91; Hans-Jürgen van der Minde, Schrift und Tradition bei Paulus: ihre Bedeutung und Funktion im Römerbrief (PThSt 3; München: Schöningh, 1976), 40–43. 121 τοῦ γενομένου…τοῦ ὁρισθέντος; ἐκ σπέρματος…ἐξ ἀναστάσεως; κατὰ σάρκα …κατὰ πνεῦμα. 122 Paul nowhere else uses ὁρίζω or πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης. The language of “David’s seed” appears again in the Pauline corpus only in 2 Tim 2:8, which is also probably traditional. See Moo, Romans, 50. 123 James D. G. Dunn, “How Controversial Was Paul’s Christology?” in From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge (ed. Martinus C. De Boer; JSNTSup 84; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 152, finds “no trace” of polemic in this confession. The phrase κατὰ σάρκα is used with this same genealogical meaning in Rom 4:1; 9:5; Gal 4:23, though with an additional theological edge to it in the latter case. Cf. Fitzmyer, Romans, 234.

206

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

the confession narratively from Jesus’ birth to his resurrection and exaltation. The background of the confession is not a debate over Jesus’ humanity, but over his identity as Israel’s Messiah. The key strands of thought in the confession, therefore, are drawn from the early church’s distinctive Christological interpretation of the Scriptures. The Wirkungsgeschichte of this text is a helpful lesson in how an originally non-polemical confession can be later applied for polemical purposes. Irenaeus124 uses Rom 1:3–4 (as well as Rom 9:5 and Gal 4:4–5, both of which will be discussed below) against the docetists of his day. So also, Tertullian takes it up as a weapon in the fight against Marcionism.125 This should give pause to those who think that the Fathers’ use of the Johannine literature captures its original intent.

b. Romans 8:3 In Romans 8:3, Paul takes up what is sometimes thought to be a Christological “sending-formula”126 when he states the solution to the problem posed by the Law-Sin-Flesh axis: θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸν πέμψας ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας. Whether creedal or not, this statement certainly did not have its genesis in a controversy over docetism. Statements concerning the Son’s coming in the flesh were core affirmations of the church long before anyone ever denied Jesus’ physicality.127

124 Haer. 3.22.1; cf. also 3.16.3. 125 Carn. Chr. 22. It seems likely that Ignatius in Eph. 7:2 used Rom 1:3 against his docetic opponents as well. Cf. Borgen, “Ignatius,” 157, for discussion. 126 Possibly reflected as well in Gal 4:4; John 3:17; 1 John 4:9. See E. Schweizer, “Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund der ‘Sendungsformel’: Gal 4:4f., Rm 8:3f., Joh 3:16f., 1 Joh 4:9,” ZNW 57 (1966): 199–210; H. Paulsen, Überlieferung und Auslegung in Römer 8 (WMANT 43; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1974), 42; C. E. B. Cranfield, “Some Comments on Professor J. D. G. Dunn’s Christology in the Making with Special Reference to the Evidence of the Epistle to the Romans,” in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Memory of G. B. Caird (ed. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright; Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 270–71; Werner Kramer, Christos, Kyrios, Gottessohn: Untersuchungen zu Gebrauch und Bedeutung die christologische Bezeichnungen bei Paulus und die vorpaulinischen Gemeinden (ATANT 44; Zürich: Zwingli, 1963), 8–10. 127 However, Heffern, Apology, 258, who espoused what one might call a “pan-gnostic” theory of Christian origins, found a polemic against gnosticizing docetists even in Rom 8:3.

Opposing Docetic Christology

207

c. Romans 9:5 Again, in Romans 9:5, Paul uses σάρξ with regard to Jesus as the Messiah. This occurs in the midst of his catalog of Israel’s blessings (vv. 4–5). Paul concludes his list with the crowning item: ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα. It is widely recognized that Χριστός here functions as a title, not a personal name.128 Why Paul attaches κατὰ σάρκα here is unclear. The most likely meaning of κατὰ σάρκα here would be, like that of Rom 1:3, a reference to the Messiah’s Jewish (more specifically, Davidic) ancestry, as distinguished from his divine appointment, which is κατὰ πνεῦμα (1:4). This is the meaning it carries in 9:3, where Paul refers to his συγγενεῖς κατὰ σάρκα. What is striking about the phrase ὁ Χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα is its stereotypical feel. It may have been a standard Jewish way of referring to the Messiah that stressed his status as the legitimate physical heir to Israel’s kingship.129

d. First Timothy 3:16 This passage is almost unanimously—one might say, “confessedly”— acknowledged to be a confessional or hymnic fragment. 130 The 128 James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9–16 (WBC 38B; Dallas: Word, 1988), 616. This is recognized even by Fitzmyer, Romans, 547, who is very skeptical of the titular use elsewhere. 129 This instinct is given some confirmation if the list in Rom 9:4–5 is, as some have argued, a traditional Jewish list. See Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Römer (14th ed.; KEK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1978), 295; Brendan Byrne, Sons of God, Seed of Abraham: A Study of the Idea of the Sonship of God of All Christians in Paul against the Jewish Background (AnBib 83; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1979), 82–84; B. Byrne, Romans (SP; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1996), 287. 130 The bibliography on this passage is immense. A very thorough discussion is provided by Jerome D. Quinn and William C. Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy (ECC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 315–48. He calls the passage “a gem from the treasury of first-century Christian liturgy” (316); cf. R. H. Gundry, “The Form, Meaning and Background of the Hymn Quoted in 1 Timothy 3:16,” in Apostolic History and the Gospel (ed. W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 203–22; Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 270, 276, calls it a “Christ hymn” and a confession, noting that it has “the liturgical tone of a call to confession.” Cf. Reinhard Deichgräber, Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frühen Christenheit: Untersuchungen zur Form, Sprache und Stil der frühchristlichen Hymnen (SUNT 5; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967), 133–37; J. T. Sanders, The New Testament Christological Hymns: Their Historical Religious Background (SNTSMS 15; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), 81–96; I. H. Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 497–504; Wolfgang Metzger, Der Christushymnus 1.

208

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

rhythmic parallel structure,131 the assonance (verbs ending in -θη), the participial syntax, the use of the relative pronoun ὅς at the beginning, and the prefatory ὁμολογουμένως all point to the presence of preformed tradition. What is most important for our purposes, however, is that this primitive confession speaks of the Messiah’s132 manifestation133 ἐν σαρκί, the same phraseology found in 1 John 4:2. While some scholars posit an anti-gnostic or anti-docetic intent to 1 Tim 3:16,134 such a view has been strongly challenged; the opponents are more commonly thought to be enthusiasts with an over-realized

131 132

133

134

Timotheus 3, 16: Fragment einer Homologie der paulinischen Gemeinden (AzTh 62; Stuttgart: Calwer, 1979); Neufeld, Confessions, 128–33; E. Schweizer, “Two New Testament Creeds Compared: I Corinthians 15.3–5 and I Timothy 3.16,” in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Otto A. Piper (ed. W. Klassen and G. F. Snyder; London: SCM, 1962), 166–77; Martin Dibelius and Hans Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), 61. Aorist passive verb + ἐν + anarthrous dative noun. While the closest grammatical antecedent is neuter (τὸ μυστήριον), the relative pronoun is masculine (ὅς), indicating that the conceptual referent (constructio ad sensum) is probably ὁ Χριστός or ὁ υἱός (Towner, Letters, 278). Walter Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924), 45, suggested that 1 Tim 3:16 was the continuation of the hymn begun in Eph 5:14; this would make the referent ὁ Χριστός. The same term (φανερόω) is used in 1 John 1:2; 3:5; 3:8; 4:9 to refer to the Son’s first advent, and again in 2:28 and 3:2 with reference to the second coming (cf. John 1:31, where John baptizes in order to make the Messiah manifest to Israel: ἵνα φανερωθῇ τῷ Ἰσραήλ). There may be an ironic use in 1 John 2:19, which speaks of the antichrists’ “manifestation” as a counterfeit of the Messiah’s. On the Christology of the Pastoral Epistles, see Andrew Y. Lau, Manifest in Flesh: The Epiphany Christology of the Pastoral Epistles (WUNT 2.86; Tübingen: Mohr, 1996); Hanna Stettler, Die Christologie der Pastoralbriefe (WUNT 105; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998); Towner, Letters, 62–68; Jouette M. Bassler, “Epiphany Christology in the Pastoral Letters: Another Look,” in Pauline Conversations in Context. Essays in Honor of Calvin J. Roetzel (ed. Janice Capel Anderson et al.; JSNTSup 221; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 194–214. Heffern, Apology, 299; J. J. Gunther, St. Paul’s Opponents and Their Background: A Study of Apocalyptic and Jewish Sectarian Teachings (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 130. More recently, see Lorenz Oberlinner, Die Pastoralbriefe: Kommentar zum ersten Timotheusbrief erste Folge (HTKNT 11, 2; Freiburg: Herder, 1994), 69–71; Stettler, Christologie, 107. Many use the problematic terminology, “proto-gnostic” or “gnosticizing,” which I have critiqued above (see p. 33). For example, George W. Knight, The Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral Letters (Kampen: Kok, 1968), 27–28, speaks of a “Gnosticizing form of Judaism”; William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (WBC 46; Nashville: Nelson, 2000), lxix–lxxvi, finds “Hellenistic/gnostic tendencies.” Many of those who find gnosticizing thought behind the opponents, however, do not believe that a docetic Christology was central to, or even present in, their thought. These commentators emphasize the ascetic bent of the opponents and postulate a gnostic background for such asceticism. Cf. J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles: Timothy I and II, Titus (HNTC; San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1960), 12; Lock, Epistles, xvii.

Opposing Docetic Christology

209

eschatology and an ascetic reading of the Law, similar in kind to some of the problems in Corinth.135 Anti-docetic polemic seems especially unlikely because a) the hymn states what is agreed upon by everyone (ὁμολογουμένως), b) as a hymnic confession, it clearly predates 1 Timothy and is likely primitive and catholic, that is, agreed upon by the whole early Christian movement and not just Pauline churches,136 and 135 Most commentators do not even mention docetism in their discussion of 1 Tim 3:16. Cf. Mounce, Epistles, 212–32; Marshall, Pastoral, 499–504, 522–24, who finds the emphasis to be missional and comments, “Certainly, there is no trace of a polemical tone here” (522); Dibelius, Epistles, 65–67; Lau, Manifest, 23–25; Bassler, “Epiphany,” 194–215; Towner, Letters, 270, 284–85, says that if docetism were at issue, we could expect a much stronger response from the author. He understands the use of “flesh” to be in opposition to the ascetic tendencies of the opponents; cf. Philip H. Towner, “Christology in the Letters to Timothy and Titus,” in Contours of Christology in the New Testament (ed. Richard N. Longenecker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 219– 44; Stephen E. Fowl, The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul: An Analysis of the Function of the Hymnic Material in the Pauline Corpus (JSNTSup 36; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 180. N. Brox, Die Pastoralbriefe (RNT 7.2; Regensburg: Pustet , 1969), 34, 37, argues for anti-docetism, but does so by mirror-reading 1 Tim 2:5, “the man Christ Jesus,” as an attack on those who denied Jesus’ humanity. As I have shown above (p. 198), however, most docetists did not directly attack Jesus’ humanity so much as relegate it to mere appearance. Thus, 1 Tim 2:5 could hardly be a sufficient rebuttal of docetism. 136 Quinn, Letters, 320–21, speaks of its “very archaic Christology” and traces it back to a Palestinian Jewish milieu, even attempting a retroversion into Aramaic (324–25). He theorizes that it would have been formulated as early as the creed of 1 Cor 15:3–5, within the first or second decade of the Jerusalem church. Amos N. Wilder, Early Christian Rhetoric: The Language of the Gospel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971), 91, remarks that it is “plainly an old hymn.” See Norden, Agnostos, 254–56, for a discussion of the Semitic features of the hymn. Gundry, “Form,” 220–21, believes the confession has an “early Palestinian Jewish matrix” as opposed to a Hellenistic one, although he thinks it was originally composed in Greek. He does not take the hymn as originally anti-docetic, but he does believe that “the stress on incarnation, which originated in the Jewish idea of theophany, now [i.e., in its present location in 1 Timothy] counteracts gnostic docetism and asceticism” (222); ironically, as I discussed above, some strands of docetism may actually have derived their theology from a theory of OT theophanies (p. 198). Lock, Epistles, 44–45, notes how the hymn’s theology seems to be widely representative of early Christianity. H. Windisch, “Zur Christologie der Pastoralbriefe,” ZNW 34 (1935): 213–38, emphasizes the author’s almost slavish faithfulness to his sources and traditions, and believes the author is drawing on very primitive pre-Pauline tradition. C. K. Barrett, “Pauline Controversies in the Post-Pauline Period,” NTS 20 (1973–74), 242, also finds it to be quite early and thinks that it predates Gnosticism because the hymn uses too much language that would later be adopted by Gnosticism; cf. Anthony Tyrrell Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 86. J. L. Houlden, The Pastoral Epistles: I and II Timothy, Titus (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1976), 85, too believes the hymn tends toward a docetic understanding of Jesus. The argument for the primitivity of the confessional hymn is somewhat weakened, of course, the later 1 Timothy is dated. See, e.g., the arguments of W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in

210

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

c) this is the only time σάρξ is used in 1 Timothy; the physicality of Jesus does not seem to be an issue. Like Rom 1:3–4, then, this passage contains the two-stage summary of Jesus’ existence: first ἐν σαρκί, then ἐν πνεύματι.137 This is paralleled in the final strophe by ἐν κόσμῳ and ἐν δόξῃ. Here σάρξ terminology is used once again to delineate the two stages of Jesus’ messianic career; it does not have an anti-docetic purpose.138 To say that Messiah was “manifested in flesh” is to say virtually the same thing as “he has come.”139 Exegetes dispute whether ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί refers to the incarnation,140 or to a more specific moment in Jesus’ human career, such as his death.141 Towner suggests that it may simply refer to “the arena of humanity as the place in which he did his work.”142 This confession, then, summarizes the basic teaching of the Pauline mission, labeled here τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον but elsewhere described as τὸ μυστήριον τῆς πίστεως (1 Tim 3:9), οἱ λόγοι τῆς πίστεως καὶ ἡ καλὴ διδασκαλία (4:6), and ἡ κατ᾽ εὐσέβειαν διδασκαλία (6:3). We might note also the way that the confessional statement leads directly to a denunciation of those who, denying the mystery of godliness, are participating in an end-time apostasy and paying attention to “deceptive spirits” (πνεύματα πλάνα); this is closely parallel to 1 John 4:1–6.

137 138

139 140 141

142

Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 222–24, and Campenhausen, Polykarp, that the Pastoral Epistles are anti-Marcionite works. Even Dibelius and Conzelmann, Epistles, 66, however, who represent the general tendency to date the Pastorals in the early second century, do not find 1 Tim 3:16 or 1 Tim 2:5–6 to be aimed at Christological errors. They remark, “We are, after all, dealing with traditional Christological formulations.” For arguments in favor of earlier dates, see Quinn, Letters, 19, who dates the PE from 80–85, and Lock, Epistles, xxii, who dates them before 90. Marshall, Pastoral, 524, finds the use of σάρξ here comparable to its usage elsewhere in the undisputed Pauline literature. Even if it is argued that the hymn does have an anti-docetic thrust in its present position, such would not have been the case for the hymn in its original liturgical setting. Thus the phrase ἐν σαρκί could not be said to be inherently anti-docetic in intent. See Witherington, Homilies, 494, 524. So Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 513–14; Lau, Manifest, 66–67; Dibelius, Epistles, 29; Kelly, Pastoral, 90; Hanson, Pastoral, 85. So David Michael Stanley, Christ’s Resurrection in Pauline Soteriology (AnBib 13; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1961), 237; Werner Stenger, Der Christushymnus 1 Tim 3,16: eine strukturanalytische Untersuchung (RST 6; Frankfurt/Main: Lang, 1977), 90. Towner, Letters, 279; cf. Gundry, “Form,” 210; Kelly, Pastoral, 90.

Opposing Docetic Christology

211

e. First Peter 3:18, 22 A very close parallel in structure and content to Rom 1:3–4 and 1 Tim 3:16, 1 Pet 3:18–22 is also considered by most to preserve a very early Christian hymn or confession.143 The bulk of debate has centered on the nature of Christ’s proclamation to the “spirits in prison.”144 While in Rom 1:3–4 and 1 Tim 3:16 σάρξ most likely referred either to the birth or earthly ministry of Jesus, 1 Pet 3:18 clearly focuses attention on the events at the end of that ministry, namely, Jesus’ suffering and death. This should not be seen as a significant departure from the other texts, however, since the same basic narrative sequence of flesh-spirit, corresponding to the mortal (pre-resurrection) and immortal (postresurrection) phases of Jesus’ existence, seems to be employed here, with only a minor shift in focus. Most scholars think that the hymn extends from 3:18–22. It is bracketed by ethical exhortations. Verse 17 provides the rationale for quoting the hymn: it is to serve as a Christological example of the kind of righteous suffering which the audience should be willing to endure. After the hymn, 4:1 reiterates the key point: “Since the Messiah suffered in the flesh,” believers should also be willing to suffer. There is no hint whatsoever in the context that any type of docetic heresy is being opposed in 1 Peter; it is even less likely that the hymn in its original setting had docetism in view. 145 The confession’s use of σάρξ is 143 Among those who identify it as a hymn are Windisch, Briefe, 70–72, who posited a baptismal context, and R. Bultmann, “Bekenntnis- und Liedfragmente im ersten Petrusbrief,” in Coniectanea Neotestamentica in Honorem Antonii Fridrichsen (Lund: Gleerup, 1947), 1–14, who reconstructed a hymn that lay submerged throughout 1 Peter, beginning in 1:20. M.-E. Boismard, Quatre hymnes baptismales dans la premiére épître de Pierre (LD 30; Paris: Cerf, 1961), 57–109, built on Bultmann’s work and posited a four-strophe baptismal hymn that incorporated 1:20. For points against a hymnic identification, see Edward Gordon Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 325. O. Cullmann, The Earliest Christian Confessions (London: SCM, 1949), 14–15, theorized that vv. 18–19, 22 were part of an early confession, with vv. 20–21 an interpolation that made the confession suitable for a baptismal context. John H. Elliott, 1 Peter (AB 37B; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 693, distinguishes between “early Christian kerygmatic tradition” in 3:18, 22, and exegetical traditions in 19–21. He notes that the lack of meter and consistent parallelism militates against a hymnic identification (697). 144 For a thorough bibliography, see William J. Dalton, Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits: A Study of 1 Peter 3:18–4:6 (2nd ed.; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989). 145 Most commentaries do not even consider the possibility of anti-docetic intent. Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 235–260; Elliott, 1 Peter, 637– 710; Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 134–46; Selwyn, Epistle, 194–207; Ernest Best, 1 Peter (NCB; Grand Rapids:

212

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

not polemical, but refers to the realm146 in which the Messiah suffered, in contradistinction to the Spirit, by which he was raised from the dead.147 Once again, then, we have an early and basic statement of the foundational Christian kerygma, 148 which has as one of its standard features a reference to the human existence of Jesus in the flesh, but which does not appear to have any polemical edge to it.

f. Other NT Texts In numerous other texts reference is made to Christ’s humanity (whether the term σάρξ or σῶμα is used) without any evidence of antidocetic intent. Many of these texts also seem to be preserving the language of the church’s early creeds and confessions. Thus, they would have been composed and confessed before docetism ever became an issue. Galatians 4:4 ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός149 Ephesians 2:14 καὶ τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ λύσας, τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ Philippians 2:6–7 ὃς ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος· καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος150

146 147

148 149

Eerdmans, 1977), 135–50; Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (NAC; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 179–98; Bultmann, “Bekenntnis,” 1–14, actually argued that the confession was originally gnostic (even though it contained “flesh” terminology), due to its likeness to the “redeemer myth.” Jobes, 1 Peter, 235. There is, of course, much debate about the meaning of ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι, but whether it refers to a pre- or post-resurrection state is not directly relevant for my argument. In my opinion, the parallels with the confessions of Rom 1:3–4 and 1 Tim 3:16 favor a reference to the resurrection. See Dalton, Proclamation, 14, for an extensive discussion of this reading. Much of the interpretive difficulty is eliminated when it is realized that in the couplet, θανατωθεὶς μὲν σαρκὶ ζῳοποιηθεὶς δὲ πνεύματι, the two datives do not, simply because they are grammatically parallel, need to be taken as identical in syntactical function. That is, σαρκί could be a dative of respect (“put to death with regard to the flesh”) while πνεύματι could function instrumentally (“made alive by the Spirit”). Elliott, 1 Peter, 644, calls it the “the very center of the early Christian kerygma.” See Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia, (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 206–207; Longenecker, New Wine, 17; Schweizer, “Hintergrund,” 199–210.

Opposing Docetic Christology

213

Colossians 1:22 νυνὶ δὲ ἀποκατήλλαξεν ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ διὰ τοῦ θανάτου. Colossians 2:9 ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς Hebrews 2:14 Ἐπεὶ οὖν τὰ παιδία κεκοινώνηκεν αἵματος καὶ σαρκός, καὶ αὐτὸς παραπλησίως μετέσχεν τῶν αὐτῶν, ἵνα διὰ τοῦ θανάτου καταργήσῃ τὸν τὸ κράτος ἔχοντα τοῦ θανάτου, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν τὸν διάβολον. Hebrews 5:7 ὃς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ δεήσεις τε καὶ ἱκετηρίας πρὸς τὸν δυνάμενον σῴζειν αὐτὸν ἐκ θανάτου μετὰ κραυγῆς ἰσχυρᾶς καὶ δακρύων προσενέγκας καὶ εἰσακουσθεὶς ἀπὸ τῆς εὐλαβείας.151 Hebrews 10:20 ἣν ἐνεκαίνισεν ἡμῖν ὁδὸν πρόσφατον καὶ ζῶσαν διὰ τοῦ καταπετάσματος, τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ. 1 Peter 2:24 ὃς τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν ἐν τῷ σώματι αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον152

g. Α Psalmic Source? It is quite possible that the common source upon which many of these confessional and creedal passages draw for their terminology is the Psalms, which were taken by the early church to be largely messianic prophecy. Psalm 16 (15 LXX), for example, is quoted in Acts 2:25–28 as a prediction of the Messiah’s resurrection. The psalm refers to the way that God rescues his holy one from the decay of the grave. As a result, the psalmist says, ἡ σάρξ μου κατασκηνώσει ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι (Acts 2:26). Other psalms likewise feature the term σάρξ in their descriptions of the 150 This passage is almost universally recognized as an early Christian hymn; see R P. Martin, Carmen Christi: Philippians ii. 5–11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship (SNTSM 4; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 24–41. 151 This passage is sometimes thought to preserve a Christological hymn; see G. Friedrich, “Das Lied vom Hohenpriester im Zusammenhang von Hebr 4,14–5,10,” TZ 18 (1962): 95–115. 152 This passage is very commonly traced back to earlier creeds or traditional material. See M. Hengel, “The Song about Christ in Earliest Worship,” in Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 285.

214

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

Messiah’s future suffering, perhaps prompting the early church to speak of the Messiah’s “suffering in the flesh”: Psalm 26:2 LXX ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ κακοῦντας τοῦ φαγεῖν τὰς σάρκας μου οἱ θλίβοντές με καὶ οἱ ἐχθροί μου αὐτοὶ ἠσθένησαν καὶ ἔπεσαν. Psalm 37:4 LXX (cf. v.7) οὐκ ἔστιν ἴασις ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου ἀπὸ προσώπου τῆς ὀργῆς σου. Psalm 101:6 LXX ἀπὸ φωνῆς τοῦ στεναγμοῦ μου ἐκολλήθη τὸ ὀστοῦν μου τῇ σαρκί μου.

h. The Epistle of Barnabas The same patterns continue into the second century, as the Apostolic Fathers take up the creedal formulations. First, in the Epistle of Barnabas, the phrase ἐν σαρκί appears several times, each time without any clear anti-docetic intent.153 In Barn. 5:6–7 it appears in the middle of a recital of the basic elements of the Gospel: Jesus was manifested in the flesh (ἐν σαρκὶ ἔδει αὐτὸν φανερωθῆναι), died, and was raised from the dead. This passage uses the same language found in the hymn of 1 Tim 3:16. Only a few sentences later, in 5:10–14, the author celebrates the way that the Son of God condescended to the humble state of mortal humanity in order to reveal God. If he had not come in the flesh, the author argues, people would not be able to see him and to be saved (εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἦλθεν ἐν σαρκί πῶς ἂν ἐσώθησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι βλέποντες αὐτόν). Furthermore, he had to come in the flesh in order to fulfill the prophecies of the Messiah’s prophetic suffering, such as Zech 13:6–7 and Isa 50:8–9. The language here is almost identical to that of 1 John

153 For discussions of the purpose and occasion of Barnabas, see James Aloysius Kleist, The Didache, Epistle of Barnabas (ACW; Mahwah, N. J.: Paulist, 1948), 27–36; James Carleton Paget, The Epistle of Barnabas: Outlook and Background (WUNT 2.64; Tübingen: Mohr, 1994); James N. Rhodes, The Epistle of Barnabas and the Deuteronomic Tradition: Polemics, Paraenesis, and the Legacy of the Golden-calf Incident (WUNT 2.188; Tübingen: Mohr, 2004); Reidar Hvalvik, The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant: the Purpose of the Epistle of Barnabas and Jewish-Christian Competition in the Second Century (WUNT 2.82; Tübingen: Mohr, 1996). Interestingly, some, such as P. Prigent, Les Testimonia dans la christianisme primitif: L’Épître de Barnabé 1–16 et ses sources (Paris: Gabalda, 1961), 164–66; Pfleiderer, Primitive Christianity, 4:324; have actually argued that Barnabas is itself docetic, in spite of its language of “flesh.” See Paget, Epistle, 128, for discussion.

Opposing Docetic Christology

215

4:2 and 2 John 7 (ἐν σαρκὶ ἦλθεν; cf. 1 John 5:6). It does not seem, though, that the author emphasizes the flesh in order to combat a denial of the flesh, but rather to emphasize how great the condescension of the Son was. Again, in Barn. 6:6–9, the author uses the same language as Barn. 5:10 (ἐν σαρκὶ οὖν αὐτοῦ μέλλοντος φανεροῦσθαι καὶ πάσχειν προεφανερώθη τὸ πάθος), once more emphasizing the way that the messianic prophecies (such as Psalm 22) foretold the coming of a suffering Messiah.154 In 6:14, being “in flesh” is parallel to dwelling among human beings: αὐτὸς ἐν σαρκὶ ἔμελλεν φανεροῦσθαι καὶ ἐν ἡμῖν κατοικεῖν. Finally, in 12:9, the author concludes his lengthy exposition of OT typologies of the Messiah as the Son of God by stating, ἴδε πάλιν Ἰησοῦς οὐχὶ υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἀλλὰ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τύπῳ δὲ ἐν σαρκὶ φανερωθείς. If anything, this statement almost tends toward docetism, as it rebukes the Jews for focusing on the Messiah as a human being (the “son of David” in 12:10) and thereby neglecting his divine sonship.155

i. The Testament of Benjamin Second, in a Christian interpolation to the Testament of Benjamin,156 the creedal terms are repeated: The king of heaven…appeared upon the earth in human form (ἐπὶ γῆς φανέντα ἐν μορφῇ ἀνθρώπου), in humility. And as many as believed in him on the earth (ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς) will rejoice with him; and they will all arise, some to glory and some to dishonor. And the Lord will judge Israel first for their unrighteousness, because when God came in the flesh, (παραγενόμενον θεὸν ἐν σαρκί) they did not believe in him. And then he will judge all the Gentiles, as many as did not believe in him when he appeared on the earth (ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς φανέντι).157 154 The language is repeated in 6:9, ἐν σαρκὶ μέλλοντα φανεροῦσθαι. In 6:14, being “in flesh” is parallel to dwelling among human beings: αὐτὸς ἐν σαρκὶ ἔμελλεν φανεροῦσθαι καὶ ἐν ἡμῖν κατοικεῖν. 155 Thus, Pfleiderer, Primitive Christianity, 4:324, can actually remark that Barnabas tends toward a gnostic-docetist Christology because of its emphasis on the divinity of Christ. This simply reinforces my earlier point that the use of “flesh” terminology could be co-opted by both docetic and Cerinthian theories of Christology. 156 Jonge, “Christian Influence,” 193–246, dates the Testaments in their present form to 200 C.E. The debate over whether they are substantially pre-Christian or whether they are primarily Christian compositions does not affect my point here, which is that early Christian authors drew on early creedal formulations without anti-docetic intent. 157 T. Benj. 10:7–9. My translation.

216

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

Here the terms φαίνω and παραγίνομαι are used to express the advent of God in the Messiah. Echoes of Gal 4:4, 1 Tim 3:16, Phil 2:7, and 1 John 4:2 are present. Notably, there is no emphasis given to the term σάρξ. It appears to be the equivalent of ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. It is certainly not used in a polemical sense, aimed at docetists, but is instead used to disparage the Jews, who did not recognize God in the flesh.

j. Gnostic Texts Finally, we must remember the examples discussed above from early Christian literature traditionally thought to be gnostic.158 Even they witness to the enduring quality of the “orthodox” creedal language. For example, logion 28 of the Gospel of Thomas almost repeats verbatim the language of 1 Tim 3:16: λέγει Ἰησοῦς· ἔστην ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ ὤφθην αὐτοῖς.159 Here “in flesh” and “in the midst of the world” are parallel; both seem to be simple expressions of Jesus’ advent, without emphasis on the mode. The Valentinian Gospel of Truth (I,3), likewise, mirrors the Gospel of Thomas, stating that the Logos came into the midst of the world and became a body (26.4–8). Later, in 31.1– 8, the author takes up the language of Rom 8:3, and speaks of the Logos who came “in the likeness of flesh” to reveal the Father.160

k. “In Flesh” as Simple Presence On several occasions in the NT, the phrase ἐν σαρκί denotes nothing more than mere personal presence. For example, in Col 2:1, Paul describes the majority of the Colossians as those “who have not seen my face in flesh” (ὅσοι οὐχ ἑόρακαν τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἐν σαρκί), which seems to mean simply that they have not met Paul in person. The same idea is repeated in Col 2:5, where Paul says that he is “away in the flesh” (εἰ γὰρ καὶ τῇ σαρκὶ ἄπειμι), i.e., not physically present.

158 See above, p. 199. 159 P.Oxy. 1.11–21a. Gärtner, Theology, 142, thinks that the verb ὤφθη here is not describing what would later be called incarnation in an orthodox sense, and thus reads it as tending toward docetism. It is difficult, however, to draw a firm distinction between Gos.Thom.’s term, ὤφθη, and the Johannine use of ἐφανερώθη (1 John 1:2; 3:5, 8; cf. 1 Tim 3:16). 160 See Williams, Biblical, 115–17.

Opposing Docetic Christology

217

In early Christian literature, the Protevangelium of James recounts how Simeon was promised that he would not die “until he saw the Messiah in flesh” (οὗτος γὰρ ἦν ὁ χρηματισθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος μὴ ἰδεῖν θάνατον ἕως ἂν τὸν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἴδῃ).161 It is possible, then, that we have in 1 John 4:2 an idiom that simply refers to the Messiah’s coming into the world.162

l. Conclusion Thus, it is common in early Christian confessions to describe the earthly phase of the Messiah’s mission or career by using terms that denote his humanity such as “flesh” or “body” (and related terms). These are not used with any polemical intent. Sometimes they denote his genealogical descent; at other times they focus on his subjection to death. They are a standard part of the early confessions and in no case do they have docetic Christology as a polemical target. When, therefore, we read in 1 John 4:2 that the false prophets do not confess Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, we should not read into that statement an involved docetic Christological deviation. In light of other early Christian confessions, 1 John 4:2 says no more than that the antichrists refuse to abide by the foundational confessions which

161 Prot. Jas. 49.1; also preserved in Epiphanius, De Prophetarum Vita et Obitu (Recension Prior) 24.13. 162 Thus, Donelson, Hebrews to Revelation, 117, comments that 4:2 “may simply mean ‘Jesus Christ has come here among us.’” Additional evidence for this idea can be found in 1 John 5:20, which simply states that the Son of God “has come” (ἥκει) but does not mention the mode of his coming—the very thing which is purported to be the focus of 1 John’s dispute. Bleek, Introduction, 2:191, urges that 4:2 be rendered, “He has appeared on earth.” Cf. McClintock, Cyclopedia, 953. See also Witherington, Homilies, 494, who argues that the basic Jewish conception of the Messiah is that he will be a human being. Therefore, to speak of the Messiah coming in the flesh would be to speak simply of his coming. Witherington believes that 1 John 4:2 may describe Jews who “did not think that Christ had come in the flesh as of yet.” For the same basic idea—that coming “in flesh” is equivalent to mere coming or to coming into the world—see Whitacre, Polemic, 126; Wurm, Irrlehrer, 24, 53; Clemen, “Beiträge,” 274–75; Lampe, “Wolves,” 262; G. W. H. Lampe, “Church Discipline and the Interpretation of the Epistles to the Corinthians,” in Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox (ed. W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, R. R. Niebuhr; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 359; R. W. L. Moberly, “‘Test the Spirits’: God, Love, and Critical Discernment in 1 John 4,” in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins (ed. G. N. Stanton, et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 300.

218

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

demarcate the “children of God” who have fellowship with God and his Son.163

V. Opposing the Devaluation of the Earthly Life of Jesus A. The Meaning of “Flesh” While the view that 1 John 4:2–3 opposed some form of docetism has a long and honorable pedigree, many of the challenges enumerated above have lessened its attractiveness to contemporary scholars. Many exegetes are now advocating an alternative. On their reading, 1 John 4:2 indicates that the opponents were indeed denying the “flesh” of Jesus Christ, but not in the sense of denying his incarnation or human physicality. Rather, the term “flesh” should be taken as a reference to Jesus’ earthly life, his human career. To deny Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh was to hold that his human career, or his activity on earth, from birth to crucifixion, carried little or no salvific significance.164 That is, it is not Jesus’ earthly activity in the flesh which constitutes him as the Messiah. 165 Against this, 1 John declares that if we wish to speak of the Christ, we must first speak about Jesus’ career in the flesh—it is essential; without it there is no fellowship and no message of eternal life.

163 See Brown, Epistles, 492, who notes 1 Tim 3:16 as a parallel to 1 John 4:2, and concedes that 4:2 “may be reflecting a widespread Christian phraseology.” 164 Brown, Epistles, 505: “They are denying that what Jesus was or did in the flesh was related to his being the Christ, i.e., was salvific.” This understanding of the term, “flesh,” it should be noted, receives some support from the way the term is used elsewhere in the NT. As I discussed above, many times “flesh” is used to describe human existence in the world. For example, Heb 5:7 refers to Jesus’ earthly ministry as the “days of his flesh.” Philippians 1:22, 24; Gal 2:20; 1 Pet 4:2 all refer to being alive on earth as “living in the flesh.” 165 Those who hold to this view include Brown, Epistles, 493, 505, 508; Klauck, “Internal”; Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 260, 299; Bonnard, Épitres, 59, 86; P. Bonnard, “La chair dans le johannisme, et au-delà,” Anamnesis: Recherches sur le Nouveau Testament (Geneva: Cahiers de la Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie, 1980), 188–89; Grayston, Epistles, 79, 121; Trebilco, Early Christians, 285; Olsson, “History,” 42; Houlden, Epistles, 107; Von Wahlde, Commandments, 152–59; Berger, “Gegner,” 394.

Opposing the Devaluation of the Earthly Life of Jesus

219

B. The Meaning of “Coming” The term “coming” in 1 John 4:2 likewise must be interpreted differently on this view. It does not refer to the incarnation, i.e., the coming into the world of a pre-existent being. Rather, it has a more technical sense that draws on its use in the Fourth Gospel and the OT, where the Messiah is described as the “coming” one. The key verse in this regard is John 11:27 where Martha confesses Jesus as “the Christ, the Son of God, the one who comes into the world” (ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἐρχόμενος).166 Numerous OT passages describe an eschatological figure as “coming.” Many times it appears that nothing more than the figure’s simple futurity is in mind; the figure is “coming” in the sense that at the time of writing he is still not here (Mal 3:1–2, 19; Ps 96:13; Hab 2:3 LXX). At other times, though, the term “coming” appears to highlight the figure’s status as one sent or commissioned by God. Thus, Ps 118:26, which heralds the one “who comes in the name of the Lord” (ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐν ὀνόματι κυρίου, 117:26 LXX), is applied to Jesus in John 12:13. With this background in mind, then, it is plausible to hold that 1 John 4:2 refers not to Jesus’ coming into the world (i.e., birth or incarnation) so much as to his salvific mission, his coming as the one sent by God to be the messianic Redeemer (cf. Matt 3:11; 11:3).167 A parallel to this may be found when John the Baptist describes his own prophetic commission as a “coming” (ἦλθον ἐγὼ ἐν ὕδατι βαπτίζων, John 1:31).

C. Not Confessing Jesus Advocates of this interpretation find support in 1 John 4:3, which denounces those who do not confess Jesus (μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν Ἰησοῦν). Some argue that the verse, by using the name “Jesus,” puts the emphasis on the earthly life and career of Jesus of Nazareth. The opponents do not deny the Messiah, but they do relegate his earthly career as Jesus to the margins. Others hold to the originality of the variant reading (λύει τὸν Ἰησοῦν), but take it as a reference not to a Cerinthian division between the divine and human, but to a negation of

166 Cf. John 4:25; 6:14; 7:27, 31, 41–42; 16:28; 18:37. 167 Cf. John 3:2, where Nicodemus describes Jesus as coming from God (οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἐλήλυθας διδάσκαλος) without implying pre-existence. In John 7:28 Jesus’ “coming” is paralleled with the Father’s “sending”; cf. 8:42.

220

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

Jesus’ importance.168 O. Piper, for example, thought that λύει might be used as it is in Matt 5:19 and 16:29, to speak of “annulling” or “abrogating”—a meaning that possibly reflects an underlying Hebrew or Aramaic ltb. He theorized that 1 John was addressing a situation analogous to that of 1 Cor 12:1–3, where prophets were uttering “inspired” curses against Jesus.169

D. The Johannine Origins of the Opponents’ Error 1. Overemphasis on Pre-Existence Whence did the opponents’ devaluation of Jesus arise? Advocates of this view are virtually unanimous that it sprang from the Johannine tradition itself.170 There are two main sources proposed. First, it may be that the opponents advocated an overly high Christology which emphasized the Messiah’s pre-existence and glory.171 For them, the incarnation itself was the critical revelatory, and thus salvific, event. What mattered most was that the Son was sent into the world by the Father, not what the Son did once he was in the world.172 Jesus’ earthly activities did not fully manifest the glory of the Messiah. His earthly ministry was necessary so that the Father could be revealed but it could never remain the focus of theological reflection because it served only to deliver the message about the pre-existent and glorious Son.173 Later Valentinian thought would take the same path, not going so far as to deny the reality of Jesus’ earthly ministry, but stripping it of its theological import vis-à-vis the Word’s pre-existence and return to glory.174

168 See the discussion of the variant above, p. 178. Brown, Epistles, 494, translates λύει τὸν Ἰησοῦν as “negates the importance of Jesus.” Cf. Piper, “1 John,” 443; Schnackenburg, Epistles, 201–202, takes it in the sense of “destroying” Jesus, i.e., denying him as Savior; cf. Von Wahlde, Commandments, 159, who proposes, “doing away with.” 169 Piper, “1 John,” 443. 170 See the discussion of the “Ultra-Johannine” theory above, in ch. 1. 171 See Trebilco, Early Christians, 285. 172 Brown, Epistles, 77, 508. 173 Thus, according to Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 299 (cf. 260), the opponents “refused to identify the human life of Jesus with the Christ, the Son of God.” 174 Pagels, Johannine Gospel, 13.

Opposing the Devaluation of the Earthly Life of Jesus

221

2. Overemphasis on the Spirit A second proposed reason for the opponents’ view was their theology of the Spirit.175 They understood Jesus’ incarnation and revelatory activity as having one main goal: the dispensing of the Holy Spirit that he received at his baptism. Once his followers had received the same Spirit as Jesus, the focus shifted to the Spirit’s present activity in the community, and away from the historical events of Jesus’ life. As K. Grayston puts it, “They are no longer interested in Jesus come in the flesh because they themselves possess the Spirit.”176 On this view, then, it is no surprise that 1 John describes the ringleaders of the opposition as prophets who spread their teachings through spirit-inspired utterances (4:1–6). Like Paul in 1 Cor 12:1–3, our author urges the audience to judge prophetic utterances according to the confession of Jesus.177

E. The Ethical Byproduct of Devaluing Jesus Advocates of this view believe that the ethical exhortations of 1 John are aimed at the behavioral consequences of the opponents’ teachings. By denying the theological importance of Jesus’ earthly career, they eliminated his role as an ethical model or exemplar. Combined with an emphasis on charismatic activity as the mark of the Spirit, this led to a neglect of love and a disregard for the commandments of Jesus. The author responds to this neglect by stressing the importance of walking as Jesus walked (2:6; cf. 3:7).178

175 See Grayston, Epistles, 14–22, 79, 121–22; Von Wahlde, Commandments, 152–56; Burge, Letters, 30; Woll, Conflict, 109–28. 176 Grayston, Epistles, 79; cf. p. 121: “The implied contrast is not between a Christ who came in the flesh and a Christ who was present in appearance only, but between accepting Jesus as both Christ and Son of God and discarding Jesus for the benefits of the Spirit.” 177 Ibid., 122. 178 Brown, Epistles, 98.

222

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

VI. Opposing the Devaluation of the Death of Jesus A variation on this view proposes that the main point of contention was not so much the earthly life of Jesus as it was his death.179 It is not, however, that the opponents were docetically denying the reality of Jesus’ sufferings; rather, they denied that the death of Jesus was necessary for, or even related in any way to, salvation. They came to this conclusion primarily from their reading of the Fourth Gospel, where Jesus’ death is depicted as a return to the Father, not an atoning sacrifice.180 Therefore, his death had no messianic or soteric significance. That is, it did not in any way constitute him as Messiah or Redeemer, nor did he truly die as the Christ.181

A. “Coming in the Flesh” as Death The two key terms in 1 John 4:2, σάρξ and ἔρχομαι, are defined as having specific reference to the death of Jesus. The first, σάρξ, is used in John 6:51–58 to refer to Jesus’ death.182 This passage is often thought to be a redactional insertion by the epistolary author or a comrade, as it reflects the community’s later situation: just as Jesus’ “flesh” divided

179 Advocates include Schnackenburg, Epistles, 201; Sloyan, Walking, 3; Whitacre, Polemic, 129–31; Boer, “Death,” 330–42; Boer, Perspectives, 247–50; M. de Jonge, Jesus, Stranger from Heaven and Son of God: Jesus Christ and the Christians in Johannine Perspective (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977), 205; J. Ramsay Michaels, “By Water and Blood: Sin and Purification in John and First John,” in Dimensions of Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross; JSNTSup 234; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 160; Berger, “Gegner,” 394; Von Wahlde, Commandments, 152–56; Lieu, Theology, 76–77, tentatively adopts this view: “To confess Jesus as the Christ or Son of God is to confess that as the one sent by God he is the source of forgiveness, particularly in virtue of his death. Beyond this we may hesitate to go – and this includes speculating about the beliefs of his opponents.” She later states that the opponents are Christians whose confession of Jesus is inadequate in the eyes of the author (102). 180 See the extensive discussion of this in the next chapter. 181 Cf. Whitacre, Polemic, 131, for the strongest statement of this view. 182 Schnackenburg, Epistles, 201, emphasizes that John 6:51 uses the term σάρξ with its fullest significance (referring to Jesus’ death), but that this is an extension of John 1:14, which speaks of the incarnation. According to Schnackenburg, the significance of the incarnation in the Fourth Gospel is that it allows the Redeemer to die an atoning sacrificial death (cf. Wurm, Irrlehrer, 55–56). This is also how he understands 1 John 4:2, as a reference to the incarnation which focuses on and culminates in atoning death. Cf. Whitacre, Polemic, 130–31; Boer, “Death,” 330, 341; Michaels, “Water,” 160.

Opposing the Devaluation of the Death of Jesus

223

the community at the time of the Epistles, so also it split Jesus’ disciples during his ministry. The term σάρξ is closely associated with Jesus’ death in other NT passages, such as Eph 2:13–14, which states that “in his flesh” (ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ), i.e. his death on the cross, Christ accomplished reconciliation (cf. the parallel in Col 1:22).183 Likewise, ἔρχομαι also carries a technical meaning. It refers not to Jesus’ incarnation, but his messianic mission, which for 1 John is focused on Jesus’ atoning death.184 Thus, ἐν σαρκί is taken in an instrumental sense: to say that Jesus Christ “has come in flesh” is to speak of “Jesus Christ having acted salvifically with the instrumentality of (his) flesh.”185

B. Overemphasis on Jesus’ Baptism Advocates of this view propose that the devaluation of Jesus’ death stemmed from an emphasis on Jesus as a baptizer and dispenser of the Spirit. The opponents, likely charismatic prophets, thought the main goal of Jesus’ messianic mission was to give the Spirit which he received through his own baptism. 186 It was by dispensing the Spirit, not by his atoning death (to which they did not subscribe), that Jesus brought forgiveness of sins.187 Thus, the debate between the two sides was less Christological than soteriological. The controversy centered not on whether Jesus was truly human or had a physical body, but on which of his activities was the salvific key.188 It is likely that the opponents derived their theology from the Fourth Gospel, especially its close linkage of Spirit-reception with forgiveness of sins in John 20:22–

183 Cf. Boer, “Death,” 341. First Peter 3:18 is also a relevant parallel. 184 Some go so far as to say that ἔρχομαι has the death of Jesus as its primary, not merely secondary, reference. See, e.g., Boer, “Death,” 330, 337. Jonge, Jesus, 205, writes, “That Jesus came ‘in the flesh’ means that he died on the cross.” Cf. Houlden, Epistles, 107; Bonnard, Épitres, 86 (this represents a departure from his view in Bonnard, “Chair,” 188–89). The more moderate position is represented by Schnackenburg (see above, fn. 182) and Berger, “Gegner,” 394, who sees “flesh” as bespeaking human weakness, which has its fullest expression in death. For Berger, the opponents hold the Jewish view of the Messiah expressed in John 12:34, i.e., that the Messiah will “remain forever.” 185 Boer, “Death,” 340. 186 Ibid., 339; Sloyan, Walking, 3. 187 Ibid., 3. 188 Von Wahlde, Commandments, 152.

224

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

23, and its depiction of Jesus’ death as glorification rather than atonement.189

C. Ethical Implications The opponents’ theology resulted practically in a lack of charity. The author responded to this by stressing that Jesus’ coming in the flesh (i.e., his sacrificial death) was to be imitated. It was “an exemplary or paradigmatic, and very concrete, act of love.”190 This is why the confession of 1 John 4:2 appears between 3:11–24 and 4:7–12, both of which underscore the central commandment to love one another in concrete ways—giving charitably and even laying down one’s life for the brothers (3:16–18).191 The opponents, though, by relegating Jesus’ death to the margins, had denied it any “ethical relevance.”192

D. Relationship of 1 John 4:2 to Other Opponent Passages in the Letter Those who posit that Jesus’ earthly life, or his sacrificial death, was devalued by the opponents understand 1 John 4:2 to be a clarifying expansion of more ancient confessional formulas.193 These formulas, which describe Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God, still appear in their original form in some passages in 1 John (see 2:22; 4:15; 5:1, 5; cf. John 20:31). In 4:2, however, the author attempts to unpack their full meaning as he understands them. The opponents would confess that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, but they would not confess that his earthly life and death were the salvific center or ethical model. In 4:2, then, the author attempts to link his understanding of Jesus’ life or death to the primitive confession of the community, thereby arguing that the opponents, despite their lip-service to the confessions, do not actually confess their true meaning. By expanding the original formula, the author presents his authoritative interpretation of the confession. All who disagree are branded as antichrists and false prophets. The confession is clarified even further in 5:6, where Jesus’ atoning death is 189 190 191 192 193

Ibid., 154–55. For a discussion of this view, see below p. 288. Boer, “Death,” 332. Ibid., 342. Ibid., 345. Jonge, Jesus, 203; cf. Lieu, Theology, 76, 102.

Opposing the Devaluation of the Death of Jesus

225

specified even more explicitly (“in blood”) as the proper interpretation of his messianic “coming.”194

E. Weaknesses of the Anti-Devaluation View 1. An Unlikely Interpretation of “Coming in Flesh” Several difficulties lead me to find such explanations of 1 John 4:2 unpersuasive. First, both views must interpret the phrase “coming in flesh” in a very specialized sense. “Coming in flesh” does not refer simply to the reality or physicality of Jesus’ life or death—both of which the opponents accept. Rather, the phrase must refer specifically to the salvific value attached to these events. A paraphrase of 1 John 4:2 according to the anti-devaluation view would say that the opponents “do not confess that Jesus Christ’s earthly activities (i.e., life or death) were the key saving events.” If this is what the author wanted to say, there are a hundred ways he could say it more clearly than what he has actually written in 4:2. Indeed, the fact that no one until the twentieth century interpreted the text this way surely testifies to the unlikelihood that “coming in flesh” refutes the complex theological position ascribed to the opponents by the anti-devaluation view. Brown’s reading is especially strained, as he sees 1 John 4:2 correcting an overemphasis on the incarnation. It stretches credulity beyond the breaking point to grasp how a confession that Jesus came in the flesh could possibly counteract such a teaching. Neither would such a confession counteract an overemphasis on the Son’s pre-existence and heavenly glory. The Christology of the Epistles emphasizes these aspects almost as much as the Fourth Gospel does.

194 Berger, “Gegner,” 394. Pol. Phil. 7:1 may indicate that early interpreters connected 1 John 4:2 and 5:6. Polycarp juxtaposes an allusion to 1 John 4:2 (or 2 John 7) with a reference to the “testimony of the cross”—a possible allusion to 1 John 5:6, which speaks of the blood and water and employs the terminology of testimony. Polycarp goes further with his Johannine rhetoric by denouncing anyone who denies these truths as being “of the devil” (see, perhaps, 1 John 3:8). Cf. Michaels, “Water,” 160, for discussion. See above, p. 186, for a full list of the parallels between Polycarp and 1 John 4.

226

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

2. “Coming in Flesh” Does Not Refer to Jesus’ Death Second, it is not likely that “coming in flesh” refers specifically to Jesus’ death. The parallels adduced for such a reference do not actually support it. In John 6:51–58, σάρξ may very well refer to Jesus’ death, but this is made clear only by the way it is paired with αἷμα, which bears the weight of the sacrificial connotation. The other NT texts (e.g., Eph 2:13–14) do not actually use σάρξ as a cipher for death, but only specify the location of Jesus’ sin-bearing death (cf. Col 1:22, ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ). Here, too, αἷμα is used along with σάρξ to evoke the cultic background. In addition, neither John 6:51–58 nor Eph 2:13–14 uses the terminology of “coming.”195 It is difficult to see how dying on the cross could be described as “coming.” Furthermore, the other key Johannine “flesh” text, John 1:14, cannot be taken as a reference to Jesus’ death.

3. A Johannine Origin for the Opponents’ View? Third, the scholarly attempts to locate the origins of the opponents’ teachings in the Fourth Gospel are unsuccessful. These efforts rely upon tenuous reconstructions of the literary history of the Fourth Gospel in order to show that the passages in the present version— which would refute the opponents—were not, in fact, in the earlier form of the Gospel used by the opponents. The circularity of the argument is apparent, and the disagreement among the various reconstructions does little to bolster our confidence in them. One might argue that in the Fourth Gospel it is precisely Jesus’ earthly activities (his “signs”) and his sacrificial death which receive the most emphasis.196 The reception of the Spirit, which brings forgiveness of sins (John 20:22–23) is subsequent to, and dependent upon, Jesus’ sacrificial death (see 7:38–39).

195 Griffith, Keep, 184. 196 Von Wahlde, Commandments, 156, cites no fewer than six passages in the Fourth Gospel where Jesus’ death is described as an atonement before dismissing them as “minimal.”

Opposing the Devaluation of the Death of Jesus

227

4. Is 1 John 4:2 an Expanded Confession? Fourth, it is not clear that 1 John 4:2 is in fact a polemically-charged expansion of the original community confession preserved in 1 John 2:22. As I have shown above, an abundance of primitive confessional material employs language very close to that of 1 John 4:2, without any clear polemical intent.197 There is no reason, then, to think that the reference to “flesh” in 1 John 4:2 is secondary or polemical per se. In the confessional material discussed earlier, when the language of “coming in flesh” was drawn on, the emphasis was not on the “flesh,” but on the fact that the Messiah had come into the world. It also seems methodologically illegitimate to disregard the straightforward statement of 1 John 2:22 and to hold that the author does not get to the real issue behind the schism until 4:2, or 5:6.

5. The Use of “Jesus” in 1 John 4:3 Fifth, the way that 1 John 4:3 summarizes the denial of the opponents— using the simple “Jesus” instead of the fuller phrase “Jesus Christ having come in the flesh”—does not give any indication that the opponents deny the salvific value of Jesus’ life or death. If the issue were a specific theological interpretation of Jesus’ ministry, it would be strange for the author to refer to such a view simply by using Jesus’ name. It also would not be effective in counteracting an emphasis on Jesus’ heavenly existence, since the name ‘Jesus’ does not refer only to the earthly phase of the Messiah’s career, but to his exalted state as well. Resorting to the poorly supported reading in 4:3 (λύει)198 does not really aid the cause, either, since this verb never has the sense of “negate” or “destroy” when it is used with a personal object (e.g. “Jesus”).199 In short, the view that the opponents are downplaying the importance of Jesus’ life or death and overemphasizing some other aspect (whether his pre-existence, incarnation, baptism, or exaltation)200 197 See above pp. 204ff. 198 For discussion of the text-critical issue, see above, p. 179. 199 In these cases it always carries the meaning of “release,” or “loose.” Cf. Ehrman, “1 Joh 4,3,” 221. The view of Piper, “1 John,” 440–44, is even more fantastic, since he posits an exorcistic meaning of breaking a curse in a magical context. 200 The very fact that there are so many varying opinions on what the opponents devalued and what they emphasized points to a basic lack of clarity in so many

228

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

is extremely problematic. There is no reason to think that any lucid author would respond to such beliefs by asserting that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh,” or that those who hold such beliefs “deny Jesus.” If the opponents indeed held those opinions, the author’s brief and allusive response can hardly serve as an adequate basis for reconstructing them.

VII. An Alternative Interpretation Having surveyed the various interpretations of 1 John 4:2–3 and their shortcomings, I wish to propose an alternative interpretation that is better able to account for all the evidence. My proposal has five main points: 1) In order properly to understand the confessional test of 4:2–3, we must understand how it functions in its immediate literary context. 2) The context and content of the confession in 4:2 indicate that the criterion for testing the spirits is nothing other than the foundational confession of Jesus as the Messiah (i.e., the same confession as that in John 20:31; 1 John 2:22). 3) The grammar of the confession places the emphasis on Jesus’ messianic identity, not on the phrase ἐν σαρκί. 4) The phrase ἐν σαρκί is not intended as a polemic against the opponents. 5) The description of the opponents in this passage is meant to identify them with the Jews of the Fourth Gospel; this is probably not only a literary portrayal but also an historical one.

A. The Immediate Context It is of primary importance to carefully situate our very controverted text (4:2–3) in its immediate epistolary context. A brief overview of the flow of thought will suffice. The previous section (3:19–24) sets the stage for the discussion in 4:1–6 by describing how the children of God

reconstructions of the opponents. If Brown is correct, the opponents overemphasized the pre-existent glory of the Son and thus did not value his earthly career. This is a non sequitur, however, for even if Brown is correct that they placed relatively greater emphasis on the pre-existent phase and relatively less on the earthly phase, this surely does not necessitate that they did not value the earthly phase at all. Likewise, if Grayston and Von Wahlde are correct that the opponents overemphasized the present reception of the Spirit, it hardly follows that they attached no value to Jesus’ earthly career and death—those were, after all, the very events which made possible, indeed effected, the reception of the Spirit.

An Alternative Interpretation

229

have freedom and boldness to make requests of God and to see them granted because, as children of God, they keep his commandments and please him. In 3:23, the content of God’s command(s) is specified: the behavior which pleases God is faith in, or faithfulness to, 201 the name of his Son, Jesus the Messiah,202 accompanied by love for each other. Faith and love are the basis and the result of the mutual indwelling promised by Jesus, which occurs by means of the παράκλητος, the “Spirit of truth” (John 14:17). The same line of thought is pursued in 1 John 3:24b: it is God’s Spirit, which he has given to believers, that assures them of Jesus’ continual dwelling with them.203 The Fourth Gospel’s Farewell Discourse indicates that the “Spirit of truth” will be manifested in prophetic activity, convicting (16:8), guiding, and “making known the things to come” (16:13). These activities are also commonly associated with Spirit-inspired prophecy elsewhere in the NT;204 it may, then, be assumed that 1 John 3:24 is referring to the Spirit as it is manifested through the prophets in the community.

B. Testing the Spirits (v. 1) This provides a natural link to 4:1, where the author inserts a standard warning about the need to test the spirits and prophets. The author likely finds such a warning especially necessary in light of the eschatologically-charged situation of the audience. He therefore elaborates on the marks which identify God’s Spirit. The author has already named these marks as faith and love in 3:23; he first unpacks “faith” (4:1–6) and then expounds upon “love” (4:7–12). The author begins his warning in 4:1 with an alliterative rhetorical flourish: μὴ παντὶ πνεύματι πιστεύετε.205 From the context, it seems clear that τὰ πνεύματα cannot simply refer to human spirits, but must 201 The latter may be preferable since 1 John 3:22 seems to describe πίστις as something that believers perform (ποιέω) that is pleasing to God. 202 Here, I take Χριστός as a title along with ὁ υἱός. The term ὄνομα is used throughout the Fourth Gospel to refer to Jesus’ designation and status as the one who has been commissioned by God and thus granted the full authority of God (John 5:43; 17:6, 11, 12, 26; 20:31). It may be that the “name” of Jesus should be understood as ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ or ὁ χριστός (cf. esp. John 20:31). 203 It is not clear whether the Spirit functions in 3:24 to assure an individual that Jesus dwells in her, or to assure the community that Jesus has been faithful to his promise to continue to dwell with his people. Both may be in view. 204 See, e.g. 1 Cor 14:24. 205 Noted by Schmid, Gegner, 143; Witherington, Letters, 521.

230

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

refer to extra-human spirits which inspire prophetic utterances. 206 This fits very well with 4:1b; it is necessary to test the spirits because there are many false prophets on the move. Not every spirit is from God.

1. Testing the Spirits in Other Early Christian Texts This passage is one of many in early Christian literature that enjoin believers to distinguish true prophets from false.207 The criteria vary from case to case. In Matt 7:15–23, Jesus warns his disciples not to be deceived by the miraculous activity of false prophets, but to recognize their bad fruit—lawlessness (v. 23).208 Second Peter 2:1 likewise urges that prophets be judged on the basis of their lifestyle. False prophets are those who deny the Lord, divide the people, and live licentiously. In the Didache, it is greed and hypocrisy that identify visiting prophets as false prophets (11:6–12).209 The Shepherd of Hermas speaks of prophets who are filled with the devil’s spirit, are greedy and sinful, and speak prophecies in order to please the audience (Mand. 11). Oftentimes, it is a combination of sinful behavior and false teaching that marks false prophets. For example, 1 Tim 4:1–3 says that the false teachers pay attention to deceiving spirits (πνεύμασιν πλάνοις καὶ διδασκαλίαις δαιμονίων) and thus encourage a misguided asceticism. In other passages, no criteria are provided; the churches are simply commanded to test prophetic utterances (1 Thess 5:19–22; 1 Cor 12:10; 14:29).

206 The interchange between ‘spirits’ and ‘prophets’ or ‘prophecies’ is common in early Christian literature (see esp. those passages discussed in the following paragraph). For example, the διακρίσεις πνευμάτων in 1 Cor 12:10 are later defined as the judgments made concerning prophets (14:29). 207 See David E. Aune, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 217–30; Moberly, “Test,” 296–307; R. W. L. Moberly, Prophecy and Discernment (CSCD; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). 208 False prophets and lawlessness are again linked in Matt 24:11–12. See above, fn. 74 in Ch. 2, for a discussion of ἀνομία and its eschatological connotations. 209 Didache 11:8 is very close to 1 John 4:1: οὐ πᾶς δὲ ὁ λαλῶν ἐν πνεύματι προφήτης ἐστίν ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν ἔχῃ τοὺς τρόπους κυρίου ἀπὸ οὖν τῶν τρόπων γνωσθήσεται ὁ ψευδοπροφήτης καὶ ὁ προφήτης.

An Alternative Interpretation

231

2. The Apocalyptic Setting In our passage, the need to test the spirits is stated in clearly apocalyptic terms. It is required because “many false prophets have gone out into the world.” These false prophets are later described as manifesting, and speaking by the power of, the “spirit of the antichrist” and the “spirit of deceit” (τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς πλάνης). These labels evoke the common expectation that false prophetic activity would increase at the end of the age as part of a widespread apostasy or rebellion. They echo Jesus’ prediction that “many false prophets” (πολλοὶ ψευδοπροφῆται) would come to “mislead” (πλανάω) many people (Matt 24:4–5, 11).210 In Matt 24:23–26, Jesus associates these ψευδοπροφῆται with ψευδόχριστοι, just as 1 John 4:3 associates the false prophets with the spirit of antichrist (τὸ τοῦ ἀντιχρίστου).211

3. The Mission of the False Prophets The false prophets are described as “having gone out into the world” (ἐξεληλύθασιν εἰς τὸν κόσμον). In light of 1 John 2:18–19, which speaks of ἀντίχριστοι πολλοί who “went out from us” (ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐξῆλθαν)—“us” presumably referring to the community—it is tempting to see 4:1 as a reference to those who have left the community as well.212 But this may not be necessary. While the antichrists of 2:18– 19 are clearly apostates who have left the community, 4:1 does not clearly indicate that the ψευδοπροφῆται are former members of the community who have gone out from it. If they have left the community, what need (or opportunity) would remain to have a criterion by which to test their spirits?213 It is more likely that

210 211 212 213

Brown, Epistles, 490. See below, fn. 230, for discussion of the article’s antecedent. As do Brown, Epistles, 490; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 209. Recognized by Brown, Epistles, 503, who must then theorize that while the false prophets had left the community, they were still interacting with it. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 212–213, implausibly suggests that the testing urged in 4:1 is a testing of all community members as to their confession. This does not fit the context. Certainly, it is possible that the author, like Paul, believes that the Holy Spirit inspires all believers to make the proper confession (1 Cor 12:3), but it does not necessarily follow that this passage addresses that. Here, the focus is on specific false prophets who are likely to pay the community a visit—they must be distinguished from rankand-file members of the community.

232

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

ἐξεληλύθασιν refers to their embarking on a prophetic mission.214 They may be contrasted with Jesus, who went out from the Father into the world (John 16:28); these false prophets have gone out (whence, we are not told), commissioned by the evil one, in whose power the whole world lies (1 John 5:19).215 At this point in the text, then, the “world” does not carry the very negative connotations that will attach to it later.216 If 1 John 4:1 does refer to itinerant prophets who have gone out on mission, then it is very similar to many other early Christian texts which provide criteria for discerning whether an itinerant prophet is legitimate. The same concern is evident in 2 John 7–11.217

4. The OT Background of Testing the Prophets In the background of most early Jewish and Christian discussions of how to test prophets are Deuteronomy 13 and 18:15–22, which as I argued above218 also functions as a subtext to 1 John 2:18–28. In some strands of early Judaism (and apparently in 1 John as well), these texts were interpreted as prophetic warnings concerning the eschatological rebellion of the great false prophet(s).219 In the last days, God would purify his people by testing their love for him through the medium of false prophets (Deut 13:3). The false prophets would “go out” (ἐξέρχομαι, 13:14) in an attempt to lead the people astray (πλανάω, 13:6 LXX) by urging them to worship other gods, the gods of the nations (13:3). This would clearly be a violation of God’s commandments (13:4, 6); therefore, the Israelites were not to listen to such a person (13:4, 9; 18:15). 214 For the missionary connotations of the term, see 3 John 7, where it certainly cannot refer to apostasy, and Did. 11:6, which refers to an apostle “going out” on itinerancy. Cf. Westcott, Epistles, 140, who sees in 1 John 4:1 a “mission of evil”; Kruse, Letters, 30; Vouga, “Johannine School,” 371–85; Dodd, Epistles, 98, 148; Marshall, Epistles, 204; Strecker, Letters, 133. 215 Revelation 16:13 provides a parallel, as three unclean spirits (πνεύματα τρία ἀκάθαρτα) come out from the mouth of the beast and the eschatological false prophet (ἐκ τοῦ στόματος τοῦ ψευδοπροφήτου, likely symbolic of speech). In 1 Kgs 22:22 LXX, however, the deceptive spirit is sent from the Lord to the false prophets of Ahab (notice the repeated use of ἐξέρχομαι: καὶ εἶπεν ἐξελεύσομαι καὶ ἔσομαι πνεῦμα ψευδὲς ἐν στόματι πάντων τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶπεν ἀπατήσεις καί γε δυνήσει ἔξελθε καὶ ποίησον οὕτως). 216 Pace Brown, Epistles, 490. 217 See below, ch. 6.. 218 See above, p. 148. 219 See above, p. 149.

An Alternative Interpretation

233

First John 4:1–6 invokes this passage at several points as it describes how to test prophetic activity.220 Like Deuteronomy 13, 1 John portrays the false prophetic activity as something that will distinguish between community members who love God and those who do not (4:7, 21). Like the false prophets of Deuteronomy 13, those visiting 1 John’s community are also counseling disobedience of God’s commands (3:22–24).221 They have “gone out” (ἐξέρχομαι), attempting to mislead the members of the community (πλάνη, 4:6). Faithful members of the community will not listen to the false prophets, but the world will (4:5– 6).222 Most important for our discussion, however, is the way that the author, by evoking Deuteronomy 13, has portrayed the false prophets of his situation as counseling a sin of the highest order: idolatry. 223 By denying Jesus (4:3), the false prophets are in fact promoting worship of a false God—a God other than the Father of Jesus. This incorporation of a Christological principle into Jewish monotheism is made clear also in 2:23, but is most fully expressed in the final paragraph of the epistle (5:20–21), where the author assures his audience that God has given them the mind (διάνοια)224 to recognize the true God and his Son, Jesus the Messiah.225 On this basis, the author warns his audience in closing to stay away from idols (φυλάξατε ἑαυτὰ ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων).226

220 Rensberger, 1 John, 110; Talbert, Reading John, 36. 221 In this case, it is disobedience to the command to confess Jesus as the Son of God. Such a confession has been described in 1 John 3:22 as keeping God’s commandments and as something pleasing to God. This closely follows Deut 13:19 LXX. 222 The converse holds as well. Those who know God will listen to true prophets (1 John 4:6), just as faithful Israelites are enjoined to listen to the true prophets who will arise (Deut 18:15). 223 Dodd, Epistles, 102; Witherington, Letters, 522. 224 In the background may be Deut 4:39; 29:17, which speak of the διάνοια as the location of the Israelites’ knowledge that there is no other God except YHWH. 225 Rensberger, 1 John, 110. 226 In 2 John 10–11, the audience is instructed to have no contact with a false prophet, should he come. The background for this may be Deut 13:16–18 LXX, where the false prophets are placed under the ban (see Lampe, “Grievous Wolves,” 262). Some of 1 John’s instructions regarding the “sin unto death” may also be explained by this background. Deuteronomy 13:7, for example, speaks of a “brother” who leads people astray to idolatry; he is to be put to death (v. 9; cf. Deut 18:20). So also 1 John 5:16 speaks of a “brother” committing the sin that leads to “death.” The Israelites are commanded to have no pity on the one who deceives the people (Deut 13:9), just as 1 John tells its audience not even to pray for those sinning the sin unto death (5:16).

234

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

C. The Criteria of Testing (vv. 2–3) The criteria for testing prophets are stated in 1 John 4:2–3. The community may recognize the Spirit that has its origin and commission from God (ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ) by its confession of Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα. The counterpart to this confession is provided in 4:3, which states that the spirit or prophet who “does not confess Jesus” is not from God, but is instead the spirit of “antichrist.” This probably does not mean that the deceiving spirit derives from antichrist, but rather that the prophet is inspired by the same spirit that empowers the eschatological apostasy.227 My previous discussion of 2:18 established that the “antichrist” in the proper sense was expected to be a single figure (possibly identified with an eschatological false prophet), but the author explains that he has many precursors, agents of the antichrist spirit, all participating in the same rebellion.228 The rebellion consists, as 4:2–3 states, in denying Jesus, namely, denying that Jesus is the Messiah. It can in this sense be said to be anti-Messiah.229 In 4:3b, the audience is reminded that they have already been told about the spirit of antichrist and its coming.230 When they received the tradition, the antichrist’s coming was presented to them as a future event, but now they are told that the prophesied rebellion has begun.231 The antichrist-spirit is even now “in the world.” The use of κόσμος here reiterates what was said in 4:1, that the false prophets with the antichrist-spirit have gone out εἰς τὸν κόσμον. It may also indicate that the antichrist-spirit is at work not only in the false prophets but also in the world as a whole, which is opposed to God and his purposes. Because the world has come under the influence of the spirit of deceit, it listens to the false prophets (4:5–6). Later it will be said that the entire world is under the power of the “evil one” (5:19)—presumably a 227 Brown, Epistles, 496. 228 See above, p. 145. 229 As discussed above, p. 144, the ἀντί- prefix may also have connotations of substitution, indicating that the antichrist is a counterfeit Messiah, or a ψευδόχριστος (Matt 24:24). In this case, the way 1 John speaks of the antichrist’s “coming” (ἔρχεται) may be, as theorized by Schmid, a “Karrikatur des Kommens Christi” (Schmid, Gegner, 168; cf. Griffith, Keep, 184). 230 The neuter pronoun ὅ in 4:3b has πνεῦμα as its antecedent. Law, Tests, 397, finds here a sign that the “antichrist” is a principle, not a person, but this ignores the distinction made in the text between the spirit of antichrist and the antichrist. Bultmann, Epistles, 63, also misses the distinction when he portrays this as a “demythologization” of the mythological antichrist figure. Cf. Strecker, Letters, 136. 231 See discussion above, p. 146. On the already-not yet concept here, see Strecker, Letters, 136.

An Alternative Interpretation

235

reference to the “devil” mentioned in 3:8. Thus, a thoroughgoing ethical dualism is established.232

D. Assurance of Victory (v. 4) Such a situation—the advent of the false prophets, their reception by the world, etc.—could conceivably be a cause for great alarm. The dualistic language of the passage might be taken to suggest that the struggle was a stalemate. The author, however, makes clear in 4:4b that the victory has already been secured. Νενικήκατε may be the language of end-time warfare, or perhaps forensic contest,233 but the point is clear: the audience is told that they have already defeated the false prophets.234 The same terminology is used in 2:13–14 where the “youths” (νεανίσκοι) are said to have conquered the “evil one” (τὸν πονηρόν). Likewise, in 5:4, the one who is born of God and has faith has conquered the world. This again clarifies the way that 1 John depicts the devil, the world, and the false prophets as an axis of evil which believers have overcome through their faithfulness. The language of conquering mirrors the way that Jesus, in John 12:31 and 16:33, is said to have conquered the world and to have cast out the ruler of the world. Believers thus follow in the victorious footsteps of their Lord. The decisive factor in the victory of the audience over the false prophets is stated in 4:4c: ὅτι μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν ἢ ὁ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ.

232 The dualism may be laid out as follows: Devil vs. God Anti-Messiah vs. Messiah Many Antichrists vs. Many with the Anointing (chrism) False Prophets vs. True Prophets World vs. Community Deny Jesus as Messiah vs. Confess Jesus as Messiah Of the World vs. Of God Speak from the World vs. Speak from God Spirit of Deceit vs. Spirit of Truth Do not Know God vs, Know God Listens to False Prophets vs. Listens to True Prophets 233 Note the language of “witness” elsewhere in 1 John. The same forensic/military overlap occurs in Revelation, which is filled with “conquering” terminology and may serve as an illuminating parallel to 1 John. 234 For the view that αὐτούς refers to the false prophets, see Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 261; Brooke, Johannine Epistles, 114; Witherington, Letters, 525.

236

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

This follows the line of thinking in the previous verses. The Messiah 235 has indwelt the believing community through his Spirit (3:24) and by virtue of this indwelling and empowering (5:18) believers have overcome the challenge posed by the false prophets and the world. The world and the false prophets are described in contrast to the believers; they are indwelt by the spirit of the Anti-Messiah—ultimately, the spirit of the “evil one.”236 The same thought is expressed in the parallel passages discussed above. In 1 John 2:13–14, believers have overcome the “evil one” because of the message they have accepted and believed, and which thus remains among them (ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν μένει).237 In 5:4, it is through the faith of the community that that the one born of God238 overcomes the world (ἡ νίκη ἡ νικήσασα τὸν κόσμον, ἡ πίστις ἡμῶν). The object of faith is further defined in the next verse; the one who overcomes is the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God (ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, 5:5). These three passages, then, contain the same basic structure: by its connection to God and the Son of God through its possession of the Spirit and its confession, the community has already been granted decisive victory in the eschatological conflict with the world, the devil, and the false prophets.

E. The World’s Reception of the False Prophets (vv. 5–6) In 4:5–6, the author expands on his description of the false prophets and explains their apparent success in deceiving the world. They “belong to the world” (αὐτοὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου εἰσίν)—that is, they speak the language of the world and operate according to its values. 239 In this case, those values include participation in the eschatological rebellion.

235 As well as God; cf. 4:12–13, 15. 236 Cf. John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11 for the identification of Satan as the ruler of the world. Cf. Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 255; Strecker, Letters, 137. 237 In this passage λόγος could be understood Christologically—a reading that would be a perfect parallel to 4:4—but this is unlikely in view of parallels such as John 5:38, where the Jews do not have God’s word dwelling in them, and John 15:7 where Jesus’ words (ῥήματα) remain in his disciples. Also, in 1 John 2:24, the community is encouraged to have the message that they heard from the beginning remain in them. These passages indicate that what is in view in 1 John 2:14 is the reception of, and continual adherence to, the basic message of the eyewitnesses described in 1 John 1:1–3. 238 Cf. 4:4, ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστε. 239 Brown, Epistles, 498; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 217–18.

An Alternative Interpretation

237

In contrast, believers, as children of God, take after their father, loving one another and recognizing Jesus as the Son of God. Instead of rebelling, they participate in an eschatological obedience empowered by the Spirit. A similar contrast appears in John 3:31, where Jesus, the one who comes from above, is contrasted with the one who speaks from the earth. Because Jesus speaks from above, while his audience is from below, no one accepts his witness (3:32). An even stronger parallel is John 8:23, where Jesus tells the Pharisees that he is from above and is not of this world (ἐκ τῶν ἄνω; οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου) while they are from below and from this world. A few verses later, he uses the language of sonship: the Jews are from their father the devil,240 and not from God (8:44, 47), while Jesus has come from his father, God (8:42). As a result of their origin or parentage, they do not accept Jesus’ word or listen to him (8:43, 47).241 The author of 1 John is apparently reusing this Johannine polemic to explain the welcome the false prophets have received from the “world” and to assure his audience that their warm reception merely proves what was clear all along, that they were not from God. The community and its teachers242 are from God, and those who know God listen to, and accept, their teachings. The section closes in 4:6d with a summarizing statement that forms an inclusio with 4:1 by repeating the main theme of the section: the criterion for distinguishing the spirits. The two terms used to describe the criterion (ὁμολογέω and ἀκούω) do not describe two different tests, but refer to the same simple criterion as manifested in two situations.243 How one responds to the basic claim that Jesus is the

240 Cf. 1 John 3:8–10 for the same idea. 241 See the discussion in Rusam, Gemeinschaft, 153; Schmid, Gegner, 157, who also cites John 6:60. Cf. also John 5:37–38; 6:45; 7:7; 10:3–5; 15:18–19; 17:3; 1 John 3:1 states that the world does not recognize believers because it has not recognized God. 242 It is difficult to discern whether ἡμεῖς in 4:6abc refers primarily to the traditionbearers of the community introduced in 1:1–4, or incorporates the community as well. In favor of a contrast between the false prophets and the true teachers of the community are Brooke, Johannine Epistles, 115, and Stott, Letters, 157–58. If this is the case, the meaning seems to shift in 4:6d, which indicates that the community as a whole, not just its teachers, can recognize the spirit of truth and error (cf. 4:1). In favor of an inclusive ἡμεῖς (the author/s and readers) throughout the whole verse are Brown, Epistles, 499; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 218; Malatesta, Interiority, 288; Bultmann, Epistles, 64; Schnackenburg, Epistles, 225. 243 In other words 4:2 gives a test to be applied to prophets to determine by which spirit they prophesy, while 4:6 is a test applied to any human being to tell what spirit’s influence they have come under (Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 220–21; Schnackenburg, Epistles, 193). Both have the same basic criterion. See Brown, Epistles, 501; Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 255.

238

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

Messiah determines whether one is aligned with the false prophetsantichrist-world-devil axis or whether one possesses the Spirit of God and the Spirit of the Messiah and thus has fellowship with them.244

F. The Confession of 4:2–3 in Context 1. The Confession Deals with the Foundational Belief of the Community Having surveyed the basic flow of thought in 4:1–6, we may now address the main question: what is the meaning of the confessional criterion offered in 4:2–3? What does it mean to confess Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα? Conversely, what does it mean not to confess τὸν Ἰησοῦν? From the immediate context in 4:1–6 we can deduce the following. First, it is a criterion whose primary role in this passage is the testing of prophets. Whether or not a prophet makes the confession is a way of determining whether or not he is a true or false prophet, i.e., whether the spirit inspiring him is from God or not (vv. 1– 3). Second, a refusal to make this confession marks a person out as a participant in the eschatological deception fueled by the spirit of the antichrist (vv. 3, 6). Third, the message of the false prophets aligns them with the world, in opposition to the community. Their message finds a receptive audience in the world (vv. 4–6). Fourth, fellowship with the Messiah grants victory over the false prophets and the 244 The terminology used in 4:6d (τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς πλάνης) has occasioned no small amount of discussion as to its background. See Brown, Epistles, 487, for a survey of the parallels from Qumran’s Treatise on the Two Spirits, where humanity is divided into two lots, those under the spirit of truth and those under the spirit of iniquity. 1QS 3:13–14 prescribes tests whereby the community could determine which spirit was dominant in a person. It is likely that the term πλάνη used in 1 John 4:6 has eschatological connotations and points to the expected end-time deception and apostasy spoken of elsewhere in Jewish and early Christian literature (see 2 Thess 2:11; 1 Tim 4:1; Did. 16:4). The designation τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας is used in John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13, to refer to the Paraclete, and it likely retains that reference here (so Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 242). Cf. James Charlesworth, “A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS 3:13–4:26 and the ‘Dualism’ Contained in the Gospel of John,” in John and Qumran (ed. James H. Charlesworth; London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1972), 106–120; Painter, “Monotheism,” 225–43; Adriana Destro and Mauro Pesce, “The Gospel of John and the Community Rule of Qumran: A Comparison of Systems,” in Judaism in Late Antiquity, Part 5. The Judaism of Qumran, a Systemic Reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Vol. 2: World View, Comparing Judaisms (ed. Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Avery-Peck; HO I.57; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 201–29.

An Alternative Interpretation

239

eschatological deception (v. 4). These four observations lead me to believe that the content of the confession concerns the most fundamental belief of the community. One’s stance toward this foundational confession determines whether or not one is a member of the community.

2. The Confession is the Community’s Original Confession The centrality and fundamental nature of the confession suggests that it is most naturally understood as identical to the concluding confession of the Fourth Gospel: that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (John 20:31). This confession would serve as a definite boundary marker for all early Christian communities represented in the New Testament. It would also explain the sharply dualistic terms in which 1 John portrays responses to the confession. The alternative explanations, discussed above, all require that the confession of 4:2–3 be set in opposition to nuanced misconstruals of the confession, e.g., subtle forms of docetism, or differing theories of the baptism or atonement and their relation to Jesus’ messianic mission. While these alternative understandings are possible, they are not plausible. They require that 1 John be read as a narrowly sectarian document resulting from a series of splits in the community, the product of an increasing constriction of doctrinal boundaries. There is, however, every indication that the confession, which divides friend from enemy, insider from outsider, Christian from antichrist, has not materially changed or been narrowed from the version in the Fourth Gospel.

3. The Confession is Materially the Same as That of 2:22 To begin with, 4:1–6 is very similar in structure and argumentation to 2:18–27. The same apocalyptic-eschatological setting is provided (2:18). A Christological confession is provided as a distinguishing criterion (2:22). Those who deny the confession are identified as antichrists and liars who lack a relationship to God (2:18, 22). The audience’s initial reception of the message and corresponding confession is referred to (2:24). And, finally, the anointing, which overlaps with the Spirit significantly in its function, is the factor which enables confession and discernment of the truth (2:27). These correspondences between the two passages almost inexorably lead us to identify the confession of 2:22 as substantially the same as the confession of 4:2.

240

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

Reinforcing my reading of 4:2–3 as the foundational confession are other surrounding passages which employ the same argument as 2:18– 27. For example, in 3:23–24 the distinguishing mark of believers is that they keep his commandments (in contrast to the world, by which believers are hated, according to 3:13–14). The commandments to be kept are two: to love one another and “to believe in the name of his [God’s] Son Jesus Christ.” The means by which believers are assured that God resides in them is the Spirit which God has given them. This section, then, has the same dualism between the world and believers, the same role for the Spirit in assuring believers, and the same criterion to distinguish believers from outsiders—the confession of Jesus as the Messiah and as God’s Son. The pattern is repeated in 4:7–15. The distinguishing mark of believers (i.e., those who know God and have fellowship with him; see 4:8, 15) is their love for one another (4:7) and their confession of Jesus as the Son of God, the savior of the world (4:14–15).245 This confession is produced by God’s Spirit, which he has given to believers (4:13). We find, then, in 2:22, 3:23, and 4:14–15,246 the same foundational confession stated and restated without any indication that it must be nuanced in light of new internal community debates. The author of 1 John makes his points primarily through repetition. In light of the pattern of the surrounding passages, therefore, the prima facie possibility, even likelihood, that 4:2 is repeating the same fundamental confession—not introducing a crucial new doctrinal nuance—should not be ignored.

G. The Grammar of the Confession A closer examination of the grammar of the confession in 4:2–3 is in order. As discussed above, four construals of 4:2 are possible,247 but in the end, there are only two central issues that must be addressed. First, is Χριστός predicative, and if so, is it titular? Second, on what element of the confession does the emphasis fall? By answering these questions, we can come to a reasoned conclusion concerning the relationship of the three grammatical parts.

245 In light of John 4:42, “savior of the world” seems to be a messianic designation. 246 Cf. also 5:1, which is discussed in context in Chapter 5, below. 247 See above, fn. 1 in this chapter.

An Alternative Interpretation

241

1. The Use of Χριστός There are three ways to understand the function of Χριστόν in the confession. First, it may be taken as a predicate and as a title. Its role, then, would be to identify Jesus as the Messiah prophesied in the Scriptures.248 Second, it may be taken as a predicate and as a proper name, as opposed to a title. The point, then, would be to assert— perhaps against a Cerinthian separation-Christology—that the human being Jesus is to be identified with the divine Christ.249 The third option is to take Χριστόν as the second part of a double name, Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.250 It may be that Ἰησοῦς Χριστός was simply in common use by the time of 1 John as a fuller name for Jesus, without any specific thought given to his messianic status. Otherwise, the double name could be used here deliberately to combat a separation-Christology.

2. Χριστός as a Title There are several points in favor of taking the first option and understanding Χριστός as a title attached to the personal name, Jesus, in order to denote his status as the one who has fulfilled the messianic prophecies of the OT. Much of the evidence for this has already been discussed above with regard to 1 John 2:22.251 The most weighty point in its favor is the way Χριστός is used in the Johannine Epistles. First John 2:22 and 5:1 clearly demonstrate that Χριστός maintains a titular meaning for our author. This suggests that it is eminently plausible to understand the other uses of Χριστός in 1 John as titular.252 When the 248 See Neufeld, Reconceiving, 71; Griffith, Keep, 187; Witherington, Letters, 524; Erlemann, “Trennungsprozess,” 287; O’Neill, Puzzle, 48; Lieu, “Authority,” 217; Harris, 1, 2, 3 John, 156. 249 See Stott, Letters, 153–55; Houlden, Epistles, 107. 250 Those reading it as a double name include Boer, “Death,” 334; Brooke, Johannine Epistles, 108; Rensberger, 1 John, 111; Brown, Epistles, 493; Westcott, Epistles, 139; Bonnard, “Chair,” 188–89; Loader, Epistles, 49. 251 See above, fn. 103 in Chapter 2 for discussion. 252 Piper, “1 John,” 445. For various discussions of the titular use of Χριστός in the NT, see N. T. Wright, “ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ as ‘Messiah’ in Paul: Philemon 6,” in The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 41–55; M. de Jonge, “The Earliest Christian Use of Christos: Some Suggestions.” NTS 32 (1986): 321–43. See Blomberg, “Messiah,” 141, whose survey of the use of Χριστός in the NT concludes, “There is no unambiguous evidence to demonstrate that ‘Christ’ in any of its 531 New Testament uses ever ‘degenerated’ into a mere second name for Jesus” (italics original).

242

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

Epistles speak of ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ [i.e., θεοῦ] Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (1 John 1:3; 3:23; 5:20; 2 John 3), they are ascribing to Jesus his dual (related) titles, Son of God and Messiah. Adding further support to this reading is the entire Fourth Gospel, which stresses Jesus’ messianic credentials and summarizes the main point of the Gospel using the very language affirmed in the passages above: Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (20:31). The same can be said for 1 John 2:1, which speaks of a παράκλητος that believers have πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, namely Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν δίκαιον. While the source of the appellation δίκαιος is disputed, a very strong case can be made that it is an early Christological title of sorts, 253 drawn from the Isaianic servant tradition, which speaks of God’s anointed servant as “the righteous one” (Isa 53:11 LXX: δίκαιος) who bears the sins of his people (53:12; cf. 1 John 1:7, 9; 2:2) and intercedes for the guilty (53:12), the very roles assigned to Jesus in 1 John.254 The only other use of Χριστός in the Johannine Epistles is 2 John 9,255 where it is used by itself, not alongside Ἰησοῦς. The phrase there is ἡ διδαχὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Because the term is used without the accompanying Ἰησοῦς and because it is articular, it is best taken as titular. Thus, the phrase would be rendered: “the teaching of/about the Messiah.”256

253 See Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; Heb 10:38; Jas 5:6; 1 Pet 3:18; 1 En. 38:2; Luke 23:47. For discussion, see Richard Hays, “Apocalyptic Hermeneutics: Habakkuk Proclaims ‘The Righteous One,’” in The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 131; Gerbern S. Oegema, “‘The Coming of the Righteous One’ in 1 Enoch, Qumran, and the New Testament,” in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Volume 3: The Scrolls and Christian Origins (ed. James H. Charlesworth; Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006), 381–95. 254 The title possibly also drew on Zech 9:9; Hab 2:4. It is repeated in 1 John 2:29. Note that δίκαιος is anarthrous in both Isa 53:11 LXX and 1 John 2:1. The same nexus of ideas apparently derived from Isa 52:13–53:12 (atonement, righteousness/ justification, advocacy) appears in Rom 8:32–34, where God hands his son over to death for the sake of believers, justifies believers, and exalts Jesus to his right hand as an advocate on behalf of believers. This may indicate the use of a common exegetical tradition. 255 I will discuss 1 John 5:6 and 2 John 7 below in Chapters 5 and 6, respectively. 256 See below, p. 353, where it is argued that the phrase speaks of the teaching about the Messiah and refers to the confession which precedes it in v. 7.

An Alternative Interpretation

243

3. The Lack of the Article Perhaps the most common and forcefully argued point against a titular reading of Χριστός in 4:2 is the lack of an article attached to it. The passages that are clearly titular (John 20:31, 1 John 2:22; 5:1) all contain the article and the copula, ἐστίν. First John 4:2 lacks both of these features; this, it is argued, indicates that Χριστός is not titular and is probably merely the second part of a double name.257 Brooke, for example, states on this basis that the two (Ἰησοῦς and Χριστός) “can hardly be separated unless the context suggests their separation.”258

a. John 9:22 There are numerous examples, however, which cast doubt on this assertion. Most important is John 9:22, where Χριστός is used anarthrously along with the term ὁμολογέω, just as in 1 John 4:2. The passage, which occurs in the midst of the Pharisees’ interrogation of the blind man’s parents, states that the Jews had decided beforehand that anyone who confessed Jesus (the antecedent of αὐτόν) as Messiah would be put out of the synagogue.259 The use of Χριστός is clearly titular here. The blind man is a model proto-Johannine Christian who makes the essential confession of Jesus as Messiah. Most importantly, the confession is stated here without the use of the article or a copulative verb. R. Brown, though, argues that John 9:22 is not necessarily a relevant grammatical parallel because the verb ὁμολογήσῃ appears between the object (αὐτόν) and complement (Χριστόν).260 He does not, however, give any clear rationale for thinking that this disqualifies the parallel. Moreover, in two of the earliest manuscripts, 66 and 75, the verb ὁμολογήσῃ appears before both the object and complement (thus: ὁμολογήσῃ αὐτὸν Χριστόν), which negates the force of Brown’s argument.261

257 Schnackenburg, Epistles, 200–201; Brown, Epistles, 493. 258 Brooke, Johannine Epistles, 108. 259 ταῦτα εἶπαν οἱ γονεῖς αὐτοῦ ὅτι ἐφοβοῦντο τοὺς Ἰουδαίους· ἤδη γὰρ συνετέθειντο οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἵνα ἐάν τις αὐτὸν ὁμολογήσῃ χριστόν, ἀποσυνάγωγος γένηται. 260 Brown, Epistles, 493. 261 Noted by Harris, 1, 2, 3 John, 155, who finds the same reading in K, 13, and others.

244

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

b. Other Anarthrous Parallels Perhaps an equally persuasive parallel is Rom 10:9, where Paul lays out the condition for salvation: ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃς ἐν τῷ στόματί σου κύριον Ἰησοῦν. Here the title κύριος is attached to the personal name Ἰησοῦς without an article or an intervening copula. Again, notably, the phrase is called a ὁμολογία. To confess κύριον Ἰησοῦν is to confess “that Jesus is Lord.” Similarly, 1 Cor 12:3, often proposed as a conceptual parallel to 1 John 4:1–6,262 contains what is often held to be an early confession, Κύριος Ἰησοῦς, which Paul asserts is prompted by God’s Spirit. Like Rom 10:9 and 1 John 4:2, the confession is compressed and makes no use of the article or copula in its predication. Also relevant is Acts 3:20, which summarizes Peter’s message in the temple: καὶ ἀποστείλῃ τὸν προκεχειρισμένον ὑμῖν χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν (3:20).263 This demonstrates the way that Χριστός and Ἰησοῦς could be used together, without an article and without a copula, but with a clearly titular sense that refers to Jesus as the expected Messiah. 264

c. Second-Century Evidence Such phrasing continued to be used in the second century to speak of Jesus’ messiahship. Ignatius tells his Roman audience not to confess Jesus as Messiah while desiring the things of the world (μὴ λαλεῖτε Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν κόσμον δὲ ἐπιθυμεῖτε, Ign. Rom. 7:1). The phrasing

262 See Dodd, Johannine Epistles, 97, 99; Painter, “Opponents,” 65; Cullmann, Confessions, 28–30; Neufeld, Confessions, 63–64; J. Moffatt, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (MNTC; New York: Harper, 1938), 178–89, who believes that the anathema of 1 Cor 12:3 would take place in a Jewish context. Cf. also A. T. Robertson and A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (ICC; New York: Harper, 1911), 261. 263 Cf. Acts 17:3 for a similar statement in the mouth of Paul. 264 Other passages relevant to the question of whether the article is necessary to denote titularity include the following: John 1:41, where Μεσσίας is translated as χριστός, without the article: εὑρήκαμεν τὸν Μεσσίαν, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον χριστός; Luke 23:2, where χριστός, clearly titular, is paralleled with “king” and yet lacks the article: λέγοντα ἑαυτὸν χριστὸν βασιλέα εἶναι. In those portions of the LXX that have two translational traditions (such as Daniel), one can see that the article was optional when titles were being used. For example, Dan 3:1 in the Theodotion text reads Ναβουχοδονοσορ βασιλεύς, while the Old Greek reads Ναβουχοδονοσορ ὁ βασιλεύς. Cf. Dan 3:5; 4:34.

An Alternative Interpretation

245

suggests the presence of a standard formulaic confession.265 Ignatius is, in effect, saying, “Don’t speak [the confession] ‘Jesus Messiah,’ and lust after the world.” That he is using Χριστός as a title is suggested by his statement a few lines later that Jesus is the Messiah from the seed of David (Ign. Rom. 7:3)—a confession directly dependent on Paul (Rom 1:3–4). Even several decades later, Justin Martyr uses an anarthrous form on numerous occasions, e.g., when he speaks of Jews “denying that he [Jesus] was the Messiah” (ἀντιλεγόντων αὐτῷ καὶ φασκόντων μὴ εἶναι αὐτὸν Χριστόν, 1 Apol. 35),266 or of Christian sects which “confess the crucified Jesus as Lord and Christ” (τὸν σταυρωθέντα Ἰησοῦν ὁμολογεῖν καὶ κύριον καὶ Χριστόν, Dial. 35.1). Later, he explains that Jesus “predicted the sufferings that would happen to those who believe and confess him as Christ” (προεῖπε γενήσεσθαι τοῖς πιστεύουσι καὶ ὁμολογοῦσιν αὐτὸν Χριστόν, Dial. 35.1).267

d. Evidence from Ancient Titulature It should not seem strange to modern readers to have a title appended to a name without the article. We routinely speak of “King Louis” or “President Kennedy.” So also, in the ancient world, inscriptions and documents contained the emperor’s personal name followed by his titles, without using the article, e.g. ΤΙΒΕΡΙΥΣ ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΩΡ. One ancient document reads: ΚΑΙΣΑΡ ΘΕΟΥ ΥΙΟΣ ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΩΡ (P.Teb. 382). A first-century inscription from Sardis honors Τιβέριον Καίσαρα θεὸν Σεβαστόν.268 P.Oslo 26 contains ΚΑΙΣΑΡΟΣ ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΩΡ ΘΕΟΥ ΥΙΟΣ. Of course, the order could be varied. Just as Ἰησοῦς Χριστός sometimes becomes Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, so also we find ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΩΡ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ ΣΕΒΑΣΤΟΣ ΣΩΤΗΡ ΚΑΙ ΕΥΕΡΓΕΤΗΣ. 269

265 Schoedel, Ignatius, 181, notes that the use of λαλέω instead of λέγω is unusual. He translates, “Do not profess Jesus Christ.” 266 Cf. Dial. 99.1, which also speaks of “those who do not consider him [Jesus] to be Messiah” (τῶν νομιζόντων μὴ εἶναι αὐτὸν Χριστόν). 267 Again in Dial. 48.2, he describes Christians who “confess him to be Christ” (ὁμολογοῦντες αὐτὸν Χριστὸν εἶναι). Cf. 108.1 for the same kind of construction with verbs of confessing or denying. 268 NewDocs 9:22. 269 SB 8897. For discussion of these references see T. H. Kim, “The Anarthrous ΥΙΟΣ ΘΕΟΥ in Mark 15,39 and the Roman Imperial Cult,” Bib 79 (1998): 222–41.

246

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

Numerous ancient coins also bear inscriptions such as ΗΡΩΔΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ,270 ΔΟΜΙΤΙΑ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ,271 or ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΩΡ ΤΙΤΟΣ ΚΑΙΣΑΡ,272 probably the Roman equivalent of the early Christian κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός (cf., among many examples, Phil 2:11). These parallels in Roman Imperial titulature, which could be multiplied endlessly, undercut the facile claim of so many scholars that without an article, Χριστός must be construed as a personal name.273

e. The Compressed Character of Confessions Finally, in favor of reading 1 John 4:2 as predicating the title Messiah of Jesus, it should be noted that confessions naturally take a compressed summary form. Instead of saying that one believes “that Jesus is the Messiah,” it is said that one confesses “Jesus Messiah.” Since 1 John 4:2 itself identifies the phrase Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα as a confession, this is an eminently plausible explanation for the lack of both the copula and article.

4. Where is the Emphasis? The next grammatical issue to be addressed is where the emphasis lies in the confession. In other words, what part of the confession is meant to counter the opponents? Those who find an anti-docetic intent believe that the phrase ἐν σαρκί receives the greatest stress, as it articulates the mode of Jesus’ coming. Those favoring an anti-Cerinthian reading would emphasize the entire phrase Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, which would highlight the identity of Jesus as the permanent union of the spiritual Christ with human flesh.

270 Ya’akov Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage (2 vols; Dix Hills, N. Y.: Amphora, 1982), 2:5; 2:3. 271 Ibid., 1:13. 272 Ibid., 1:5. 273 As far as I am aware, this line of argumentation from Roman titulature has not been pursued elsewhere in the literature that addresses whether Christ is a personal name in Paul and the Johannine literature.

An Alternative Interpretation

247

a. The Participial Grammar There is good reason, though, to believe that neither of these is correct and that the author is instead addressing a Jewish concern about the expected Messiah’s advent (i.e., his “coming in the flesh”). What the opponents do not confess is that Jesus is the Messiah-come-in-the-flesh. The grammar of the confession leans in this direction, as it places the emphasis on the title, Messiah, not the mode of his coming. It is generally acknowledged that the use of the participle rather than the infinitive stresses the identity of Jesus rather than the mode of his coming.274 This argument is upheld by the evidence of later church writers who wished to combat docetic or Cerinthian teachings; they almost uniformly used the infinitive when they alluded to, or quoted, 1 John 4:2.275

b. The Confession of “Jesus” Most telling of all is the statement of 4:3. Here the author presents the converse of the confession in 4:2. The opposite of confessing Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα is to “not confess Jesus” (μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὸν Ἰησοῦν). The use of the simple “Jesus” heavily favors understanding Jesus as the subject of the previous confession and Messiah as the predicate.276 The question addressed by the confession is, “Who is the Messiah?” The answer 1 John provides is “Jesus.” If the debate were over the manner or mode of Jesus’ coming (as the antidocetic reading holds), we would expect μὴ ὁμολογεῖ τὴν σάρκα, or something similar.

274 See Brown, Epistles, 493; Thyen, “Johannesbriefe,” 193; Lieu, “Authority,” 217; Griffith, Keep, 186; Erlemann, “Trennungsprozess,” 287; Brooke, Johannine Epistles, 109; O’Neill, Puzzle, 46–48, Lampe, “Grievous Wolves,” 261–62. Tentatively, Lieu, Theology, 81 n.85. 275 See, e.g., Epiphanius Pan. 24.9.5, where he refutes Basilidean Gnosticism. Cf. Codex Vaticanus, which contains the infinitive in place of the participle. 276 Thyen, “Johannesbriefe,” 193; Schenke, “Schism,” 206; Neufeld, Reconceiving, 119; Griffith, “Non-Polemical,” 270, explains the articular construction τὸν Ἰησοῦν as anaphoric, speaking of the Jesus discussed in the preceding confession of 4:2.

248

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

c. The Role of ἐν σαρκί Finally, with regard to ἐν σαρκί, it is likely that this phrase is not the focus of the dispute, does not receive the grammatical emphasis in the confession, and is not intended polemically. I have argued above that the formulation in 1 John 4:2, with its unelaborated brevity and obscurity, would not go very far in refuting either Cerinthian or docetic views. Furthermore, there is little or no emphasis in 1 John as a whole upon Jesus’ physicality or flesh. This is especially striking in 4:1–6, where σάρξ is used only once. In addition, when the confession of 4:2 is restated in 4:3, there is no reference to the flesh or physicality as a matter of dispute.

5. The Confessional Character of 1 John 4:2 I detailed above the way that ‘sarkic’ terminology appears as a standard feature in early Christian confessions, typically used to refer to Jesus’ ministry from birth to resurrection. The early confessional material is relevant because 1 John 4:2 has many of the identifying marks of a confession:277 1) It is introduced with the verb ὁμολογέω; 2) It assigns a title to Jesus; 3) It employs the verb ἔρχομαι; 4) It has the participial style customary in confessions. Early confessions often used a two-stage pattern to summarize Jesus’ existence, usually in a basic descent-ascent schema and commonly by means of oppositely paired terms such as humbled/exalted (Phil 2:6–11), death/life, flesh/spirit (Rom 1:3–4; 1 Pet 3:18; 1 Tim 3:16), world/glory (1 Tim 3:16), ascended/descended (Eph 4:8–10), crucifixion/life, weakness/power (2 Cor 13:4), death/resurrection (Rom 4:25; 1 Thess 4:14).278 It may very well be that 1 John 4:2 preserves the first line of a confessional pairing much like Rom 1:3–4, where flesh (incarnation) and spirit (resurrection) are contrasted. These confessions do not seem to be aimed polemically at any heresy; they 277 For the criteria, see above, fn. 119 in this chapter. For a recent discussion of preformed traditions in the NT, see Earle E. Ellis, The Making of the New Testament Documents (Leiden: Brill, 2002), who calls 1 John 4:2 “a previously formulated statement that John incorporated into his letter and then commented on” (pp. 192, 194). Bonnard, Épitres, 85, speaks of “Le caractère stéréotypé de la formule.” Cf. Neufeld, Confessions, 70–75; Longenecker, New Wine, 41; Piper, “1 John,” 438, 445. 278 See Stauffer, New Testament Theology, 246–47; Neufeld, Confessions, 46. Hunter, Paul, 28, calls these pairs, which can be summed up as incarnation/flesh vs. resurrection/spirit, the two ἀρχαί.

An Alternative Interpretation

249

are positive formulations that summarize the foundational saving events in short, concise, and memorable statements.279

6. The Primitive and Catholic Character of 1 John 4:2 If 1 John 4:2 is a confession, and if its σάρξ terminology does not point to anti-docetic polemic, there is no reason to think that the confession is a later formulation of the Johannine community. 280 Indeed, there is every reason to think that it is primitive and catholic, given its overlap with other confessions that were clearly early and widely accepted (e.g. Rom 1:3–4).281 If the confession is in fact early, it provides insight into the author’s rhetorical strategy. Throughout the letter, the author appeals to the origin of the community and to its primitive teaching. The prominent use of ἀρχή regularly stresses the antiquity of the message foundational to the community’s faith.282 Likewise, in 4:1–6, the author appeals to the earlier traditum about the antichrist (4:3) and to the audience’s original acceptance of the basic message (4:4, νενικήκατε). In 4:2, then, he reminds them of their original public confession,283 by which they “overcame” (cf. 4:4; 5:4–5), and instructs them to apply it to the prophetic spirits as a discerning criterion. At each step of the argument, the author wishes to make it clear that he has introduced no new doctrinal wrinkle, but is merely reiterating the community’s basic beliefs.

279 Thus, the assertion of Strecker, Letters, 135, “The idea that these are Jews, who deny the messianic quality of the figure of Jesus…is improbable on the basis of ἐν σαρκί, which presupposes a differently defined controversy within the Johannine tradition itself,” is not well founded. 280 See above, fn. 48 in this chapter, for references to scholars who see 4:2 as a new development belonging to a later period in the community’s history. 281 There is every reason to believe that the confession could go back to an early Palestinian milieu. It retroverts easily to both Aramaic and Hebrew. In fact, a Semitic Vorlage may help solve the difference between 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7. See below, p. 346. Both G. Reim, “Zur Lokalisierung der johanneischen Gemeinde,” BZ 32 (1988): 72–86, and Klaus Wengst, Bedrängte Gemeinde und verherrlichter Christus: der historische Ort des Johannesevangeliums als Schlüssel zu seiner Interpretation (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981), 80, have argued for an Aramaic-speaking setting for the Johannine Community. 282 See, e.g., references to the message of the author and community in 1 John 1:1; 2:24; 3:11, and the love commandment in 2:7; 2 John 5–6. On the rhetorical purpose of confessional material in 1 John, see Piper, “1 John,” 437–51. 283 The confession was probably made at baptism, accompanied by a confession of sins (as 1 John 1:9 implies). Cf. Bonnard, Épitres, 85, on the publicity of the confession.

250

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

7. The Confession of the Coming Messiah in the Fourth Gospel This is reinforced by the similarity of the confession to those preserved in the Fourth Gospel.284 In John 6:14, for example, the people who receive the bread in the wilderness acclaim Jesus as the “prophet who comes into the world” (οὗτός ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ὁ προφήτης ὁ ἐρχόμενος εἰς τὸν κόσμον). The phrase εἰς τὸν κόσμον is probably semantically equivalent to ἐν σαρκί,285 and the appellation “prophet” refers to the prophet like Moses of Jewish messianic expectation (Deut 18:15, 18). This is virtually the same statement the Samaritan woman makes in John 4:25, when she speaks twice of Messiah’s “coming,” and describes him as the Taheb of traditional Samaritan expectation (οἶδα ὅτι Μεσσίας ἔρχεται ὁ λεγόμενος χριστός· ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, ἀναγγελεῖ ἡμῖν ἅπαντα). Likewise, Martha’s confession in John 11:27, that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God who comes into the world (σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἐρχόμενος), is also closely akin to the confession of 1 John 4:2 in that it describes Jesus as Messiah and speaks of his coming, like John 6:14, εἰς τὸν κόσμον.286 These passages indicate that the confession of 1 John 4:2 is not a novelty, but a restatement of the Johannine community’s original belief.

H. The Identity of the Opponents in 1 John 4:1–6 Having surveyed the flow of thought in 1 John 4:1–6 and having addressed the debate concerning the confession of 4:2, it is now necessary to ask positively what can be learned about the opponents from this passage. For most scholars, 1 John 4:1–6 has served as a cornerstone for the historical reconstruction of the opponents. The 284 Painter, “Opponents,” 71, thinks the confessions in 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7 derive from a combination of the Fourth Gospel’s formulae in John 1:14, 11:27, and 20:31. 285 So Stegemann, “Kindlein,” 294; Moberly, “Test,” 302; Griffith, Keep, 182–84, who argues that “in flesh” denotes the sphere, not the form of the Messiah’s coming. He further reasons (188) that because the author had just described the false prophets as having gone out “into the world” he chooses to use a slightly different phrase (“in flesh”) to describe the Messiah’s advent. 286 John 1:14 is also relevant, since it speaks of the Logos becoming σάρξ. This passage is of less value for my argument, however, because it is often assigned to a later redactor with an anti-docetic agenda like that often associated with 1 John. It is also not exactly identical in thought to 1 John 4:2. While 1:14 speaks of the Logos becoming flesh, 1 John 4:2 speaks of Jesus as the Messiah coming in flesh. It is not evident that Logos and Messiah should be treated as equivalents, nor that becoming and coming refer to the same event.

An Alternative Interpretation

251

tendency has been to mirror-read each term and phrase as if it provided a window into the historical situation addressed by the letter.

1. Methodological Caution in Mirror-Reading 1 John 4:1–6 Often, however, historical reconstruction is not performed with the proper degree of methodological rigor. This section (4:1–6) ought not to be taken as providing a statistical or historical description of the success of the false prophets. 287 It is, rather, a heavily theologized portrayal of the community’s present struggle with the surrounding unbelieving society, in the midst of which the community is a marginalized minority. To speak of charismatic prophetic figures within the community who enjoyed a successful widespread mission to the world is to misread 1 John as objective reportage instead of apocalyptic-dualistic polemic. The most that can responsibly be stated on the basis of the description here is that the Johannine community may have come into contact with figures who claimed prophetic inspiration and authority, but whom the author, through the lens of his apocalyptic dualism, analyzes as merely one component of a larger eschatological attempt at diabolical anti-messianic deception.

2. The Opponents as Visiting Jewish Prophets From 4:1–6, we can deduce that the author envisions the possibility, even likelihood, that the community will encounter visiting prophets. The prophets do not seem to be part of the community;288 the author 287 It has become common for commentators to read 4:6 as an indication that in the schism the author’s side was in the minority, numerically. See, e.g., Brown, Epistles, 498, 500; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 218; Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 263; Dodd, Epistles, xviii– xvix. Grayston, Epistles, 77, is an example of one who reads quite a bit into the description, even going so far as to explain the opponents’ evangelistic strategy as one of cultural accommodation: “they gained attention for their version of the Christian faith by removing unattractive features and perhaps adding pleasing ones.” 288 Most commentators see them as part of the community. E.g., see Trebilco, Early Christians, 274, who thinks they are teachers or “key figures”; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 207, who speaks of “charismatic excesses” and “heretical enthusiasms” in the community; E. M. Boring, “The Influence of Christian Prophecy on the Johannine Portrayal of the Paraclete and Jesus,” NTS 25 (1978–79): 113–23; Strecker, Letters, 71: “They participate in the basic charismatic structure of the Johannine communities”; Burge, Community, 224; Witherington, Letters, 523.

252

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

must warn the community that false prophets are out and about, and are not to be heeded. These visiting prophets should also not necessarily be seen as Christian prophets. Numerous examples from Josephus289 and the New Testament make it clear that ecstatic prophecy in the first century C.E. was not limited to followers of Jesus. In Acts 13:6–12, for example, Paul and Barnabas encounter Elymas Bar-Jesus, described as a “sorcerer” (μάγος) and “false prophet” (ψευδοπροφήτης).290 Elymas is not a follower of Jesus. He is described as a Ἰουδαῖος, but Paul calls him a son of the devil who attempts to turn people away291 from following Jesus. Similarly, Rev 13:11 characterizes the beast from the land (larcy Jra, perhaps) as a “false prophet” who speaks empowered by the dragon. There is no indication that the false prophet in any way poses as a Christian. Thus, it is quite possible that the false prophets of 1 John 4:1 could be Jewish teachers or ecstatic wonder-workers. This is made all the more credible when we consider the likelihood that the Epistles predate a strict division of synagogue from church.292 The author’s synagogue would be one whose boundary marker was confession of Jesus as the Messiah. When fellow Jews came seeking hospitality, or desiring to make converts to the latest nationalist cause, the community was to judge them by the provided messianic test. Mere consanguinity would not suffice, for the new community was formed not by “bloods” (John 1:13) but by belief in the name of the Son of God.293

289 Josephus, J. W. 2.159 (Essene prophets); 2.258–59; 2.261 (ὁ Αἰγύπτιος ψευδοπροφήτης); 6.286 (πολλοὶ…προφῆται); Ant. 20.97 (Theudas); 20.169. 290 See H.-J. Klauck, Magic and Paganism in Early Christianity: The World of the Acts of the Apostles (Continuum: T&T Clark, 2003), 47–50; J. J. Kilgallen, “Acts 13:4–12: The Role of the Magos,” EstBib 55 (1997): 223–37; R. Strelan, “Who was Bar-Jesus (Acts 13,6– 12)?” Bib 85 (2004): 65–81. 291 Luke uses διαστρέφω, which is probably a synonym for πλανάω in 1 John 2:26. 292 See above, p. 98. Apparently, the same situation is envisioned in 2 John 10–11. See the discussion below in Chapter 6. 293 Perhaps 1–2 John envision a situation similar to that of Acts, where certain Jews followed Paul, attempting to disrupt his evangelism. Justin Martyr may also allude to this when he reminds Trypho, “at that time you [Jews] chose and sent out from Jerusalem chosen men through all the land to say that the godless sect of the Christians had sprung up, and to proclaim those things which all who did not know us speak against us” (Dial. 16.1). Cf. 108.1, which refers to the same phenomenon.

An Alternative Interpretation

253

3. Are the False Prophets Secessionists? It needs to be emphasized that the text does not clearly identify the false prophets in the present passage with the secessionists of 2:18–27. The prophets of 4:1–6 are a threat that originates externally, while the secessionists of 2:18–27 appear to have once been part of the community, but to have renounced their original confession of faith and departed the community.294 Because both the apostates and the false prophets oppose the beliefs and goals of the community, John paints both groups with the same apocalyptic brush. They are both part of the end-time anti-Messiah opposition.295

294 There could very well be a causal link between the two groups. It may be that the false prophets are those who deceived the secessionists (cf. 1 John 2:26), convincing them to renounce Jesus and forsake the community. 295 I have already surveyed above in Chapter 3 the apocalyptic typology used to characterize the secessionists of 2:18–27 who have reneged upon their initial confession of faith. This is also the case in 4:1–6. Note the following: 1) The use of the eschatological battle motif in terms such as νικάω (4:4). 2) The description of the opponents as ψευδοπροφῆται—a term used in other apocalyptic contexts to describe eschatological opponents (cf. Matt 24:11, 24; 7:15; Rev 16:13). Cf. Berger, “Gegner,” 379; Erlemann, “Trennungsprozess,” 296; Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 232. 3) The use of the term ἀντίχριστοι, which probably draws on the Olivet Discourse, as well (Matt 24:14, ψευδόχριστοι). 4) The close linkage of the prophets to the “world.” They go out into the world, have the spirit of the world, originate from the world, and are listened to by the world because they speak things pleasing to the world. Some see this as indicating that the secessionists were enjoying success in an attempt to convert others in the Johannine community as well as those who were the objects of their external missionary activity. See Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 33; Schnackenburg, Epistles, 204: “lurking behind this statement is an admission that the false teachers are having considerable success in the world.” The use of the term “world,” though, more likely reflects the ethical dualism of the Fourth Gospel, where the world usually represents the world hostile to God (Brown, Epistles, 490). 5) The description of the prophets’ empowering spirit as the spirit of error/deceit. This is a common apocalyptic trope that envisions an end time apostasy. Cf. e.g., 1 Tim 4:1–3; Rev 16:13, where the eschatological false prophet sends out “unclean spirits.” 6) Their enumeration as “many” perhaps reflects the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24:5, 11: πολλοὶ ψευδοπροφῆται). Cf. Strecker, Letters, 63.

254

1 John 4:1–6: Jesus is the Messiah in the Flesh

4. The Reuse of the Fourth Gospel’s Polemic More significantly, we find, just as in 2:18–27, that the polemic against the Jews in the Fourth Gospel has been reycled for use against the false prophets and their followers in 1 John 4:1–6. Like the Jews, who do not listen to Jesus (John 8:43, 47), so those who are part of the world do not listen to the community’s message (1 John 4:5–6).296 Just as the Jews are from this world (John 8:23), so the false prophets are from the world (1 John 4:5).297 Just as the Jews are from the devil (John 8:44, 47), so the false prophets have the spirit of the antichrist and the spirit of the one who is in the world (4:3–4). Just as Satan entered Judas, leading him to collude with the Jews to hand Jesus over to the Romans (John 13:27), so the false prophets are demonically inspired with the spirit of deceit (1 John 4:3, 6). First John’s reuse of the Fourth Gospel’s polemic against the Jews lends support to my theory that the “false prophets” of 1 John 4:1–6 are non-Christians, and, very possibly, Jewish itinerant prophets.

Several commentators believe that the opponents are not actually prophetic figures with charismatic phenomena as their modus operandi. They argue that “false prophet” here is merely apocalyptic rhetoric and that the opponents are better characterized as teachers, not visionaries or ecstatics. See Hill, “Cerinthus,” 151–52; Schnackenburg, Epistles, 194; Brown, Epistles, 489–90; Thyen, “Johannesbriefe,” 190; Lieu, Second, calls them “essentially teachers” (80), and thinks that 1 John 4 uses “traditional depictions of eschatological opponents” (142); Lieu, “Authority,” 215. Such scholars often cite as a parallel 2 Pet 2:1, which appears to equate false prophets and false teachers, but this is not a legitimate parallel, since it only compares but does not equate the false prophets among the wilderness generation with the false teachers emerging among the audience. Hill, “Cerinthus,” 151–52, claims that 1 John 4:1–6 makes no statements about visions or revelations, but the language of spirit-inspiration may easily be construed as a reference to ecstatic speech. It must also be observed that prophecy in early Judaism was not necessarily ecstatic, but could include authoritative teaching and leadership. The conclusion of Schnackenburg, Epistles, 194, is well-worded: “The heretical teachers of 1 John 4:1 may claim to be filled with the Spirit and to be prophets. But we cannot assume that they delivered their teachings in ecstasy.” Those who put more weight on the depiction of these figures as prophets include Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 230; Weiss, “Gnosis,” 342; Lampe, “Grievous Wolves,” 262; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 208–9; Rensberger, 1 John, 109; Uebele, Verführer, 146; Plummer, Epistles, 95; Dodd, Epistles, xviii, 102; Smith, “Johannine Christianity,” 233; Burge, Community, 224. 296 As Brown, Epistles, 491, notes, in the Farewell Discourse the world is parallelled to the Jews in the same fashion as in 1 John (John 15:18, 17:18 and 17:14). 297 See above, p. 236, for further discussion.

Conclusion

255

VIII. Conclusion In this chapter, I surveyed the various proposals for understanding 1 John 4:1–6 and its polemic, and found none of the major theories capable of adequately explaining all the elements of the passage. I therefore offered an alternative explanation, which can be summarized in three points: 1) The false prophets of 1 John 4:1–6 are to be distinguished from the secessionists of 1 John 2:18–27. The latter passage speaks of community members who apostatized, while the former passage speaks of visiting Jewish (non-Christian) prophets. Both groups are, however, described by the author as participants in the same eschatological rebellion. 2) The confession in 1 John 4:2, which is used to discern true prophets from false, emphasizes that Jesus is the Messiah of Jewish expectation (i.e., “the one who is to come”). The focus of the confession is not on the mode of Jesus’ coming (i.e. “in flesh”), but on the fact of his coming, and his identity as the Messiah. The confession is not inherently polemical and is not a recent Johannine innovation meant to address the secessionists, but is likely a primitive summary of the central Christian belief and would have enjoyed broad assent among early Christians. The use of “flesh” terminology does not signal an antidocetic intent, but is mirrored in numerous early Christian confessions and seems to be a standard way of describing the Messiah’s advent. 3) In light of the first two points, there is no reason to suppose that 1 John addresses a situation substantially different from that of the Fourth Gospel. Both appear to have in view the rejection of Jesus as Messiah by wider Jewish society.

Chapter 5

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah The third major passage to be discussed regarding the opponents of 1 John is 1 John 5:6–12, especially the famed “three witnesses” text of 5:6. Although the opponents are not explicitly mentioned in the passage, almost all modern commentators agree that 5:6 is polemical, and that it is aimed against the same opponents that are in view in 2:18–27 and 4:1–6.1 A. E. Brooke is representative: “the whole statement…is no doubt conditioned by the special form of erroneous teaching which had made so precise a statement necessary.”2 Ruth Edwards can see no other option: 1 John 5:6 “must be aimed at someone, or some group, who denied this.”3 Moreover, many believe that the author has provided in this passage a direct quotation of the opponents, who teach that “Jesus Christ came in/by water only.”4 As a result, this passage has 1

2 3 4

Brown, Epistles, 574; Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 293; Richter, “Blut,” 130; Uebele, Verführer, 149; Houlden, Epistles, 125; Westcott, Epistles, 183; Loader, Epistles, 63; Grayston, Epistles, 136. Boer, “Jesus the Baptizer,” 88–90, says it is “clearly polemical.” So also Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 304, thinks it was “shaped as a response to the wording of the opponents.” Schnackenburg, Epistles, 232, believes it is “in open opposition to the heretical teachers.” Clemen, “Beiträge,” 275, agrees, asserting that without secessionists behind the negation, the emphasis on the blood and the water is a “sonst ganz unmotivierten Hervorhebung.” Sloyan, Walking, 51, argues that “One affirms a thing as strongly as is done in v. 6 only if it has a history of being denied.” A bit more cautious is Strecker, Letters, 69, who sees 5:6 as a probable statement about the opponents, but not as definitely polemical as 2:22–23 and 4:1–6, which he deems “explicit.” Yarbrough, 1–3 John, 283, also tentatively affirms a polemical intent for the passage, but recognizes that it may “simply be John’s way of stressing the importance of Jesus’s death.” For a good discussion of recent scholarship on the passage, see Thatcher, “Antichrist,” 235–48. Brooke, Johannine Epistles, 133. Edwards, Epistles, 60. See, e.g., Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 293.

Chapter 5

257

become for many the “Rosetta Stone” with which to decode the opponents’ views so enigmatically alluded to by 1 John. As discussed above in Chapter 2, 1 John 5:6 is often read back into 2:18–27 and 4:1–6 and used as the lens through which those earlier passages are viewed. Surprisingly, virtually none of the commentators finds it necessary to offer an argument for the polemical nature of this passage. They simply assume it.5 This is all the more significant when it is realized that no one prior to the late eighteenth century read this passage polemically.6 Despite the consensus that 5:6 is polemical, there is vast disagreement about how to move from the author’s “refutation” to a reconstruction of the actual beliefs of the opponents. 7 What precisely, it must be asked, is the opponents’ teaching with which the author finds fault? Does the author find their teaching—that Jesus Christ came in water—insufficient, since it does not take into account Christ’s coming in blood? Or, are the opponents actually denying the author’s teaching—that Jesus Christ came in blood? Even if the author is directly quoting a slogan of the opponents (“in water only”), how can we be sure that he has correctly understood the intention of the slogan?8 It is also unclear how 1 John’s correction of the opponents (“not in water only, but in the water and in the blood”) should be taken. Perhaps he accepts the opponents’ statement that Jesus Christ “came in water,” but merely supplements it: “and also in blood.” Or, does he reject the opponents’ statement altogether and claim that Jesus Christ did not come “in water” (perhaps baptism) as the opponents say, but “in water and blood” (a reference to the cross)? 9 It will become evident that the answers to these questions depend largely on the meaning assigned to the terms “water” and “blood.” The best way to approach the issue, therefore, is to survey the different options for identifying the

5

6

7 8

9

For example, Brown, Epistles, 574, while noting how difficult it is to reconstruct the secessionists’ view from this opaque passage, nevertheless fails even to discuss the possibility that it is not polemical in the first place. The first commentator to read 1 John 5:6 as a polemic was J. D. Michaelis in 1788 in his Einleitung in die göttlichen Schriften des Neues Bundes (4th ed; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1788), 4:401–402. He believed it was aimed at Cerinthian possession-Christology. While many others prior to Michaelis had named Cerinthus as a possible opponent of the Epistle, they did so on the basis of 1 John 2:22 and 4:2, and failed to connect 5:6 to the heresy. See my discussion of the perils of mirror-reading in ch. 2 above. For an illustration of how easily slogans can be misconstrued, one need only think of the perennial debate between Roman Catholics and Protestants over justification by “faith alone.” As argued by Brown, Epistles, 574.

258

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

supposed targets of this passage, and to discuss along the way how each view interprets the symbols of the blood and water.10

I. Against Docetism Those who see 1 John combating a docetic teaching (usually on the basis of 4:2–3) interpret 5:6 along those lines. There are however, at least three different ways that the anti-docetic significance of the blood and water in 5:6 has been explained.

A. “Water and Blood” Refers to Real Physical Birth First, some have explained 1 John 5:6 as a defense of the incarnation of Jesus Christ at his birth. 11 That is, when the passage states that Jesus Christ is the one who “came in water and in blood,” it is basically restating the claim of 1 John 4:2, that Jesus “has come in the flesh,” which is also taken as an anti-docetic statement. In favor of this view is the way the Johannine literature elsewhere uses ἔρχομαι to refer to birth. For example, John 1:9, 1:11, 3:31, 5:43, 6:14 and 16:28 can all be taken to refer to Jesus’ birth as his coming into the world.12 John 18:37 is perhaps the clearest example of this, as it closely parallels “coming” with being born: ἐγὼ εἰς τοῦτο γεγέννημαι καὶ εἰς τοῦτο ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν κόσμον, ἵνα μαρτυρήσω τῇ ἀληθείᾳ.

1. Water and Blood in Ancient Reproductive Science There is also ancient evidence that water and blood were linked to human conception and birth.13 In Hellenistic-Jewish physiological thought, the embryo originated from, and was composed of, water (the 10 11

12 13

For a fairly comprehensive summary of the different views, cf. Brown, Epistles, 575– 80. Defended by Richter, “Blut,” 120–42; Lalleman, Acts, 249; Uebele, Verführer, 111–12, 149; F. C. Burkitt, The Gospel History and its Transmission (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1907), 233; Schweitzer, “Zeugnis,” 350–53. Of course 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7 may also refer to incarnation; both passages use the language of “coming in.” See M. Stol, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible (Cuneiform Monographs 14; Groningen: Styx, 2000), for a discussion of theories of conception in the ancient world, esp. p. 126, where the Johannine use of water and blood is treated.

Against Docetism

259

father’s semen) and blood (the woman’s menstrual blood). This may be the background for John 1:13, where physical birth is set in contrast to spiritual birth (ἐκ θεοῦ) and referred to as ἐξ αἱμάτων.14 The concept is clearly reflected in Wisdom 7:1–2 where “Solomon” speaks of his own mortal nature: εἰμὶ μὲν κἀγὼ θνητὸς ἄνθρωπος ἴσος ἅπασιν καὶ γηγενοῦς ἀπόγονος πρωτοπλάστου καὶ ἐν κοιλίᾳ μητρὸς ἐγλύφην σὰρξ δεκαμηνιαίῳ χρόνῳ παγεὶς ἐν αἵματι ἐκ σπέρματος ἀνδρὸς καὶ ἡδονῆς ὕπνῳ συνελθούσης. I too am a mortal human being, equal to everyone else, offspring of the first-formed child of the earth, shaped into flesh in my mother’s womb for ten months, formed in blood from the seed of a man and sexual pleasure.

Likewise, in 4 Maccabees 13:20, the seven brothers are described as ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτοῦ αἵματος αὐξηθέντες. Philo, too, speaks of the role of the menses in the conception and formation of children: οὐδὲν τῶν γηγενῶν ἄνευ ὑγρᾶς οὐσίας συνίστασθαι πέφυκε· μηνύουσι δ᾽ αἱ καταβολαὶ τῶν σπερμάτων, ἅπερ ἢ ὑγρά ἐστιν, ὡς τὰ τῶν ζῴων, ἢ οὐκ ἄνευ ὑγρότητος βλαστάνει, τοιαῦτα δὲ τὰ τῶν φυτῶν ἐστιν· ἐξ οὗ δῆλον ὅτι ἀνάγκη τὴν λεχθεῖσαν ὑγρὰν οὐσίαν μέρος εἶναι γῆς τῆς πάντα τικτούσης, καθάπερ ταῖς γυναιξὶ τὴν φορὰν τῶν καταμηνίων· λέγεται γὰρ οὖν καὶ ταῦτα πρὸς ἀνδρῶν φυσικῶν οὐσία σωματικὴ βρεφῶν εἶναι.15 It is not the nature of anything earthly to exist without a moist essence. And this is indicated by the planting of seed, which is either moist, like the seed of animals, or else does not grow without moisture, like the seeds of plants. It is clear from this that the moist essence must be the part of the earth that produces everything, just as the menstrual fluid is a part of women. For men who are learned in natural science identify this as the bodily essence of babies.

14

15

See J. H. Bernard, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John (2 vols; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928), 1:18; H. J. Cadbury, “The Ancient Physiological Notions Underlying John I,13 and Hebrews XI,11,” Expositor 9.2 (1924): 430–39. See P. van der Horst, “Sarah’s Seminal Emission: Hebrews 11:11 in the Light of Ancient Embryology,” in Greeks, Romans and Christians: Essays in honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (ed. David L. Balch, et al; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 287–302, for a summary of the Hellenistic medical disputes over the role of the woman in conception. Many medical theorists ascribed semen and sperm to the woman as well as to the man in an effort to explain why children sometimes resembled their mothers more than their fathers. Other followed Aristotle in viewing the menstrual blood (καταμήνια) of the woman as her contribution to conception. Opif. 132.

260

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

It is notable also that in the later Leviticus Rabbah 15:2 humans are said to be composed of half water and half blood; when the ratio becomes imbalanced, leprosy or dropsy results.16 In the same work, this account of conception is offered: “A woman’s womb is full of blood, some of which goes out by way of her menstrual flow, and by the favor of the Holy One, blessed be He, a drop of white matter goes and falls into it and immediately the fetus begins to form.”17 G. Richter believes that 1 John 5:6, with this physiology in the background, is aimed at gnostic opponents who claim that Jesus had a body composed of water only, thus not a truly human body.18 Richter depends heavily on some Mandaean texts, which describe the Redeemer as possessing a body made solely of water.19 Other than the Mandaean texts, one might appeal to Pseudo-Tertullian (ca. 3rd c.), who speaks of Valentinians denying that Christ had fleshly substance and teaching that he possessed a spiritual body brought down from heaven, which “passed through the Virgin Mary as water through a pipe, neither receiving nor borrowing anything from her.”20 Irenaeus attributes a similar statement to gnostics in general.21

2. A Variation: “Water” = Physical Birth A variation on this view, proposed by B. Witherington, should be noted.22 Witherington argues that “water” by itself refers to Jesus’ human birth. He notes that several ancient texts associate human birth with water. For example, Prov 5:15–18 may use water to symbolize semen or amniotic fluid, when it urges its audience not to disperse their “waters” in the streets. Likewise, Song 4:12–15 describes the young 16 17 18 19 20

21 22

Cited by Schweitzer, “Zeugnis,” 350–53. Leviticus Rabbah 14:6. Richter, “Blut,” 130. Cf. Lallemann, Acts of John, 249. Richter, “Blut,” 10–11. Haer. 4: “Hunc autem in substantia corporis nostri non fuisse, sed spiritale nescio quod corpus de caelo deferentem, quasi aquam per fistulam, sic per Mariam virginem transmeasse, nihil inde vel accipientem vel mutuantem.” Haer. 1.7.2. B. Witherington, “The Waters of Birth: John 3:5 and 1 John 5:6–8,” NTS 35 (1989): 155–60. He defends it more recently in B. Witherington, Troubled Waters: The Real New Testament Theology of Baptism (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007), 97. See also Witherington, Letters, 544. Witherington himself does not believe that “in water only” describes the opponents’ view. He thinks that the opposition of blood and water is merely rhetorical and allows the author to focus his attention on the “blood.”

Against Docetism

261

woman’s “sealed fountain” and “well of water.” 23 Closer to the setting of 1 John is Jesus’ dialogue with Nicodemus in John 3:5, where Jesus refers to being born “of water and the Spirit”—a possible reference to physical birth (of water) and birth from above (of the Spirit). This interpretation is strengthened by 3:6, where being born “of flesh” is parallel to being born “of water.” On this view, then, the author may still be fighting a docetic opponent who rejects Jesus’ incarnation. To combat the docetic view, the author appeals to the “water,” which refers to Jesus’ birth, and the “blood,” which refers to his death. But how does the Spirit, the third witness introduced in 1 John 5:6, relate to the water and the blood? Witherington asserts that it is by the agency of the Holy Spirit that the water (the birth of Christ) and the blood (the death of Christ) are salvifically applied to the believer. 24

B. “Water and Blood” Refers to Real Physical Death A second explanation commonly offered holds that 1 John is defending against opponents who deny the reality of Jesus’ death.25 On this view 1 John 5:6 alludes to John 19:34–35, which describes the post-mortem flow of blood and water from the side of Jesus and the witness borne by the beloved disciple.26 The purpose of the beloved disciple’s eyewitness report is to prove either the reality of Jesus’ humanity or the reality of his death.27 The flow of blood and water would demonstrate either a) that his body was truly composed of blood and water, and 23

24 25 26

27

He also cites 4 Ezra 8:8, m. ’Abot 3.1; 3 En. 6:3; 1QH 3:9–10, none of which seems particularly relevant. Fourth Ezra 8:8 and 1QH 3:9–10 both use the sea as a metaphor for the dangers of birth. They do not establish a standard metaphorical use of water. Third Enoch 6:3 and m. ’Abot 3.1 refer to humans as deriving from a “white drop” or a “putrid drop”—a reference to semen, to be sure, but hardly clear evidence that semen is being pictured as water. Witherington, “Waters,” 155. Loader, Epistles, 65–66; Uebele, Verführer, 112. For a thorough history of interpretation regarding the relationship between John 19:34–35 and 1 John 5:6, see Sister Thomas More Meehan, “John 19:32–35 and I John 5:6–8: A Study in the History of Interpretation” (Ph.D. diss., Drew University, 1985); cf. J. Heer, “The Soteriological Significance of the Johannine Image of the Pierced Savior,” in Faith in Christ and the Worship of Christ (ed. L. Scheffczyk; San Francisco: Ignatius, 1986), 33–46; A. A. Maguire, Blood and Water: The Wounded Side of Christ in Early Christian Literature (Washington: Catholic University, 1958). Irenaeus Haer. 3.22.2; 4.33.2, is the earliest extant author to use John 19:34–35 to demonstrate Jesus’ true humanity and rebut docetism. It is significant, though, that Irenaeus does not here connect John 19 to 1 John 5, nor does he in any place interpret 1 John 5 anti-docetically.

262

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

therefore human,28 or b) that his death had the same characteristics as a normal human death, including the usual flow of blood and water from a recently deceased corpse.29 Those who hold this view often attribute anti-docetic intentions to the Fourth Gospel, at least in a later redaction.30 There is evidence from around the time of the Epistle that certain groups were denying the reality of Jesus’ humanity and death.31 If such groups are in view in 1 John, what would they be affirming when they said that Jesus Christ came “in water only?” They, would, it is argued, be affirming that Jesus “came in water” in the sense that he was either baptized by John, or that he brought the Holy Spirit (often symbolized by water in the Fourth Gospel), but they would deny that he came in “water and blood,” i.e., that he truly died as the Fourth Gospel relates.32 A different meaning for “in water only” is proposed by P. Lallemann, in his work on the Acts of John, which he dates early in the second-century.33 This work clearly presupposes the Fourth Gospel, but puts a docetic spin on it. The key passage is Acts John 101:7–8, where the text alludes to John 19:34. Christ tells John, “You have heard…that I was pierced, and I was not wounded (νυγέντα καὶ οὐκ ἐπλήγην) …that blood flowed from me, and it did not flow (αἷμα ἐξ ἐμοῦ ῥεῦσαν καὶ οὐκ ἔρευσεν).” Lallemann takes this to show that the author of the Acts knows the Johannine tradition of the water and blood literally flowing from Jesus’ side, but chooses to deny only the statement that blood flowed. His denial leaves the flow of water untouched. For Lallemann this is enough to conclude that the author

28

29 30 31 32 33

Burkitt, Gospel History, 233, is an example of this view. On the basis of 1 John 5:6, he holds that “the living personality has in it three elements, viz. spirit, water, blood. From the ‘water’ we are begotten, by the ‘blood’ we are sustained, and the ‘spirit’ or breath is the immaterial element that enters at birth and leaves at death. The spirit quitted Jesus when he died (Joh xix 30), leaving behind the water and blood of a human body, the existence of which was demonstrated to the onlookers by the spear-thrust of the soldier.” For similar explanations, see Richter, “Blut,” 120–42; Lalleman, Acts, 249; Uebele, Verführer, 111–12, 149. Uebele, Verführer, 111–12; Loader, Epistles, 65–66; John Wilkinson, “The Incident of the Blood and Water in John 19.34,” SJT 28 (1975), 169–71. See Schnelle, Antidocetic, 228. See the discussion of Ignatius’s letters and his docetic opponents above, p. 40. Uebele, Verführer, 111–12, 149. Most scholars date the work later in the second century. See Junod, Acta Iohannis, 2:694–95, who dates it 150–200 C.E. Schäferdiek, “Acts of John,” 167, dates it to the first half of the third century. See the discussion of this apocryphal gospel and its connection to the Johannine “trajectory” above, pp. 10, 44.

Against Docetism

263

would thus say just what the opponents of 1 John 5:6 seem to say: that Jesus came “in water only.”34 It should be evident that all these interpretations have the same basic focus, namely, that Jesus Christ was a true human being in every respect from birth to death. Thus, it is natural that some scholars opt for a combined reference in 1 John 5 to Jesus’ birth, life, and death.35

C. Weaknesses of the Anti-Docetic Interpretation There are several difficulties which make it unlikely that 1 John 5:6 refers to Jesus’ true humanity, whether in birth or death.

1. Problems with the Mandaean Parallel To begin with, the historical evidence for the view that Jesus had a “water only” body is severely lacking. The Mandaean parallel offered by Richter is very dubious, not least because of its lateness, but also because it is unclear exactly what the Mandaean texts are affirming. 36 Neither is the appeal to Ps-Tertullian’s summary of Valentinus helpful because the picture of “water through a pipe” seems to be a 34

35

36

Lalleman, Acts, 249–50. Lallemann accepts Richter’s argument that the core issue is the composition of Jesus’ body. The opponents teach that Jesus had a water-only body; thus, at death, only water flowed forth from his side. For Lallemann, then, the opponents are denying Jesus’ true humanity, and therefore the reality of his death. E.g., Koester, Introduction, 2:194, believes that coming in water and blood “means that [Jesus] shared human experience from his baptism to his death.” He sees this as a response to docetic texts like the Acts of John. Similarly, Weiss, “Gnosis,” 347, takes the water and blood as references to the baptism and death of Jesus as salvific historical events testified to presently by the Spirit (just as the Spirit prompts the confession that Jesus came in the flesh; cf. 1 John 4:2). So also, Bonnard, Épitres, 109 thinks the point of the three witnesses is to testify to the “historical humanity” of Jesus. Cf. Deborah F. Sawyer, “Water and Blood: Birthing Images in John’s Gospel,” in Words Remembered, Texts Renewed: Festschrift for Prof. John F. A. Sawyer (ed. G. Harvey, Jon Davies and Wilfred Watson; JSOTSup195. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 300–309, who provides a feminist exegesis of John 19:34–36 where she discusses the possibility of viewing Christ as a new Adam who gives birth to the church through his side (πλευρά, used in both John 19:34 and Gen 2:21 LXX) and through the universal birthing elements of water and blood. She provides a good survey of this interpretation in medieval exegesis, beginning with Augustine. See Wengst, Häresie, 19–20; Brown, Epistles, 576. The Mandaean Ginza Right 1.29.5; 2.53.3 speaks of Enosh-Uthra, the Redeemer, being clothed with a body of water, but as Brown points out, the water is not contrasted with blood.

264

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

metaphorical way of describing Christ’s divinity, untouched by fleshly contamination, not a metaphysical claim that Christ had a body whose essence was water.

2. Problems with the Parallel in the Acts of John Lalleman’s argument fares no better. It is a non sequitur to say that because the author of Acts of John denies only the flow of blood, he must represent those who say that water alone flowed out of Jesus. It is much more likely that the author would in fact deny that water came out as well, since he earlier denies that Jesus was truly pierced at all (Acts John 101:7). Furthermore, the intention of Acts John 101 in denying Jesus’ piercing and the flow of blood is far from clear. The text itself is open to many interpretive possibilities. Perhaps the text is only reinforcing what it sees as orthodox doctrines of impassibility. Yes, the blood flowed out of the pierced human historical Jesus, the text could be saying, but the eternal Son of God cannot bleed or be pierced, and thus came out of the crucifixion unscathed. The Acts would then be making a distinction of natures not unlike that later made by Chalcedon. Acts of John 97 supports this understanding, 37 as it recounts how a distraught John fled to a cave in the Mount of Olives while Jesus was being crucified.38 There the Lord appears to him and says, To the crowd below in Jerusalem I am being crucified and pierced with lances and reeds, and gall and vinegar is given me to drink. But to you I speak; listen to what I speak. I put it into your mind to come up into this mountain, that you might hear those things which it is fitting for a disciple to learn from his teacher and a man from his God.

The Lord goes on to explain (chs. 98–101) the difference between himself and the visible suffering figure on the cross. What is important to note here is that the suffering of the human Jesus, including his piercing, is not denied, contra Lallemann. What is, in fact, denied is that Jesus’ suffering is a true revelation of the ultimate reality. To the crowd 37

38

For the texts, and suggestions concerning their relationship to the Fourth Gospel, see Titus Nagel, Die Rezeption des Johannesevangeliums im 2. Jahrhundert: Studien zur vorirenäischen Auslegung des vierten Evangeliums in christlicher und christlich-gnostischer Literatur (ABG 2; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2000), 275, 279–80. This is in contrast to the Fourth Gospel, where the beloved disciple (whom Acts John identifies with John son of Zebedee) remains at the foot of the cross throughout Jesus’ crucifixion.

Against Docetism

265

it appears as if the Son of God is suffering, but to those who have understanding, the truth of the Son’s impassibility is made known.

3. Blood and Water in Other Docetic Texts Other gnosticizing or docetic texts also seem to be at peace with John 19:34. For example, the second-century Valentinian Excerpta ex Theodoto allude to the flow of blood and water, but allegorize it in a gnostic direction as a picture of the wise man shedding the passions.39 The text also affirms the piercing of Christ, alluding to John 19:34, 36, but makes it clear that it was only the flesh (the “appearance”), not the soul, of the psychic Christ that was pierced.40 The Interpretation of Knowledge (XI,1), a Valentinian text, likely alludes to John 19:34 when it speaks of the church entering the Pleroma through the opened side of Jesus, portrayed as an antitype of Adam (cf. Gen 2:22–23).41 Heracleon, also usually located in the Valentinian stream, alludes approvingly to the links established in John 19:29–36 between Jesus’ passion and the slaying of the Passover lamb.42 In each of these cases, we can see that the gnostic or docetic method is not to deny the flow of blood of water as recorded in John, but to allegorize it or to relate it merely to the level of appearance. The witnesses of 1 John 5 would be ineffective against such an approach.

39

40

41

42

“But by the flowing out from his side he indicates that the substances having become free from passion have been saved by the flowings out of the passions from those who shared in them” (61.3). Translation in R. P. Casey, The Excerpta Ex Theodoto of Clement of Alexandria (SD 1; London: Christophers, 1934), 81. Cf. Nagel, Rezeption, 352–53. “Now the psychic Christ sits on the right hand of the Creator, as David says, ‘Sit thou on my right hand’ and so on. And he sits there until the end ‘that they may see him whom they pierced.’ But they pierced the appearance, which is the flesh of the psychic one, ‘for,’ it says, ‘a bone of him shall not be broken,’ just as in the case of Adam the prophecy used bone as an allegory for the soul. For the actual soul of Christ deposited itself in the Father’s hands, while the body was suffering. But the spiritual nature referred to as ‘bone’ is not yet deposited but he keeps it” (62). See discussion in Elaine H. Pagels and Charles W. Hedrick, Nag Hammadi Codices XI, XII, XIII (NHS 28; Leiden: Brill, 1990), 81, where they note a possible connection between the blood and water and the Valentinian idea of the separation of spirit from flesh. This may indicate that NHC XI,1 10.34–37 and Exc. Theod. 61.3 spring from a common interpretive tradition. Cf. Nagel, Rezeption, 443. For discussion of the Adam/Christ typology in the interpretation of John 19:34, see Sawyer, “Water,” 300– 309. Heracleon (frg. 12 in Origen, Comm. Jo. 10.19). Cf. Nagel, Rezeption, 334–35.

266

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

4. Lack of Evidence for “Water and Blood” as Birth The texts cited in order to demonstrate that water, or water and blood, are references to human birth are also lacking in cogency. While some medical theories current at the time of the Epistle might have described embryos as a combination of water and blood, this is hardly a common way of speaking about conception. It is much more common, especially in Jewish contexts to use the term σπέρμα for both the male and female contributions to reproduction.43 It is unlikely that the author would use these terms if he wished to make it clear that Jesus was truly human, and it is just as unlikely that his audience would have understood them in this way.

5. Anti-docetism and John 19:34–35 It is also far from certain that John 19:34–35 has an anti-docetic intent. The average ancient readers of the Fourth Gospel may very well have interpreted the blood and water not as a proof of Jesus’ humanity—just the opposite. Origen’s opponent, Celsus, for example, appears to have taken John 19:34 as a mythological indicator of Jesus’ divinity.44 He thinks the flow of blood and water is meant to invoke the ἰχώρ which flowed through the veins of Greek and Roman immortals. 45 Origen, to our surprise, does not defend the blood and water as a natural indicator of death and therefore as a testimony to Jesus’ true humanity, but claims that the flow was miraculous, since “in other dead bodies, the blood congeals.”46

43 44 45 46

See the numerous examples in Horst, “Emission,” 287–302. Origen, Cels. 2.36. See, e.g., Homer, Il. 5.339–40: ἰχὼρ οἷός πέρ τε ῥέει μακάρεσσι θεοῖσι. Blood is also contrasted with ἰχώρ in Plutarch, Alex. 28.3. Origen, Cels. 2.36. For those who hold that the Evangelist intended the flow of blood and water to be seen as miraculous, see Paul S. Minear, “Diversity and Unity: A Johannine Case-Study,” in Die Mitte des Neuen Testaments: Einheit und Vielfalt neutestamentlicher Theologie (ed. Ulrich Luz et al.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 164; Raymond Brown, The Death of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels (2 vols.; Garden City, N. J.: Doubleday, 1994), 1179, who points out that the eyewitness formula in 19:35 points to an event “so wonderful that he must assure readers” that it really happened. See W. Ameling, “Evangelium Johannis 19,35: Ein aretalogische Motiv,” ZPE 60 (1985): 25–34.

Against Docetism

267

Further, it is doubtful that 1 John 5:6 is actually alluding to John 19:34 at all.47 Against an allusion are the following points: 48 1) John 19:34 gives the order “blood and water” while 1 John 5:6 has the opposite: “water and blood.” While this could simply be meant to emphasize the blood (since that is what the opponents were supposedly denying), it does weaken the allusion.49 2) In 1 John 5:6 ὕδωρ and αἷμα are each articular. This makes it seem that they are each referring to a separate instance and not to one event where both water and blood were present. 3) It is hard to see how blood and water coming out of Jesus’ side at his death could be described in terms of Jesus coming in or with, much less through, water and blood, as 1 John 5:6 states. It is certainly not the most natural way of referring to the event.50 4) The use of witness terminology differs in each passage. In John 19:35, it is the beloved disciple who sees the flow and gives his testimony, but in 1 John 5:6–8 the blood and water are themselves the witnesses.

6. The Role of the Spirit One must also ask where the Spirit, the third witness of 1 John 5:6, would fit in an anti-docetic interpretation.51 While Witherington 47

48 49

50 51

Those who argue for a reference to John 19:34–35 include R. Kysar, I, II, III John (ACNT; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986), 107–108; M. M. Thompson, 1–3 John (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992), 132–33; Horst Balz, “Johanneische Theologie und Ethik im Licht der ‘letzten Stunde,’” in Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des Neuen Testaments: Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Heinrich Greeven (ed. W. Schrage; Berlin: de Gruyter) 35–56; Michaels, “Water,” 159; DeYoung, “MiddleHeaven”; Rensberger, 1 John, 133. For a summary of arguments against an allusion to John 19:34, see Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 265; cf. Plummer, Epistles, 113; Lieu, Theology, 77; Witherington, Letters, 543–44. Perhaps mitigating this, however, is the textual variant that appears after Matthew 27:49 in ‫א‬, B, C, L, and several manuscripts of the Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Ethiopic versions: ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευράν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα. This variant, almost certainly derived from John 19:34, contains the same word order (“water and blood”) as 1 John 5:6. It could be argued that this demonstrates the insignificance of the shift in word order. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 59, for discussion of the variant, which he believes originated in a scribe’s marginal reference to John 19:34 that was later incorporated into the body of the text. Brooke, Johannine Epistles, 132; R. Winterbotham, “The Spirit and the Water and the Blood,” Expositor VIII, 2 (1911), 63. This criticism is also found in Carson, “Witnesses,” 225; Brown, Epistles, 576; Griffith, Keep, 156.

268

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

attempts to answer this by asserting that the Spirit redemptively applies the incarnation and death to believers, this finds no support in the text and in fact fails to do justice to the explicitly stated role of the Spirit. For 1 John, the Spirit witnesses along with the water and blood to Jesus’ divine sonship.

7. Water and Blood as Witnesses The anti-docetic interpretation also falls short when it assigns the water and blood the role of bearing witness to Jesus’ humanity. As explicitly stated in 1 John 5:5, 9, 11, for the author the water and the blood testify not to Jesus’ true humanity but to the fact that Jesus is the Son of God and the one through whom God gives eternal life to believers. It is rather difficult to see how Jesus’ birth qua human being would have any value in demonstrating that he was the Son of God. Finally, it must be admitted that 1 John 5:6 is simply too brief and allusive to serve as a rebuttal to such a thorny and complex problem as docetism. Were the author seeking to counter docetic teaching, it is hard to see how he could expect references to Jesus’ “coming in water and blood” to serve as an effective, much less comprehensible, refutation.52 Why would he use the ambiguous language of “coming in,” which could be taken in ways amenable to docetists? 53 And, why would he employ such symbolic and indeterminate terminology (“blood” and “water”) to establish his very concrete point regarding Jesus’ humanity? If he were opposing docetism, we would expect forthright avowals of Jesus’ true humanity, true birth, and true death, and disavowals of docetic teaching—the very sort we find later in Ignatius.54

II. Against Anti-Sacramentalism It is often held, especially by scholars in more sacramental traditions, that the water and blood of 1 John 5:6 refer to the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist. On this view, to say that Jesus Christ came

52 53 54

Lieu, Theology, 77. See above, p. 40, where the docetist belief that Jesus came in the “appearance” or “form” of human flesh is discussed. See above, p. 41.

Against Anti-Sacramentalism

269

διά/ἐν water and blood is to say that he came bringing the two sacraments.55 This view was first promulgated by fourth- and fifthcentury churchmen (Augustine,56 Chrysostom,57 Cyril of Alexandria58). More recently, it has been defended by Oscar Cullmann.59 A variation on this view is to see a shift between 5:6a (διά) and 5:6b (ἐν). 5:6a would refer to Christ’s historical coming or ministry, when he brought the sacraments, while 5:6b would refer to the present church age when Christ now “comes” or is present in the sacraments, which thus serve as present witnesses to him (in 5:6b–8).60 This reading has the advantage of being able better to account for the aorist ἐλθών in 5:6, which seems to refer to an historical event. B. F. Westcott was a prominent advocate of this view, explaining that the shift in prepositions expresses “a continuation of Jesus’ coming under some new but analogous form.”61 Tertullian, however, was the first to propose a dual reference in 5:6 to both the historical ministry of Christ and the sacraments of the church. He understood the water to refer primarily to Jesus’ historical baptism at the hands of John, and secondarily to the believer’s baptism-initiation into the church. For Tertullian, though, while the blood pointed primarily to the historical death of Jesus, its secondary reference was not to the Eucharist, but to the believer’s “blood-baptism,” i.e., the martyr’s death in imitation of Christ.62 55 56

57 58 59

60

61 62

Both διά and ἐν here are understood as indicating accompaniment. Augustine, Tract. Ev. Jo. 15.8. Among the Protestant Reformers, Luther and Calvin both followed Augustine in this interpretation. Most of the Fathers followed Tertullian and spoke of “two baptisms,” one of water and one of blood (i.e. martyrdom). See the survey of patristic interpretation in Maguire, Blood and Water. Chrysostom, Hom. Jo. 85. Cyril of Alexandria, Comm. Jo. 12. O. Cullmann, Early Christian Worship (London: SCM, 1953), 110. Cf. O. S. Brooks, “The Johannine Eucharist: Another Interpretation,” JBL 82 (1963): 293–300; P. Grech, “Fede e sacramenti in Giov 19,34 e 1 Giov 5,6–12,” in Fede e sacramenti negli scritti Giovannei (Puis-Ramon Tragan; Rome: Abbazia S. Paulo, 1985), 149–63. On this reading διά in 5:6a indicates accompaniment while ἐν in 5:6b speaks of the sphere in which Christ is now present. Prominent advocates of this view include Westcott, Epistles, 182; Schweizer, “Zeugnis,” 374–76; Bultmann, Epistles, 80–81; Joseph Bonsirven, Épitres de Saint Jean (2nd ed.; CNT 9; Paris: Beauchesne, 1954); Windisch, Briefe, 133; Houlden, Epistles, 130–31; Malatesta, Interiority, 312; Dodd, Epistles, 131; A. A. Trites, The New Testament Concept of Witness (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 127. Westcott, Epistles, 182. Tertullian, Bapt. 16.1–2. Rusam, Gemeinschaft, 176–77, interprets water and blood in the same way, but unlike Tertullian he reads 1 John 5:6 as a polemic against those who, because of persecution, are unwilling to convert by being baptized, and to face

270

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

A. The Symbolic Use of Water and Blood for the Sacraments The early interpreters who held this view supported their reading by noting the symbolic and sacramental overtones these terms carried elsewhere in Scripture. In the Fourth Gospel, several texts clearly link water to baptism (John 1:26, 31, 33; 3:23). This suggests that other passages may also use “water” as a metonym for baptism and for the Holy Spirit received through baptism. For example, Jesus speaks in John 3:5 of being born of “water and Spirit.” In 4:10, 14 he describes the “living water” he will give to believers. In 7:38–39, “living water” is again promised to believers, with the added explanation that the gift was not given until Jesus had been glorified. In John 13, the water with which Jesus washes his disciples’ feet is linked to cleansing (esp. v. 10). In the background of these passages, early interpreters proposed, is likely the purgative function of “water” in OT rituals (e.g. Leviticus 14, Numbers 19), which is the key to understanding the significance of Christian baptism. Blood, likewise, was often linked to the Eucharist. In the Synoptic accounts of the Last Supper, Jesus describes the cup as the “blood of the (new) covenant” (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20). In John 6:52– 59, in a context with verbal links to the Last Supper accounts, Jesus says that eating his flesh and drinking his blood are required for eternal life. Finally, both water and blood appear together flowing from Jesus’ side in John 19:34, a passage that alludes back to John 7:38–39. First John 5:6, then, was thought to have built on John 19:34 and to stress that Jesus came bringing eternal life through his sacrificial death, the benefits of which are mediated (as indicated symbolically by the flow of blood and water) to believers through baptism and the Eucharist.

B. Polemic against Anti-Sacramentalism While early interpreters did not think that 1 John 5:6 was part of the letter’s polemic, more recent interpreters who have adopted a sacramental reading have also posited an opposing party to which the passage is responding. This party, according to G. Strecker, was characterized by “a spiritualized denial of sacraments,” i.e., their basic docetism prevented them from embracing the sacraments, which were the martyrdom which might result. They are thus unwilling to follow Jesus “in water and in blood.” Cf. Winterbotham, “Spirit,” 62–71, for a similar conclusion.

Against Anti-Sacramentalism

271

grounded in a realistic view of Jesus’ incarnation and death.63 For those scholars like R. Schnackenburg, who do not see a full-fledged docetism opposed in 1 John, this passage combats those who “deny the need to receive the Holy Eucharist” either because of their perfectionistic anthropology (they claim to have no sin/not to sin [1 John 1:8, 10] and thus see no need for the sacraments) or because they minimize the importance of the human Jesus and his death for salvation and therefore see the sacraments as a vestige of an overly physical understanding of the Redeemer.64 An historical parallel for the opponents’ position may be found in Ignatius, who, as discussed above, condemned docetic teachers who apparently rejected the incarnation.65 When he writes to the Smyrnaeans, he speaks of those who “do not believe in the blood of Christ” (μὴ πιστεύσωσιν εἰς τὸ αἷμα Χριστοῦ) and “abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins” (Εὐχαριστίας καὶ προσευχῆς ἀπέχονται διὰ τὸ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν τὴν εὐχαριστίαν σάρκα εἶναι τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν παθοῦσαν).66 Here Ignatius appears to link the “blood” to the Eucharist and to tie the denial of the blood to abstinence from the Eucharist.

C. Water-only Eucharists in the Early Church There are also early references to sectarians performing the Eucharist with water only, i.e., in the place of wine. In the early third century Cyprian argues against such groups: “I wonder very much whence has originated this practice, that, contrary to evangelical and apostolical discipline, water is offered in some places in the Lord’s cup, which

63 64 65

66

Strecker, “Chiliasm,” 57. Schnackenburg, Epistles, 237. See above, p. 40. Schnackenburg, Epistles, 237, supports this connection. For discussion, see S. M. Gibbard, “The Eucharist in the Ignatian Epistles,” StPatr 8 (1966): 214–18. Ign. Smyrn. 6–7. A possible parallel to the connection between docetism and antisacramentalism may be the fourth-century Vis. Paul 41, where Paul witnesses the torture in hell of those who deny the incarnation and birth of Jesus, along with the reality of the sacramental elements.

272

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

water by itself cannot express the blood of Christ.”67 He urges that wine continue to be mixed with water, as was the custom. Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria likewise inveighed against the practice, attributing it to various groups, including the Aquarians, Ebionites, Encratites, and Manicheans. 68 Perhaps the earliest witness to a water-only Eucharist appears in the Acts of Peter, from the late second century,69 which portrays Paul performing the Eucharist with bread and water.70 Elsewhere, the text shows signs of a mildly docetic perspective, stating, for example, that Jesus did not need to eat but did so for the sake of his followers.71 On the basis of such evidence, some scholars have concluded that 1 John 5:6 is aimed at the same aberrant sacramental practice, perhaps driven by gnostic theology.72 When 1 John affirms both the water and the blood and denies that Jesus came with “water only,” perhaps he is speaking against water-only Eucharists and insisting, like Cyprian, that the sacred cup contain both water and wine (symbolic of the blood of Christ).

D. Weaknesses of the Sacramental Interpretation 1. The Role of the Spirit The problems with understanding the blood and water in 1 John 5 sacramentally, and therefore detecting a polemic against some form of anti-sacramentalism or aberrant sacramental practice, are numerous.73 First, it is very difficult to fit the third witness, the Holy Spirit, into this sacramental framework. It is possible to say that the Spirit witnesses to the realities symbolized by the sacraments, or functions as an interior witness accompanied by the two exterior witnesses of baptism and the 67

68 69 70 71 72

73

Cyprian, Epistle 62.11. For discussion, see Margaret M. Daly-Denton, “Water in the Eucharistic Cup: A Feature of the Eucharist in Johannine Trajectories through Early Christianity,” ITQ (2008): 356–70. Epiphanius, Pan. 61.432; Irenaeus, Haer. 5.1.3; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1.19; Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 82. For discussion of the date, see R. Stoops, “Acts of Peter,” ABD 5:267–68. Acts Pet. 2. Acts Pet. 20. Cf. also Acts Thom. 121; Acts John 110. G. Bornkamm, “On the Understanding of Worship,” in Early Christian Experience (London: SCM, 1969), 173–74; A. Greiff, “Die drei Zeugen in 1 Joh. 5.7f,” TQ 114 (1933), 473–74. Epiphanius, Pan. 42.3, claims that Marcionite churches practice a water-only Eucharist, but Epiphanius is notoriously unreliable, and this claim is not supported by any other early source. For criticisms, see Brown, Epistles, 575; Black, “Catholicism,” 152–53.

Against Anti-Sacramentalism

273

Eucharist,74 but these solutions disrupt the logic of the passage. It is also a leap to appeal to a later Syrian initiation sequence of three sacraments: anointing (symbolic of the Spirit), baptism, and first Eucharist.75 Were such a symbolic anointing in view we would expect χρῖσμα (as in 2:20) instead of πνεῦμα.76

2. The Witnessing Function Second, it is not clear how the sacraments would function as evidence for the divine sonship of Jesus, as the witnesses are explicitly said to function in 1 John 5:5, 9, 11. They can in no way be said to demonstrate or to offer support for the confession that Jesus is the Son of God. Nor can they (if docetic Christology is the root issue) be used as witnesses to the fleshly coming of Christ. As D. A. Carson puts it, to appeal to the Eucharist in defense of the incarnation is “a remarkable case of appealing to the weak to defend the strong.”77

3. Are Sacraments an Issue in the Secession? Third, there is no evidence in the other polemical passages of 1 John (or even the non-polemical ones) that the sacraments are an issue in the secession. Some have appealed to John 6:52–71 as evidence that the Johannine community was riven by disputes over sacramental realism,78 but this requires an elaborate reconstruction of the community’s history and a tendentious mirror-reading that is fundamentally circular.

74 75

76 77 78

Cf. T. Preiss, Le Témoignage Intérieur du Saint-Esprit (Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1946), 36–39. Cf. Nauck, Tradition, 147–82, who is followed by Houlden, Epistles, 121. The view is also defended at length by T. W. Manson, “Entry into Membership of the Early Church,” JTS 48 (1947): 25–33. Brown, Epistles, 584. Carson, “Witnesses,” 220. See, e.g., Schnelle, Antidocetic, 207–208.

274

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

4. Grammatical Problems Fourth, there are several grammatical problems with the sacramental reading: 1) The use of the aorist ἐλθών likely indicates a past, historical coming and does not lend itself to a focus on the present ministry of the sacraments. 2) The interpretation of διά in 5:6a as indicating accompaniment (so that Christ “comes with” or “brings” the water and blood) is very unlikely.79 It is most natural to understand διά locally when it occurs with a verb of movement like ἔρχομαι. 3) It is also very difficult to defend a shift in meaning between διά in 5:6a and ἐν in 5:6b, as Westcott and others do. The two prepositions are almost certainly used with the same local meaning in this sentence. Most commentators agree that the variation is simply stylistic.80 No audience could be expected to infer such an abrupt shift in meaning based on such a subtle shift in prepositions. The prepositional shift simply cannot bear the weight it is accorded.81

5. Blood as the Eucharist? Fifth, with regard to semantics, the use of αἷμα in 5:6 to refer to the Eucharist would be unexepected.82 The only other use of αἷμα in the letters is in 1 John 1:7, where it clearly speaks of Christ’s death as an atoning sacrifice. Connecting 1 John 5:6 to John 19:34 is not very helpful, either, because it only reinforces the fact that blood refers primarily to Christ’s death, and not to the sacramental cup. Even R. Brown, who ultimately remains open to a secondary sacramental allusion, concedes that this would be a “remarkably obscure way of 79

80

81 82

For example, Wallace, Grammar, 368–69, does not include accompaniment among the possible uses of διά. Neither do BDF §223; A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 581–85; Herbert Weir Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges (New York: American Book Company, 1920), 374. Commentators tend to appeal to C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 57, who does mention such a usage, but whose examples of this usage are improbable. Among others, Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 267; Marshall, Epistles, 232; Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 301; Rensberger, 1 John, 131; Brooke, Johannine Epistles, 135, attributes it to Semitic influence which made the two prepositions virtually synonymous in many situations. Examples occur in Heb 9:12, 25; Rom 6:4; Col 2:12. For my own view, see below, p. 327. Lieu, “Authority,” 219. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 264.

Against Anti-Sacramentalism

275

referring to the sacraments.”83 Also, as J. H. A. Ebrard objects, if the author intended to refer to the Lord’s Supper, one would certainly expect both αἷμα and σάρξ or αἷμα and σῶμα, not the mere mention of αἷμα.84

6. Invalid Historical Parallels Finally, the historical parallels that witness to aberrant sacramental practice are not actually valid when they are placed in context. While Ignatius does indeed attack those who do not believe in the blood of Christ (Smyrn. 6:1–2), “blood” there designates Christ’s death, not the Eucharist. Nothing in the context makes it clear that those who do not believe in the blood are docetists, as opposed to Jewish or Gentile unbelievers who reject the Gospel’s claim that Jesus’ death was sacrificial. In Smyrn. 7:1, those who do not participate in the Eucharist are only said to deny that the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus.85 Their motivations, whether Jewish, pagan, Christian, or docetic, are not stated. The other historical parallels offered, which speak of water-only Eucharists, are all much later (from the late second century on) and are better explained as encratite or ascetic. Nowhere, for example, does Cyprian impute gnostic or docetic motivations to his water-only opponents, nor does he appeal to 1 John 5:6 to support his position, as one might expect. So, too, the Acts of Peter is shown to be encratite (rather than docetic) by its rejection of marriage for Christians.86 In short, there is very little to support the notion that 1 John 5:6 addresses a sacramental dispute.

83 84 85 86

Brown, Epistles, 575. Ebrard, Epistles, 318. This is especially true if the supposed anti-sacramentalism had its origin in a docetic Christology that denied Christ’s σάρξ. Notably, when Ignatius refers to the Eucharist here, he chooses σάρξ not αἷμα. He only uses αἷμα to refer to Jesus’ death. See C. Schmidt, “Studien zu den alten Petrusakten,” ZKG 43 (1926), 326; G. Poupon, “Les ‘Actes de Pierre’ et leur remaniement,” ANRW II.25.6 (1988): 4357–83.

276

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

III. Against Cerinthianism By far, the dominant position in the last two hundred years of scholarship has been that 1 John 5:6 is aimed at refuting a Cerinthian separation-Christology.87 This Christology, discussed above in Chapter 1,88 is sometimes also described as adoptionist or possessionist. On the view that 1 John is opposing separation-Christology, the water and the blood would refer to the two ends of Jesus’ ministry, his baptism and his death. When 1 John says that Christ came not in water only, but in water and blood, it would be refuting the Cerinthian teaching that the Christ-spirit came at Jesus’ baptism (i.e. “in water”), but departed before his death (i.e. not “in blood”). The passage, then, is to be seen as clarifying and expanding the statements in 2:22 (“Jesus is the Christ”) and 4:2 (“Jesus Christ having come in the flesh”). That is, it is specifying by means of exact refutation what is meant by “Jesus is the Christ” (2:22) and it is clarifying the complete unity of Jesus and the Christ in the historical flesh-bearing person of Jesus (4:2). Bultmann is representative of commentators who take the anti-Cerinthian approach, as he writes that 5:6 “obviously contradicts the gnosticizing view that the heavenly Christ descended into Jesus at his baptism, and then abandoned Jesus again before his death.” 89

A. D. A. Carson’s Proposal Several variations of the anti-Cerinthian interpretation have been proposed which attempt to specify exactly how 1 John 5:6 refutes separation-Christology. For example, D. A. Carson has argued by way of a detailed exegesis that 1 John’s refutation emphasizes two points: 1) by using the double name, Jesus Christ, the author emphasizes the

87

88 89

The first to do so was Michaelis, Introduction, 4:401–402. Cf. Zahn, Introduction, 3:365–66; Wengst, Häresie, 34; Bultmann, Epistles, 80; Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 304–305; Carson, “Witnesses”; Bogart, Orthodox, 128; Hill, “Cerinthus,” 171; Kinlaw, Christ, 69, 86; Neander, First Epistle, 285–86; Stott, Letters, 111, 178; Gore, Epistles, 108–16, 193; Dodd, Epistles, 130; Westcott, Epistles, 183; Hengel, Johannine Question, 59–63, 105–106; Goulder, “Poor Man’s,” 332–48; Blank, “Irrlehrer,” 75–76; Robinson, “Destination,” 126–38; Theobald, Fleischwerdung, 412, 419–20; Marshall, Epistles, 232– 33; Alexander, Epistles, 118–19; Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, 195–96; Law, Tests, 96. See pp. 53–77. Bultmann, Epistles, 80.

Against Cerinthianism

277

unity and oneness of the Savior and counters the Cerinthian90 separation, 2) by using the preposition διά (5:6a), which Carson takes in a locative sense, John emphasizes the participation of the Savior through to the end of the salvific events, thus denying the Cerinthian teaching that the Christ departed prior to death. 91 Carson renders the verse, “this one person, Jesus Christ, came through both the baptism and the death: he was, in other words, one person, Jesus Christ, before the baptism and after the death, and he came through both epochal events.” 92 The subsequent construction using ἐν (5:6b) restates the idea, but lays stress on the passion, as that is the point disputed by the opponents. 93 The testimony of the third witness, the Spirit, occurred at the baptism of Jesus, which while not narrated explicitly in the Fourth Gospel, is nevertheless presupposed.94 Carson argues that the Fourth Gospel makes clear that the Spirit’s descent upon Jesus only “identifies” Jesus as the Son of God; it does not “constitute” him as the Son of God.95 Thus, the Spirit, by its descent, bears witness “against Cerinthus, [that] Jesus the Son of God, one person, existed before the baptism, [and] came through the baptism.” 96

B. Does 1 John Partially Support Cerinthus? In contrast to Carson, several scholars have argued that the opponents actually derived their separation-Christology from the Fourth Gospel itself.97 According to them, the opponents read the Gospel as teaching 90

91

92 93 94 95 96 97

Carson, “Witnesses,” 230. Carson is careful not to claim that Cerinthus is the actual opponent in the letter. He only says that the opponents espouse “a Cerinthian-like gnosticism.” Cf. Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 303. Carson is preceded in his argument by Grundmann, “χρίω,” TDNT 9:570–71, who thinks the text is arguing that “Jesus Christ, the Son of God (5:5), was the one Jesus Christ when He received baptism and He remained this when He passed through the death which cleanses from all sin.” Carson, “Witnesses,” 226. Emphasis original. Ibid., 227. Ibid., 228. Ibid. Ibid. As discussed in Chapter 1, it is common to see the opponents as “ultra-Johannine.” R. Brown, who has done the most to advance the ultra-Johannine thesis, thinks secessionist dependence on John 1 is possible (Epistles, 77–78), but does not believe it reflected the original intention of the evangelist. Cf. Hartin, “Community,” 45; J. F. McGrath, “Johannine Christianity—Jewish Christianity?” Koinonia 8 (1996), 4–5; P. Schoonenberg, “A Sapiential Reading of John’s Prologue: Some Reflections on Views of Reginald Fuller and James Dunn,” TD 33 (1986), 405.

278

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

that “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14) at Jesus’ baptism. C. Talbert defends the opponents’ view as the original intention of the Gospel text.98 He believes that John 1:32 (“the Spirit descended and remained on Jesus”) restates John 1:14, since the original audience would have understood the Logos and the Holy Spirit as the same divine hypostasis. The decisive piece of evidence for Talbert, though, is 1 John 5:6, which affirms that Christ came “in water”—a statement that appears to agree with the Cerinthian view that the Christ-spirit descended upon Jesus at his baptism.99 Thus, Talbert argues, both the author of 1 John and his opponents agree that the merging of Jesus and the Christ occurred through or in the water of baptism; they disagree only about his “blood,” or death. Francis Watson has defended much the same reading.100 He calls 1 John 5:6 the earliest witness to the adoptionist reading of John 1:14 and thinks that both the author of 1 John and his opponents share an adoptionist understanding of the baptism. 101 This explains the important role of John the Baptist at the beginning of the Fourth Gospel and accounts for Christ’s claim to have come down from heaven. Watson finds corroborating evidence in the Nag Hammadi text, Testimony of Truth (IX,3), which describes the baptism of John 1 as the descent of the Son of Man (9.30.19–28).102 Whereas primitive adoptionists (such as the Ebionites) believed that Jesus received an anointing and power at his baptism, the Johannine stream, continued in Cerinthus, interpreted that power as a hypostasis, namely the divine being, or the Christ. Thus, according to Watson as well, the disagreement in 1 John 5:6 centers only on whether the Christ remained on/in Jesus through his death. Pamela Kinlaw, in her religionsgeschichtlich exploration of Johannine Christology, adopts a similar reading of John’s Christology, but with a bit more terminological precision.103 Like Talbert and Watson, she believes that the Fourth Gospel presents the incarnation as occurring at 98

99 100

101 102 103

C. H. Talbert, “‘And the Word Became Flesh’: When?” in Future of Christology: Essays in Honor of Leander E. Keck (ed. Abraham J. Malherbe and Wayne A. Meeks; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 45–47, 50–52. Talbert, Reading John, 76. Francis Watson, “Is John’s Christology Adoptionist?” in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology (ed. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright; Oxford: Clarendon, 1987), 113–24. Ibid., 116–17. As Watson says, “‘Not with the water only’ is a concession as well as a denial” (117). Ibid., 121–22. Kinlaw, Christ.

Against Cerinthianism

279

the baptism, when Jesus is possessed by the Spirit, or the Christ.104 She thinks, though, that the dispute between the epistolary author and his opponents stems from two different concepts of possession.105 The opponents believe (like Cerinthus) that Jesus was possessed temporarily—from his baptism until just before his death—a model Kinlaw calls “inspiration.”106 The epistolary author, on the other hand, stresses that Jesus has been permanently indwelt by the Spirit. He emphasizes how important that permanence is for the readers’ permanent salvation and permanent fellowship with God.107 Kinlaw labels this permanent view of possession “indwelling”108 and thinks that it is expressed through 1 John’s repeated use of the verb μένω.109 For Kinlaw, then, the salient point of 1 John 5:6 is that the possession of Jesus by the Christ continued through Jesus’ death. That is, the Christ did not come at the baptism only but also in the blood of death. 110

C. Weaknesses of the Anti-Cerinthian Reading There are numerous problems with the view that the three witnesses of 1 John 5:6 are intended to combat a Cerinthian Christology. I have already detailed the historical problems surrounding Cerinthus and his beliefs in Chapter 1. In Chapter 2 I discussed the questionable methodology of reading a later passage (5:6) back into the earlier passages (2:22 and 4:2) in order to “clarify” them. Therefore, I shall only offer criticisms here that deal with the exegesis of the present passage.

104 105 106 107 108 109 110

Ibid., 126–35. Ibid., 69. Ibid., 93, 84. Ibid., 69. Ibid., 93. Ibid., 69, 110. It is also worth mentioning that some, such as Wengst, Häresie, 24, and Rensberger, 1 John, 132, have argued that the opponents may have derived from the Fourth Gospel not only their adoptionist Christology but also their claim that the Christ-spirit abandoned Jesus prior to his death. Wengst, e.g., suggests that this understanding arises from John 19:30, where the Gospel states that Jesus “handed over the Spirit.”

280

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

1. Does First John Affirm Adoptionism? First and most important, on any polemical reading of 5:6, it is clear that 1 John affirms a coming “in water.” If it is supposed that 1 John is combating Cerinthianism, this is highly problematic, for it implies that the author does not disagree with at least part of what Cerinthus claimed, namely 1) that the Christ-spirit is a separate being from Jesus111 and 2) that he came upon Jesus in the water of baptism.112 Two responses are possible at this point. The first is that of Talbert, Watson and Kinlaw, who, as discussed above, have asserted that 1 John does not in fact disagree with baptismal adoptionism, and that both 1 John and the opponents read the Gospel’s incarnation statement (“the word became flesh,” 1:14) to refer not to Jesus’ birth, but to his baptism at John’s hands, where the Christ-Spirit descended upon him.113 This view, however, fails at several points. While it is true that neither the Fourth Gospel nor 1 John explicitly states that the “word became flesh” at Jesus’ conception or birth and not at his baptism, it is not possible to make sense of John 1 if Χριστός is understood as a distinct heavenly “Christ-Spirit,” and not as a title.114 The titular sense is required by John 1:19–20, as well as John 1:41. In addition, it is difficult to see how the baptism could be accorded such importance in Johannine tradition when the Gospel fails even to narrate the actual baptism of Jesus.115 It is also inexplicable why the author, if he is agreeing with Cerinthian adoptionism, uses the double name, “Jesus Christ,” to describe the one coming in the water. Would we not expect simply the name, “Christ,” since Cerinthus taught that the Christ came 111 This entails that the term Χριστός properly refers to a heavenly spirit-being and is not a title applied to Israel’s prophesied savior. 112 So Brown, Epistles, 67: “[W]ould not the author have been making a partial concession to Cerinthus when he said that there was a coming of Jesus Christ in water (at baptism)?” Also, Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 266: “It is hard to imagine that a Cerinthian view of the baptism of Jesus could have been effectively refuted by saying that he came ‘by water’ because such a statement might easily be misinterpreted to mean that Jesus was ‘adopted’ as the Christ.” 113 In addition to Talbert, F. Watson, and Kinlaw, cf. also Wengst, Häresie, 24; Loisy, Evangile, 230; R. H. Fuller, “Christmas, Epiphany, and the Johannine Prologue,” in Spirit and Light: Essays in Historical Theology (ed. M. L’Engle and W. B. Green; New York: Seabury, 1976), 63–73, for arguments to this effect. 114 See Wurm, Irrlehrer, 79–82. 115 See discussion in R. Kysar, John, the Maverick Gospel (3rd ed.; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 123; O. Cullmann, Baptism in the New Testament (SBT 1; London: SCM, 1950), 20; Brown, Epistles, 577; D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 21–22.

Against Cerinthianism

281

upon Jesus?116 As B. Ehrman points out, “[N]o Cerinthian could say that ‘Jesus Christ’ came in water, for this confession would entail a denial that Jesus and the Christ were distinct entities.” 117 Because of these problems, we must conclude that if the author of 1 John agrees with the Cerinthian sense of ἐν τῷ ὕδατι, he is doing a very poor job of articulating it.118 The argument that the secessionists are deriving their viewpoint from the Fourth Gospel becomes even more implausible when appeal is made to John 19:30 as the source for the teaching that the Christ departed prior to Jesus’ death (i.e., that he did not come “through blood”).119 The Gospel is very clear that Jesus suffered and bled substantially prior to 19:30.120

2. Problems with Carson’s Proposal The second possible response to the problem is offered by D. A. Carson, who thinks that the author chooses the double name, “Jesus Christ,” precisely in order to stress (against Cerinthian adoptionism and separationism) the unity of the person as he went through baptism and through death. Carson does not, however, address the fact that 1 John’s denial—“not in water only”—would then have no target, for no Cerinthian ever claimed that “Jesus Christ” came in water only. Even if one ignores that, and supposes that the author is perhaps being less than precise in stating the teaching that he is denying, 121 there is no reason to think that simply using the double name one time, without any additional emphasis, constitutes evidence that the unity of Jesus and Christ is being defended. And, even if the use of the double name is meant to emphasize the unity of Jesus and Christ, this would still imply that 1 John accepts the Cerinthian understanding of Χριστός as a 116 Brown, Epistles, 67, asks, “If the epistolary author was aiming directly at Cerinthus, would he not have spoken of the coming of Christ on Jesus, rather than the coming of Jesus Christ?” Brown does believe that the opponents held to some sort of Christological dualism that opposed the divine against the human in Jesus Christ, but he thinks it had not yet developed into full-fledged Cerinthianism. 117 Ehrman, “1 Joh 4,3,” 238. Cf. Vouga, “Johannine School,” 376; Wurm, Irrlehrer, 80, contemplates the possibility that some who hold that the opponents were Cerinthian might try to refer οὗτος in 5:6 back to υἱός in 5:5. This, Wurm objects, violates the syntax of 5:6. 118 Lieu, “Authority,” 218; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 266. 119 See, above, fn. 110 in this chapter, for discussion of such a view. 120 Ehrman, “1 Joh 4,3,” 238. 121 Of course, such a supposition would be viciously circular, since the modern antiCerinthian reading is based almost exclusively on 1 John 5:6.

282

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

heavenly being rather than a functional title—an understanding foreign to Johannine thought. In addition, Carson overloads 1 John’s use of διά and treats it as a technical term which emphasizes that Jesus Christ came completely— all the way—through death, as opposed to being separated prior to death. If this preposition were so crucial to the author’s refutation, however, we would hardly expect him to switch so quickly to ἐν, as he does half a sentence later. Contrary to Carson, then, there appears to be no special significance to διά.122 Carson’s explanation of the third witness, the Spirit, is also lacking, since it would require the epistolary audience to have read the Fourth Gospel with amazing theological insight, precision, and attention to detail in order to understand the significance of the Spirit’s witness. For Carson, the Spirit testifies at Jesus’ baptism that he was the Christ prior to his reception of the Spirit. This is a great leap, however, since nothing like this is made explicit in the Fourth Gospel. In the Fourth Gospel, the title “Christ” is not used of Jesus before his baptism. Indeed, if the baptism of Jesus is viewed as his anointing, it is no surprise that he is not called the “Anointed” until he has first been baptized.

3. The Witness Motif The second major problem for all variations of the anti-Cerinthian reading is that they cannot account for the use of the water, blood, and Spirit as witnesses. First John makes it clear that the water, blood and Spirit are brought forward as witnesses to demonstrate that Jesus is the Son of God (5:9–10). That is, they do not seem to be intended to prove that the Christ and Jesus were united all the way through death. Insofar as there is a dispute in the background of the passage, the focus is not on the water and blood. They are, rather, means to an end and are employed by the author because they testify to the divine sonship of Jesus and his status as the source of eternal life. In the same vein, it must be noted that if the dispute with the secessionists focused on whether the heavenly Christ/Son remained unified with the earthly Jesus during his death, then it is strange that the author would characterize the water and blood as God’s testimony

122 Most commentators think the change is merely stylistic. See above, fn. 80.

Against Cerinthianism

283

concerning his Son, as he does in 1 John 5:9–10.123 Cerinthian opponents would certainly need no testimony concerning the Son; their dispute concerned Jesus and his permanent unity with the Son. The same holds for 1 John 5:11, which states that God has testified about the eternal life that is in his Son. Cerinthian opponents would hardly dispute this; indeed, they would heartily affirm it. One would expect, if 1 John were meant to refute Cerinthianism, that 5:11 would read, “this life is in Jesus,” or at least, “in Jesus, his Son.”124 Again, 1 John 5:12 reads, “He who has the Son has the life,” not “He who has Jesus has life,” as would be expected with a Cerinthian opponent.125 Thus, it does not appear likely that the purpose of the three witnesses in 1 John 5 is to demonstrate that Jesus is not to be divided from the heavenly being known as the Christ.

4. History of Interpretation Third, given the enthusiasm and certainty with which modern exegetes identify Cerinthian opponents behind this passage, it is passing strange that none of the church fathers, many of whom also thought that John wrote to refute Cerinthus, referred to 1 John 5:6 as a rebuttal of Cerinthus’s teaching.126 Indeed, neither Cerinthus nor any other adoptionist is said to have taught in terms of the Christ coming upon Jesus “in water” or “in water only.” Likewise, Cerinthus is never said to deny that Christ “came in blood.” He is usually portrayed as teaching that the Christ departed Jesus just prior to his death, almost certainly at the point the Gospels say that Jesus breathed his last, or gave up his s/Spirit.127 By this point, of course, Jesus had shed much blood, so that it would hardly make sense to say that the Christ did not 123 Of course, one could argue that the author is simply scoring rhetorical points by this stage of the letter. That is, he writes “Son” when he means “Jesus, the Son” precisely because his opponents deny the identity of the two. Such a reading, though, would require us to believe that the author has changed his argumentation in mid-course. On one hand, he would be offering three witnesses to support the unity of the Son and the human Jesus, while on the other hand he would be assuming it rhetorically. 124 This point is acknowledged by Rensberger, 1 John, 135. 125 Cf. also 1 John 5:13, which speaks of believing εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ. 126 They instead saw 2:22–23 as the central refutation. See above, chs. 1 and 2. 127 See Hippolytus, Haer. 10.17: “He [Cerinthus] asserts that, at the conclusion of the passion, Christ flew away from Jesus, but that Jesus suffered, and that Christ remained incapable of suffering, being a spirit of the Lord.” Irenaeus is not clear on this point, but seems to suggest that according to Cerinthus the Christ departed prior to the passion (Haer. 1.26.1).

284

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

come “in blood.” While this is an argument from silence, it is nevertheless compelling because silence would hardly be expected in this case.

5. The Brevity of the Passage Finally, in light of the complexity of separation-Christology, it stretches credulity to suppose that 5:6, with its brevity, compactness, and highly allusive nature, could be intended to refute such a position.128 We have seen above how at many points the author fails to say what would be expected were he refuting Cerinthianism; indeed, he often says exactly the opposite of what we would expect. He seems to go to no great lengths to clarify the very things Cerinthus disputed, such as a) the meaning of the term Christ, b) precisely how Jesus can be said to be the Christ, and c) the relationship between Jesus’ union with the Christ and his passion. First John is apparently not concerned with clearly affirming that the Son’s incarnation occurred at the birth of Jesus, thus refuting adoptionism. Nor does he use the key term μένω to highlight the permanency of the union between Christ and Jesus, as P. Kinlaw’s argument would have us anticipate. Instead, the author simply says— very formulaically—that Jesus Christ came through water and blood. As J. Lieu concludes, “It is hard to see how the use of the verb ‘came’ and the prepositions ‘through’ or ‘in’ would be an effective rebuttal of such views [viz. Cerinthian].”129 Something much more substantial would be needed.

IV. Against the Devaluation of Jesus’ Death Although anti-docetic and anti-Cerinthian interpretations have dominated the exegesis of 1 John 5:6 over the past two hundred years, more recent scholarship has tended to move away from these views, in large measure owing to the difficulty of drawing clear connections between those specific teachings and the teaching apparently combated in this passage. In place of those theories, commentators have begun to

128 Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 295, for example, observes that the anti-Cerinthian interpretation must read too much into the passage. Edwards, Epistles, 61, says that if 5:6 is aimed at Cerinthus’s teaching, it is “quite opaque.” 129 Lieu, Theology, 77.

Against the Devaluation of Jesus’ Death

285

speak more generally about the opponents in view in 1 John 5:6, describing their theology as one that devalued in some way the death of Jesus. Of course, docetic and Cerinthian views of Jesus both devalued his death, as well, but the proposal to be considered in this section is that the opponents diminished the salvific significance of Jesus’ death without basing it upon a rejection of Jesus’ physicality, humanity, or unity with a heavenly Christ.

A. The Relationship between Baptism and Death On this view the water and blood of 1 John 5:6 refer to Jesus’ baptism and death, respectively.130 Jesus’ “coming” is not primarily his entrance into the world (i.e., the incarnation) but his salvific mission.131 Blood and water are thus ways of characterizing the nature, purpose, and results of Jesus’ mission. They are shorthand terms that express its soteric significance. The opponents are teaching, it appears, that to understand Jesus’ mission correctly one must interpret his baptism as the central revelatory and redemptive event. Because the opponents overemphasize Jesus’ baptism, they either deemphasize his atoning death, or they deny that his death has any atoning or redemptive significance at all.132 The baptism is the point at which Jesus received the Spirit and manifested his messianic character, not the cross. It is because Jesus has received the Spirit at his baptism that he is able to pass on the Spirit to believers, the opponents would have reasoned. On this understanding of 1 John 5:6, the author responds to the opponents’ teaching by affirming that baptism was indeed a very important moment in Jesus’ mission. It identified Jesus as Israel’s Messiah and testified to his divine sonship. Nevertheless, it was not a salvific moment by itself. It cannot stand alone, as the opponents would have it, for it is only by Jesus’ atoning death that his messianic mission—begun in his baptism—is completed and fulfilled.133 First 130 Bonnard, Épitres, 107. 131 Brown, Epistles, 576; Schnackenburg, Epistles, 232; Westcott, Epistles, 181; Whitacre, Polemic, 131; Michaels, “Water,” 160. See the discussion in ch. 4 above of “coming” language with regard to 1 John 4:2. 132 Sloyan, Walking, 56; Bonnard, Épitres, 13; Hartin, “Community,” 45; Burge, Letters, 202; Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 296; Schnackenburg, Epistles, 234; Bogart, Orthodox, 126; A. Schlatter, Die Briefe und die Offenbarung des Johannes (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1950), 103. 133 Berger, “Gegner,” 394.

286

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

John subsequently appeals to the Spirit as a witness because the author wants to stress that the Spirit was only distributed to followers of Jesus after his death. For this, he might depend on John 7:38–39, where it is stated clearly. John 19:30 implies the same thing, as it recounts how Jesus “handed over” (παρέδωκεν) the Spirit at his death.134 Likewise, John 19:34, which describes the flow of blood and water is likely intended to symbolize the fulfillment of the promise in John 7:38–39. For the epistolary author, these parts of the Johannine tradition would demonstrate that the sending of the Spirit was conditioned upon Jesus’ sacrificial death, not merely his baptism by John.135

B. Brown’s Ultra-Johannine Opponents Many scholars think that the source of the opponents’ theology is the Johannine tradition itself.136 No one has advocated this view more forcefully than R. Brown. He argues that the secessionists could very easily have interpreted the Fourth Gospel to portray Jesus’ death not as an atoning sacrifice, but (as Johannine theology uniquely emphasizes) as Jesus’ glorification and exaltation to the Father. According to Brown, the opponents thought that Jesus’ baptism was not only the moment when Jesus received the Spirit, but even more importantly, the point at which the “word became flesh.”137 The baptism was the beginning, then, of a ministry whose purpose was primarily a revelation, or manifestation, of God’s glory—again, the opponents derived all this from their reading of the Johannine tradition (preserved in the Fourth Gospel).138 When Jesus’ ministry is viewed as primarily revelatory, the baptism becomes the key moment, and Jesus’ death is explained merely as the Savior’s return to the Father, not as an atoning sacrifice.139 In

134 For discussion of the terminology, which is a strikingly unusual way to describe simple death, see Burge, Community, 134. 135 Brown, Epistles, 578, 596; Talbert, Reading John, 48; Michaels, “Water,” 159; Harris, 1, 2, 3 John, 186. 136 See above, p. 8, on the theory of “Ultra-Johannine” opponents. 137 Brown, Epistles, 578. See above, p. 275ff, for discussion of others who make the same argument with regard to the baptism of Jesus. 138 Ibid. 139 Cf. Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 295. Brown, Epistles, 79, appears to believe that the opponents correctly recognized the dominant theme of Jesus’ ministry as it is portrayed in the Fourth Gospel: “The cross of Christ in Jn is evaluated precisely in terms of revelation in harmony with the theology of the entire gospel, rather than in terms of vicarious and expiatory sacrifice for sin.”

Against the Devaluation of Jesus’ Death

287

support of Brown’s hypothesis, J. Turner notes that later (mid-secondcentury) gnostics in the Sethian tradition tended to stress Jesus’ baptism in the Spirit (i.e., water) as the salvific moment. 140 He theorizes that the Johannine secessionists merged with Sethian gnosticism in the aftermath of the secession. Their views are expressed in texts such as the Trimorphic Protennoia (XIII,1) and the Apocryphon of John (III,1), which “rejected the propitiatory blood of the cross in favor of the spirit of truth received in baptism.”141

1. The Author’s Response to the Opponents How could the epistolary author respond, given that the opponents were drawing on the very tradition to which he too was loyal? Brown believes that he did so by reaching back further in his tradition’s history, or by reaching out to the wider (non-Johannine) Christian tradition, where Jesus’ death was depicted in primitive terms as an atoning sacrifice.142 Thus the author makes explicit statements in 1 John 1:7 and 2:2 about the sacrificial significance of Jesus’ death. Brown also argues for an alternative interpretation of “blood and water” in 1 John 5:6. The opponents, who claim that Jesus’ salvific coming was “in water only,” use water to refer to Christ’s baptism, on which they place all the weight. When the author responds, however, that Christ came “through water and blood,” “not in water only, but in water and blood,” he is not actually agreeing with half of the opponents’ position (i.e., that Jesus came “in water”). Rather, he is using “water and blood” to refer to Jesus’ death only; that is, he changes the reference of “water” so that it no longer refers to baptism, as the opponents have used it, but now refers to Jesus’ death.143 The phrase “water and blood,” contends Brown, is an allusion to the account of Jesus’ death in John 19:34, where blood and water flow from Jesus’ side, symbolizing for 1 John both the sacrificial nature of Christ’s death (thus, “blood”) and the dispensing of the Spirit (“water” is a cipher for the Spirit, as seen in John 7:38–39) in Christ’s death. Thus, to summarize, the opponents’ have claimed that Jesus came “in water only,” by which they mean that his baptism was the key saving moment. The author responds that they are incorrect—Jesus did not 140 141 142 143

Turner, “Sethian Gnosticism,” 422. Ibid., 428. So also Grayston, Epistles, 137, stresses the “old language” of atoning blood here. Brown, Epistles, 577–79.

288

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

come “in water only.” The key saving moment is not the baptism, but the atoning death of Jesus, when he came “in water and in blood.” The third witness in 1 John 5:6, the Spirit, refers, according to Brown, to John 19:35, where the beloved disciple testifies to the flow of blood and water. It is the Spirit which gives its testimony through the beloved disciple and thus witnesses to the correct understanding of Jesus’ death as the moment of atonement and the dispensing of the Spirit.144

C. Jesus as Baptizer We must consider one other alternative reading of 1 John 5:6 that also sees the issue as the devaluation of Jesus’ death. This view, however, championed by M. de Boer,145 H.-J. Klauck,146 K. Grayston,147 C. Kruse,148 and U. Von Wahlde,149 differs from the previous view in one key area. It interprets the “water” of 5:6 not as Jesus’ baptism by John, but as Jesus’ own baptizing activity. Because Boer has written the most extensive defense of the view, my discussion will focus on him. Unlike most modern exegetes, Boer actually offers evidence for taking 1 John 5:5–12 as polemical. He notes three key conceptual links back to the previous opponent-passages (2:22–23; 4:1–6), namely the discussion of Christology, the appeal to the Spirit, and the language of “truth.”150 Having established this, Boer examines the syntax of 1 John 5:6 and argues that ἐν τῷ ὕδατι is best understood in light of its use in the Fourth Gospel, where it appears with reference to John the Baptist, who is said three times to “come” baptizing “in water” (John 1:26, 31, 33; ἦλθον ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι βαπτίζων). The Messiah, according to John 1:25, was expected to baptize in water, but the Baptist declares that the Messiah will baptize not only in water, but also ἐν πνεύματι (1:33).151

144 Brown, Epistles, 579. 145 Boer, “Jesus the Baptizer,” 87–106. Cf. Boer, “Death,” 326–46, where he explores the contribution of 1 John 4:2 to the picture of the opponents. 146 Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 295–97. 147 Grayston, Epistles, 19–20, 136–37. 148 Kruse, Letters, 175, 177–78, closely follows Boer in his interpretation of 1 John 5:6. 149 Von Wahlde, Commandments, 117, 152–56. Plummer, Epistles, 113, takes a similar view. 150 Boer, “Jesus the Baptizer,” 89. Of course, the mere fact that 5:5–12 deals with the same topics as previous opponent-passages in no way demonstrates that “not in water only” (5:6) should be interpreted as refuting a specific teaching of the opponents, as Boer thinks. 151 Ibid., 95, 99.

Against the Devaluation of Jesus’ Death

289

Later in the Gospel, the symbolic connection of water and Spirit is established and expressed repeatedly. Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be born of water, that is, Spirit (John 3:1–8). In John 4:10–14, Jesus offers the Samaritan woman living water that will give her eternal life and allow her to worship in the Spirit. John 7:38–39 again identify water and Spirit, building on the previous passage and foreshadowing the flow of water from Jesus’ side at his death (19:34).152

1. The Opponents’ Baptismal Triumphalism On the basis of this evidence, Boer concludes that the opponents’ slogan—“Jesus came in water”—was intended to portray Jesus as the one who came baptizing in water, that is, in the Spirit, just as Messiah was expected to do.153 “For the secessionists, to be baptized in the name of the heavenly envoy who dispensed the living water of the spirit was to be completely saved.”154 This “baptismal triumphalism,” as Boer calls it, gave birth to claims of sinlessness and perhaps induced a sense of moral indifference of the type often detected behind 1 John’s early antitheses. 155 It also left no salvific role for Jesus’ death.

152 Boer finds a similar water symbolism in 1 Cor 12:13, where believers are said to “drink” of the Spirit (ibid., 99); cf. Grayston, Epistles, 136. Cf. Thatcher, “Antichrist,” 241–47, for a similar argument that for the opponents, water equals Spirit. Thatcher, however, thinks the opponents are emphasizing the continuing revelatory role of the Spirit and relativizing the historical ministry of Jesus. Thus, to say that Jesus came in water only is to say “that everything significant about Jesus has been revealed to the Church through the Spirit” (247). 153 Boer, “Jesus the Baptizer,” 99, posits on the basis of John 1:25–26 that “coming in water” in 1 John 5:6 is likely elliptical for “coming baptizing in water.” 154 Ibid., 101. Cf. Wilhelm Thüsing, Die Erhohung und Verherrlichung Jesu im Johannesevangelium (2nd ed.; Munster: Aschendorff, 1970), 167; H. Klos, Die Sakramente im Johannesevangelium: Vorkommen und Bedeutung von Taufe, Eucharistie und Buße im vierten Evangelium (SB 46; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1970), 78; Hermann-Josef Venetz, “‘Durch Wasser und Blut gekommen’: exegetische Überlegungen zu 1 Joh 5,6,” in Mitte des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1983), 349–53. Grayston, Epistles, 137, explains, “Once the Spirit was received (no doubt thanks to Jesus), what further benefit could be alleged in his death?” 155 Boer, “Jesus the Baptizer,” 102. Cf. Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 295, who likewise sees a polemic here against an enthusiastic view that stressed reception of the Spirit.

290

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

2. The Author’s Reponse to the Opponents First John’s response to the opponents is complicated. On the one hand, the author wishes to affirm that Jesus did come baptizing in water, but on the other hand, he wants to deny the secessionist understanding of that claim and to reinterpret Jesus’ coming in water so as to shift the focus to Jesus’ death.156 Boer detects the author’s strategy at work in his use of διά (5:6a).157 The author prefers this preposition to the secessionists’ own use of ἐν (5:6b) because it allows him to portray Jesus’ coming as a single, unified coming “through water and blood.” The single preposition governing both nouns (δι᾽ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος) also serves to unite what the secessionists hold apart, as it allows the author to identify the water epexegetically with the blood of Jesus’ death: Jesus came “through water, that is, blood.”158 In other words, 1 John is urging an interpretation of Jesus’ baptizing activity that finds its fulfillment and completion in his death, where he baptizes, or cleanses, believers with his blood.159 Thus, the two part statement of 5:6b (οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ αἵματι) refutes the secessionists’ view that water-baptism was sufficient for salvation, and argues instead that while Jesus did indeed baptize with water, that water was only a symbolic foreshadowing of his truly salvific final act of baptizing with blood. For Boer, then, 1 John 5:6 is closely tied to 1 John 4:2, which emphasizes Jesus’ atoning death in terms of “coming in flesh.”160

D. Problems with the Anti-Devaluation of Death View 1. Was Jesus’ Death the Central Issue of the Secession? Several criticisms can be leveled against the view that 1 John 5:6 addresses a devaluation of Jesus’ death in favor of his baptism (or baptizing) in the Spirit as the salvific or revelatory moment. First, and most weighty, if the author is truly so concerned to combat the way the opponents diminish the value of Jesus’ death, it is very surprising that 156 157 158 159

Boer, “Jesus the Baptizer,” 88–90. Ibid., 89. Ibid., 103. This takes καί here epexegetically. As Grayston, Epistles, 137, phrases it, “the benefits symbolised by water cannot be had apart from the sufferings symbolised by blood.” 160 Boer, “Jesus the Baptizer,” 101.

Against the Devaluation of Jesus’ Death

291

he waits until the end of his treatise to address this explicitly (if, indeed, one thinks this is “explicit”).161 One would expect that such a pressing issue—the very issue that has split the community—would be stated more clearly at an earlier point in the letter. In fact, however, just the opposite is the case. The epistle’s two prior references to Jesus’ death (1:7; 2:2) give no indication that they are responding to or refuting any denial that Jesus’ death was a cleansing sacrifice. Even more damaging, though, is the complete absence from the explicitly polemical passages (2:22–23; 4:2–3) of any mention of Jesus’ death.162 This is certainly not what would be expected if the value of Jesus’ death was the central issue.

2. The Testimonial Role of the Water and Blood Second, this view, like the others considered above, does not give enough weight to the role the author assigns to the water and blood, namely, that of witnesses to Jesus’ messianic sonship. The point of the passage, it appears, is not so much to appeal to the blood to assert its salvific significance, as to use Jesus’ bloody death—an accepted fact— to testify to Jesus’ status as Messiah.

3. Does Water Symbolize Baptism in the Holy Spirit? Third, this view overinterprets the phrase “coming through/in water.” It is quite reasonable to see “water” as a symbol for baptism, but this view requires that “water” refer not to Jesus’ baptism only, but to a specific interpretation of the baptism whereby it is the chief, indeed exclusive, moment of revelation or salvation. Thus, “water” ceases to refer simply to baptism and must be read as a three-layered cipher for the secessionists’ entire theology, especially its overemphasis on the reception of the Spirit by Jesus and his consequent dispensing of the

161 Grayston, Epistles, 134, for example, admits that while one expects a “direct attack on the dissidents’ conviction,” the author’s approach is “far from direct” and indeed “so allusive” as to be virtually open to any meaning. 162 While Boer, “Death,” 326–46, and others have argued that 4:2–3 does, with its use of σάρξ, address Jesus’ death, the discussion above in Chapter 4 has shown it to be very unlikely that a) σάρξ refers to Jesus’ death, and b) that σάρξ is actually the focus of the confession.

292

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

Spirit. This asks the exceedingly terse language of the passage to bear more weight than it is able.

4. Is the Spirit at Issue in the Secession? Fourth, if the opponents placed such an inordinate emphasis on their reception of the Spirit and concomitantly downplayed Jesus’ death— enough even to split the community—it is rather puzzling that the author does not refer to this issue when he mentions the role of the Spirit elsewhere. For example, his statements in 1 John 3:24 and 4:13 seem quite irresponsible and unnuanced in the wake of a crisis that revolved around the role of the Spirit. In 3:24 he states that the Spirit is the means by which God dwells in believers, while in 4:13 he affirms that God’s dwelling in believers and their dwelling in God is effected and secured by the Spirit. Without an explicit statement tying the ministry of the Spirit to Jesus’ atoning death, it would seem that these statements play right into the hands of the opponents.

5. Problems with Brown’s View of the Secession Brown’s variation on this view does not fare much better. He argues that the author does not accept (as the opponents do) a coming in water, but instead accepts only a coming in blood and water. That is, the author does not affirm that Jesus “came” in any way as Savior in his baptism. The author’s use of μόνον in 5:6b seems to contradict this, however. Its presence requires that ὕδωρ carry the same meaning in 5:6b and 5:6c.163 This renders impossible Brown’s contention that the meaning of ὕδωρ changes drastically in the space of a few words, so that while the opponents use water and blood to refer to baptism and death, the author uses the two terms to refer to one event, Jesus’ death, and even more specifically, to the symbolic flow of blood and water from his side. Not only does this appear syntactically impossible,164 it 163 So Carson, “Witnesses,” 222. If the author wished to deny the secessionists’ view of the baptism, he would need to omit μόνον. 164 In addition to the problem with μόνον, both 5:6bc and 5:7–8 treat the water and blood as two separate witnesses, not one, as would be expected if they both refer to one event. Also, the repetition of ἐν and the use of the article for both ὕδωρ and αἷμα in 5:6–8 make it likely that two separate instances are in mind, though Brown, Epistles, 574, argues that the articles are merely anaphoric.

Against the Devaluation of Jesus’ Death

293

would also require extremely keen perception on the part of 1 John’s readers—the kind of keen perception that stretches credulity.165 Brown indulges in no small litotic understatement when he describes his view as “not without some obscurity.”166 Brown’s explanation of the Spirit’s witness is also unsatisfactory. In order to tie the Spirit’s witness to Jesus’ death, he appeals to John 19:30, which, he argues, portrays Jesus dispensing the Spirit to the nearby beloved disciple, who then provides in John 19:34–35 his Spirit-inspired testimony to the saving significance of Jesus’ death.167 It is, however, very difficult to support from the text that John 19:30 is in any way a dispensing of the Spirit, since this would obviate the need for the “Johannine Pentecost” in 20:22, as well as contradict Jesus’ statements in the Farewell Discourse which make the Spirit’s coming and presence a consequence not of Jesus’ physical death alone, but of his return to the Father (an event which 20:17 indicates did not take place until after the resurrection). It is also highly improbable that the term “spirit” in 1 John 5:6 refers exclusively to the beloved disciple’s inspired witness, given the epistle’s other statements envisioning a more widespread witnessing activity for the Spirit (1 John 3:24; 4:13). Once again, Brown’s view is simply too complex to be deemed probable.

6. Problems with Boer’s View The major objection to Boer’s view also applies to Brown’s, since they share some common ground. Both of them (along with Von Wahlde) theorize that the opponents deny the sacrificial nature of Jesus’ death on the basis of their reading of the Johannine tradition, which is substantially preserved in the Fourth Gospel. The opponents taught that Jesus’ death had no essential salvific value but was merely his return to the Father. The difficulty with this is the presence in the Fourth Gospel of numerous statements that affirm directly or indirectly the atoning significance of Jesus’ death. For example, Von Wahlde admits that John 1:29; 3:15; 6:51b; 10:17; 11:52; 15:13 all entail expiatory

165 The same criticism of obscurity could be leveled at Boer’s contention that “blood” is epexegetical of “water” in 1 John 5:6. It is unlikely the readers would come to this conclusion, especially in light of the fact that Boer is the only interpreter on record in the past two millennia to argue this interpretation. 166 Brown, Epistles, 578. 167 Ibid.

294

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

aspects to Jesus’ death.168 More than this, though, several key passages that deal with the baptism or giving of the Spirit closely connect that event to Jesus’ death. For instance, the revelation of Jesus (at his baptism by John) as the one who will baptize with the Spirit occurs on the heels of John’s announcement that Jesus is the lamb who will take away the sin of the world (John 1:29, 31–33). Thus, Jesus’ sacrificial mission is portrayed as the purpose for which he is endued with the Spirit. So also John 7:39 makes clear that the living water of the Spirit was not dispensed until Jesus was “glorified.” While this does not explicitly tie the giving of the Spirit to the atoning aspect of his death, it at least indicates that something more than Jesus’ baptism was necessary for the Spirit to be dispensed. Both Von Wahlde and Boer, however, assert that these passages and connections resulted from a redaction of the Gospel in the wake of the controversy witnessed in 1 John.169 While Von Wahlde recognizes the obvious circularity of such an argument, he is confident that it can be mitigated by the use of objective standards to distinguish between original and secondary material in the Gospel.170 Those who are not convinced of such a strategy will also likely not find Von Wahlde’s identification of the opponents persuasive.

V. Against Followers of John the Baptist The last view to be considered has a key similarity with Boer’s view in that it sees “coming in water” as a reference not to being baptized, but to baptizing. This view was popular among many older commentators, who often detected in the Fourth Gospel a concerted polemic against followers of John the Baptist.171 The anti-Baptist theory depends on four strands of evidence. 168 Von Wahlde, Commandments, 156. 169 Ibid., 8, 119; Boer, “Jesus the Baptizer,” 105, in the same vein, wants to identify “coming in water” as a reference to Jesus’ own baptizing activity. He considers John 4:2, which denies Jesus’ baptismal ministry, secondary. 170 Von Wahlde, Commandments, 119. For the purpose of reconstructing the opponents of 1 John, Brown, Epistles, 72, takes a more conservative position on the Gospel’s redaction. 171 G. Baldensperger, Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums: sein polemisch-apologetischer Zweck (Freiburg: Mohr Siebeck, 1898) is often seen as the primary advocate of this purpose for the Fourth Gospel. He built, however, on the work of Michaelis and Storr. See Michaelis, Introduction, 3:286; Storr, Zweck, 5–7, 24–26, 168–234. As early as 1650, Hugo Grotius took this position (see his Annotationes in Novum Testamentum:

Against Followers of John the Baptist

295

A. The Existence of a Baptist Sect First, there is the evidence for the continued existence of a Baptist sect.172 This is clearest in Acts 19:1–7, where Paul encounters in Ephesus certain disciples of John the Baptist who had received John’s baptism but not the Holy Spirit.173 Paul explains that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance that looked forward to the coming of Jesus. The disciples are then baptized in the name of Jesus and receive the Holy Spirit. The episode is thought to witness to the continued existence of a Baptist sect in Ephesus (the presumed locale of the Johannine community) some thirty years after the Baptist’s ministry. Apollos, who worked in Ephesus, is also described as a disciple of John (Acts 18:25, ἐπιστάμενος μόνον τὸ βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου). Apollos was a native Alexandrian, which may indicate that the Baptist’s movement Vol. 4, Ad Ioannem [Gröningen: Zuidema, 1828]). Cf. also A. Bisping, Erklärung des Evangeliums nach Johannes (Münster: Aschendorff, 1865); Wurm, Irrlehrer, 39, 82–83; Zahn, Introduction, 3:367; Friedrich Düsterdieck, Die drei johanneischen Briefe (2 vols.; Göttingen: Dieterisch, 1852, 1856), 2:377–78; M. Hooker, “John the Baptist and the Johannine Prologue,” NTS 16 (1970): 354–58; Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (trans. George R. Beasley-Murray, et al.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 167–72, emphasizes anti-Baptist material in the Prologue, by way of Mandaean parallels. Brown, Community, 69, notes the number of negative statements about John in the Fourth Gospel: he is not the light (1:9); he does not come before Jesus (1:15, 30); he is not the Messiah, Elijah, or the expected Prophet (1:19–24; 3:28); he is not the bridegroom (3:29); he must decrease while Jesus must increase (3:30); he did no miracles (10:41); while he gave testimony to Jesus, it was not really needed (5:34). According to Brown, John 3:22–26 indicates the presence of some disciples of John who did not follow Jesus and in fact opposed him because of the number of disciples Jesus was gaining. One may compare Matt 11:2–16 and Luke 7:18–23, where the Baptist’s disciples likewise question Jesus. Brown concludes that the Johannine community was in continuing controversy with such a group and intended the negative statements in the Gospel polemically. 172 See C. H. J. Scobie, John the Baptist (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964), 187–202; H. Lichtenberger, “Taufergemeinden und frühchristliche Tauferpolemik im letzen Drittel des I. Jahrhunderts,” ZTK 84 (1987): 36–57, speaks of a “Baptist diaspora” in competition with the Christian mission; Robert Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-historical Study (JSNTSup 62. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1991), 273– 74; O. Cullmann, The Early Church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology (trans. A. J. B. Higgins and S. Godman; Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1956), 177. The Mandaean sect, which claimed (and still claims) John as its originator has often been proposed as evidence, but the majority of scholars find no reason to believe in a real historical link. See Kurt Rudolph, Die Mandäer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960), 1:80. 173 For discussion of this episode, see E. Käsemann, “The Disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus,” in Essays on New Testament Themes (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 136–48; Michael Wolter, “Apollos und die ephesinischen Johannes-jünger (Act 18:24–19:7),” ZNW 78 (1987): 49–73.

296

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

had reached even as far as Egypt. Further evidence for a Baptist sect appears in the third-century Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, which tells how Simon the Zealot refuted one of John’s disciples who claimed that John was the Messiah: “And, behold, one of the disciples of John asserted that John was the Christ, and not Jesus, inasmuch as Jesus Himself declared that John was greater than all men and all prophets.”174 Thus, it is realistic to think that 1 John 5:6 could be responding to a real conflict late in the first century.

B. John Baptized “In Water” Second, there is a clear connection in the Fourth Gospel between John’s baptizing activity and “water.”175 John 1:26, 33 both describe John’s baptism as ἐν ὕδατι, while John 1:31 is most striking, as it uses exactly the same phrase as 1 John 5:6: ἦλθον ἐγὼ ἐν ὕδατι βαπτίζων. Furthermore, John’s baptism in water is said to be directed toward Jesus’ coming. John 1:31 states that John baptizes in order to reveal the Messiah to Israel. John’s baptism is also contrasted with Jesus’ work. While John baptizes in water, Jesus will baptize in the Holy Spirit and will be the lamb who takes away the world’s sin (John 1:29, 33). This is the same kind of contrast that occurs in 1 John 5:6, where “water only” is contrasted to Jesus’ work that atones for sin and provides the Spirit. These passages may evince a concern among early Christians (especially in the Johannine sphere) to differentiate between John’s work and Jesus’ work, and to subordinate the former to the latter, perhaps with polemical intent toward disciples still loyal to John the Baptist.176

174 The Clementine Recognitions 1.60 (ANF 8:93). 175 The same connection appears in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 1:8 and parallels; also Acts 1:5; 11:16). Thus, it does not appear to be limited to Johannine circles. 176 So, E.F. Lupieri, “John the Baptist in New Testament Traditions and History,” ANRW 2.26.1 (1992), 457.

Against Followers of John the Baptist

297

C. Was Messianic Status Claimed for John the Baptist? Third, there is the possibility that John’s disciples concluded from his baptizing activity that he was the expected Messiah.177 It is evident from the dialogue in John 1:25 that the Messiah was expected to baptize when he came. John 3:22–26 seems to recount a dispute between the disciples of Jesus and those of John who refused to follow Jesus, perhaps because they were still claiming that John was the one sent from God who would bring eschatological purification.178 The number of negative statements about John the Baptist in the Fourth Gospel witness to the continuation of that dispute (John 1:9, 15, 19–24, 30; 3:22– 30; 5:34; 10:41). The response of the Fourth Gospel is to stress the contrast between John, who only baptizes in water, and Jesus, the messianic lamb who will take away the sins of the world through his death. Thus, the same kind of contrast (baptism vs. sacrifice) made in the Fourth Gospel is reiterated in 1 John 5:6 (water vs. blood).

D. The Witness Motif and John the Baptist Finally, there is the appeal to witnesses in 1 John 5:6–12. Here the author distinguishes between human testimony and divine testimony, and states that divine testimony is obviously more weighty and trustworthy (5:9). This kind of rhetoric very closely parallels Jesus’ own appeal to witnesses in John 5:33–39. There, the human testimony is clearly identified with that of the Baptist, who provided his testimony in the events surrounding Jesus’ baptism. If 1 John 5:6–12 is aimed at disciples of John the Baptist, it would be making the point that not only did John himself testify to Jesus—a testimony his disciples have ignored—but God has provided his own testimony to Jesus in the blood and the Spirit. These three witnesses—John’s water baptism, Jesus’ atoning death, and the Spirit (often seen as the subsequent

177 A claim explicitly attributed, as noted above, to John’s disciples in the Recognitions 1.54 (ANF 8:92): “Yea, some even of the disciples of John, who seemed to be great ones, have separated themselves from the people, and proclaimed their own master as the Christ.” Cf. also Rec. 1.60. 178 Cf. Matt 11:2–16 and its parallel in Luke 7:18–23, which Brown, Community, 69, takes as a further sign of the reluctance the Baptist’s disciples had in accepting the claims made for Jesus.

298

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

dispensation of the Spirit)—all testify to the messianic status of Jesus, not John.179

E. Problems with the Anti-John the Baptist View There is much to commend this interpretation. To begin with, it is able to provide very clear rhetorical, verbal, and conceptual parallels from the Fourth Gospel to account for the language in 1 John 5:6–12 of “coming in water,” the contrast made between water and blood, and the distinction between human and divine witnesses. Furthermore, this interpretation has a respectable pedigree—it is not a modern novelty like so many other explanations. Many older commentators, not prone to speculative mirror-readings, detected in 1 John 5 at least a comparison between John’s baptizing activity and Jesus’s atoning work.180 These interpreters, though, did not go as far as their more recent counterparts, who wish to posit a polemic against John’s continued following. It is this polemical aspect of the interpretation that has the most weaknesses. Since the illegitimacy of mirror-reading the Fourth Gospel to discern various groups of opponents hidden behind the narrative has already been discussed above in Chapter 2, those points do not need to be repeated here.

1. The Weakness of the Evidence from Acts 19 The main piece of evidence for this view is the Ephesian episode of Acts 19. The text itself, however, bemoaned by Käsemann as “the despair of the exegete,”181 is a rather meager basis upon which to posit a Baptist sect. It speaks only of several followers of John, none of whom seem to be opposed to Jesus or Paul, none of whom seem to be claiming 179 See Boer, “Jesus the Baptizer,” 99–100, who thinks that 1 John 5:6–8 may have “its origin in the concern of Johannine Christians to differentiate their messianic faith in Jesus Christ from similar messianic claims made on behalf of John the Baptist.” 180 See, e.g., Ebrard, Epistles, 316–18; R. Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, David Brown, A Commentary: Critical, Practical and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments. New Testament, Vol. 2: Galatians–Revelation (Toledo: Names, 1884), 486. John Gill, Exposition of the Old and New Testament (9 vols.; London, 1748–63; repr. Streamwood, Ill.: Primitive Baptist Library, 1976), 9:653, who proposes also a contrast with Moses, who was drawn out of the water. Gill takes the blood to refer to Jesus’ death, where he was shown to be Son of God by the signs that accompanied the crucifixion. 181 Käsemann, “Disciples,” 136.

Against Followers of John the Baptist

299

that John was the Messiah, none of whom seem to be making grandiose claims about the effectiveness of John’s baptism, and none of whom is said to be part of a broader Baptist movement. In fact, Luke’s description of the twelve as “disciples” and “believers” seems to portray them as “semi-Christians,”182 since Luke only applies these terms to Christians. Also, Paul’s question, “Did you receive the Spirit when you believed?” only makes sense if it is posed to Christians, since no one would expect the reception of the Spirit upon John’s baptism.183 Then, there is the parallel between Apollos in Acts 18:25, who is zealous in the Spirit and teaches accurately the way of Jesus (all indicative of a Christian), but also knows only the baptism of John. In fact, it is very plausible to suppose that Apollos was the preacher whose influence persuaded the Ephesian Baptists of Acts 19 to follow Jesus, but who could not himself transfer the Spirit.184 In short, the evidence of Acts 19 does not support the existence of a widespread non-Christian following of John the Baptist.

2. The Lack of Any Explicit Reference to John the Baptist in 1 John The strongest argument, however, against the anti-Baptist reading of 1 John 5:6 is the complete absence of any explicit reference to John. Indeed, none of the clearly polemical passages in 1 John (nor those often mirror-read as polemic) contain elements that could even be taken as allusions to the Baptist, or a competitive sect in his name. Thus, I cannot accept the speculative mirror-reading proposed by the stronger form of this view. It does seem plausible, however, that the Baptist and his activity are appealed to as witnesses to Jesus in the argument of 1 John 5:6–11—much the same way they are in the Fourth Gospel. I will discuss this possibility further below.

182 M. Dibelius, Die urchristliche Überlieferung von Johannes dem Täufer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911), 90. 183 Thus, Käsemann, “Disciples,” 136. 184 In fact, Käsemann, “Disciples,” 148, concludes that Luke has connected Apollos to Ephesus precisely in order to suggest him as the source of the Ephesus twelve. This, for Käsemann, is part of Luke’s apologetic attempt to downplay the real breadth of the Baptist movement.

300

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

VI. A Non-Polemical, Legal-Messianic Proposal The previous discussion has shown that there is clearly no consensus on the proper interpretation of this passage. Much of the interpretive diversity is owing to the brevity and allusiveness of the passage, which, when combined with the passage of time, have produced the “utter obscurity”185 that some interpreters bemoan. I wish to propose, however, that perhaps the passage is only utterly obscure when it is forced to bear more weight than it was meant to bear, that is, when it is made the linchpin refutation of mysterious gnostic, Cerinthian, or docetic opponents. When, however, it is read in its rhetorical, literary, and historical context, and is not forced into a grand polemical framework, its meaning may become clearer. I propose an alternative explanation of the passage that has five key components, to be unpacked in the pages to follow: 1) The passage is not polemical and is not refuting opponents who claim that Jesus came in/by water only. 2) The passage relies on Jewish legal tradition for its rhetorical structure. 3) The passage adduces witnesses meant to reassure the audience concerning their core beliefs about Jesus. 4) The symbolism of the passage (water, blood, spirit) draws on well-known events in the life of Jesus and the life of the community and serves to testify to the central tenets of their faith. 5) The passage addresses the tensions faced by second-generation believers who were not eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry.

A. Non-Polemical While it is certainly not impossible to see the language of 1 John 5:6 (οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ αἵματι) as a polemic against a false Christological or sacramental doctrine, a better explanation lies close to hand, namely that the statement should be taken rhetorically.186 That is, it is not directed specifically against a false teaching, but is meant to emphasize to the audience that ample evidence—not only Jesus’ baptism but also his death—supports the belief that Jesus is God’s Son.187 185 Brown, Epistles, 595. 186 Cf. Witherington, Letters, 543, who speaks of the “author’s emphatic epideictic rhetoric” here. 187 J. A. Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, Volume 5 (7th ed.; trans. William Fletcher; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1873), 143, represents the older tradition when he explains

A Non-Polemical, Legal-Messianic Proposal

301

1. The Lack of Polemical Features Several pieces of evidence support this view.188 First, the passage has none of the key elements present in the other clearly polemical passages. Unlike 1 John 2:22–23 and 4:2–3, there are no direct references to the opponents, or antichrists. There is also no language of confessing and denying. In addition, if the author intended to rebut a heresy here, especially one as detailed and complex as Cerinthianism and the other proposed teachings, it is hard to imagine that he could expect such a brief and opaque reference to be effective.189

2. Amplificatio in 1 John 5:6 Second, we find the identical syntax (“not only…but also…”) in 1 John 2:2, where it is almost certainly a rhetorical device and not a polemical refutation.190 In a field rife with overly enthusiastic mirror-reading, very few have attempted to interpret this passage as polemical, since it is difficult to integrate an exclusivistic view of the atonement into the traditional portraits of the opponents’ teaching.191 The better explanation is that the author is simply repeating a point made previously in the Fourth Gospel: Jesus’ death has saving signficance not only for believing Israelites but for all believers, regardless of ethnicity (cf. John 11:52). This device of rhetorical escalation (“not only…but also…”), identified by D. Watson as amplificatio, was common in Greco-

188

189 190 191

οὐ μόνον by commenting, “The apostle shows that the words immediately preceding [i.e., ‘in water and in blood’] are well considered.” That is, they are for rhetorical emphasis. Those who take this passage non-polemically include Schmid, Gegner, 198; Griffith, Keep, 153–55; Neufeld, Reconceiving, 129; Lieu, Theology, 77; Thyen, “Johannesbriefe,” 193, Lücke, Commentary, 254. Griffith, Keep, 155. 5:6, οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ αἵματι; 2:2, οὐ περὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων δὲ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου. Those who see no polemical intent here include Brown, Epistles, 222; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 38; Von Wahlde, Commandments, 152; Witherington, Letters, 461. Westcott, Epistles, 44, thinks the author is “guarding against error,” but does not see a reference to the beliefs of the opponents. D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton: Crossway, 1999), 76, is an exception: “The proto-gnostic opponents John was facing thought of themselves as an ontological elite who enjoyed the inside track with God because of the special insight they had received.”

302

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

Roman rhetoric as a means of emphasis. 192 Another relevant example of amplificatio in the Johannine corpus is 2 John 1: Ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς, οὓς ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντες οἱ ἐγνωκότες τὴν ἀλήθειαν.

It is difficult to imagine that the elder is here responding to the charge that he alone loves the elect lady and her children, while others who know the truth do not. In the Pauline corpus we find amplificatio in Rom 5:11: οὐ μόνον δέ, ἀλλὰ καὶ καυχώμενοι ἐν τῷ θεῷ διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ δι᾽ οὗ νῦν τὴν καταλλαγὴν ἐλάβομεν.

Again, it is certainly a stretch to see Paul here polemicizing against those who would say that being saved by Jesus’ death and life (5:10) is all well and good, but boasting in God through Jesus is going too far. 193

3. Its Jewish Legal Context Not only can the syntax of 1 John 5:6 be accounted for in Greco-Roman rhetorical terms, but there is also a Jewish socio-rhetorical context that explains perfectly why such augmentation would be used. Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 require the harmonious testimony of two or three witnesses to establish any fact in a court of law. This requirement was eventually extended to cover situations outside of court as well, including persuasive discourse where a contested point needed to be verified.194 Its use throughout the NT is pervasive (cf., e.g., Matt 18:16; 2 Cor 13:1; Heb 10:28; 1 Tim 5:19; John 5:31–40; 8:17–18). That the concept is a part of the epistolary author’s worldview and rhetorical framework is shown by how he uses it even in a very

192 D. Watson, “Amplification,” 101–102. Watson labels 1 John 2:2 “amplification by augmentation” and 5:6–9 as “amplification by accumulation,” where the author lists and numbers the evidence for his argument. 193 For other examples of escalation using this pattern, see, in the LXX, Esther 1:16; 8:24; Judith 11:7; 1 Macc 6:25; 11:42; 2 Macc 6:31; 7:24; 3 Macc 2:26; 3:1; 3:23; in the NT, Matt 21:21; John 5:18; 11:52; 12:9; 17:20; Rom 5:3. 194 For the Wirkungsgeschichte of Deut 19:15, see H. van Vliet, No Single Testimony: A Study on the Adoption of the Law of Deuteronomy 19:15 par. into the New Testament (Utrecht: Drukkerij, 1958); Bernard S. Jackson, “Two or Three Witnesses,” in Essays in Jewish and Comparative Legal History (SJLA 10; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 153–71.

A Non-Polemical, Legal-Messianic Proposal

303

informal manner in 3 John 12, as he introduces three witnesses in Demetrius’ behalf: “everyone,” “the truth itself,” and “we.”195

a. Two or Three Witnesses in 1 John 5 Here in 1 John 5:6–9, then, the point of adducing the blood as a witness in addition to the water is to meet the requirement of at least two witnesses.196 Because the law states “two or three” witnesses, the author includes a third witness that settles his case for Jesus’ messianic sonship. The OT requirement is also the reason the author emphasizes the unity of the three witnesses. Commentators frequently puzzle over the difficult grammar of 1 John 5:8b: καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν,197 but this is simply to be taken to affirm that the three witnesses do not contradict or conflict but testify to the same thing. 198 This was required by law for witnesses to be valid (as in Jesus’ trial, Mark 14:56, 59).199

b. Two or Three Witnesses in John 8 In support of my explanation is the very clear parallel in John 8. The context there is forensic, as shown by the repeated use of μαρτυρέω, μαρτυρία, αληθής, κρίνω, and κρίσις.200 In 8:13, the Pharisees accuse Jesus, σὺ περὶ σεαυτοῦ μαρτυρεῖς· ἡ μαρτυρία σου οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθής. Here, ἀληθής almost certainly carries the connotation of legally valid

195 Δημητρίῳ μεμαρτύρηται ὑπὸ πάντων καὶ ὑπὸ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας· καὶ ἡμεῖς δὲ μαρτυροῦμεν, καὶ οἶδας ὅτι ἡ μαρτυρία ἡμῶν ἀληθής ἐστιν. 196 Those who see the OT witness requirement in the background of 1 John 5:6–9 include Brown, Epistles, 581; Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 299; Schnackenburg, Epistles, 235; Trites, Witness, 126; Vliet, Testimony, 89; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 270; Wengst, Brief, 210; Westcott, Epistles, 185, Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 307; Brooke, Johannine Epistles, 136–37. 197 See, e.g. the lengthy discussion in Brown, Epistles, 585. Cf. also Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 301. Brooke, Johannine Epistles, 137, ends up with the quite artificial explanation that καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν means that the three produce the “same result.” 198 Grayston, Epistles, 138, cites the RSV: “the three agree.” He considers it possible that this is “a vernacular idiom under Semitic influence.” Cf. Brooke, Johannine Epistles, 137. Almost all modern translations render the sentence as expressing agreement among the three witnesses. 199 In the Markan account, the agreement of the witnesses is described using ἴσος. 200 For discussion of the forensic motifs in John 8, see J. H. Neyrey, “Jesus the Judge: Forensic Process in John 8,21–59,” Bib 68 (1987): 509–42; A. E. Harvey, Jesus on Trial: A Study in the Fourth Gospel (London: SPCK, 1976), 16–20.

304

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

or admissible.201 Jesus replies that his testimony is both true and legally valid. It is true because it reflects reality (8:14), and it is legally valid because it comports with the Law’s requirements for two or more witnesses (8:16–18). Most significant here is the syntax of 8:16, where Jesus appeals to the plurality of witnesses; it is the same rhetoricosyntactic pattern that appears in 1 John 5:6 (οὐκ…μόνον ἀλλ᾽…καί).202 It would appear, then, that 1 John 5:6 may not be a polemical quotation, or refutation, of opponents who claimed that Jesus Christ came in water only, but may simply be the natural way of demonstrating compliance with the law of two or three witnesses. The parallel is only strengthened when it is recognized that both John 8 and 1 John 5 compare human and divine testimony, and make the point that if human testimony is accepted, God’s witness should be acknowledged even more.203 Yet another point of convergence between the two passages is the object of the testimony. In John 8:12, the disputed claim that the witnesses validate is that Jesus has been sent by God as the light of the world, and that those who follow him and walk in the light will have life. In 1 John 5:11, the claim which the witnesses are to buttress is that Jesus is God’s Son, through whom God has granted to believers eternal life. In both passages, the point to be established by the witnesses’ testimony is the same.

4. The Non-Polemical Reception of 1 John 5:6 Finally, from a reception-historical standpoint, it is interesting to note that while the majority of modern scholars have seen 1 John 5:6 as indubitably polemical, the same view does not prevail among the early church fathers. Tertullian, for example, devotes much of his De baptismo 201 On the use of ἀληθ- terminology in the Gospel and Epistles of John, see J. Duncan M. Derrett, “Jewish Law and Johannine Vocabulary: ἀληθής at Jn 5,31–32; 7,18; 8,13.17,” FN 17 (2004): 89–97, who demonstrates that these terms must be read in a legal context as denoting the legitimacy and admissibility of a witness. When they are used in debates about agency (the shaliach), they speak of the legitimacy of the agent. 202 John 8:16, καὶ ἐὰν κρίνω δὲ ἐγώ, ἡ κρίσις ἡ ἐμὴ ἀληθινή ἐστιν, ὅτι μόνος οὐκ εἰμί, ἀλλ᾽ ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πέμψας με πατήρ. 1 John 5:6b, οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ αἵματι. 203 John 8:17–18, δύο ἀνθρώπων ἡ μαρτυρία ἀληθής ἐστιν…καὶ μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ ὁ πέμψας με πατήρ. 1 John 5:9, εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνομεν, ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ μείζων ἐστίν.

A Non-Polemical, Legal-Messianic Proposal

305

(ca. 200) to the meaning of the water and the blood in 1 John 5:6, but gives no indication that the passage reflects the presence of opponents.204 Origen, likewise, in his commentary on John, detects no polemical intent behind the passage.205 Most surprising of all is Irenaeus, staunch opponent of all things gnostic and the first on record to see 1 John as a refutation of Cerinthianism. Irenaeus is a prime example of contemporizing mirrorreading in the early church,206 and the one interpreter we would surely expect to read 1 John 5:6 polemically. When he addresses Cerinthus’s teaching (Haer. 1.26.1), however, he does not mention 1 John 5 or make any allusion to it. Neither do Hippolytus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Epiphanius, or Augustine, all of whom fought docetism or Cerinthianism in one arena or another. Indeed, it is not until the late eighteenth century that this background is first proposed.207 This can hardly be attributed to an ahistorical mindset on the part of the early exegetes, since they all agreed that both 1 John 2:22–23 and 4:2 were aimed at real historical opponents.

B. The Purpose of the Witnesses 1. A Contextual Reading of the Blood and Water If, as I have argued, 1 John 5:6 is not polemical, but rather employs rhetorical escalation to draw attention to the multiple witnesses that support the author’s claim, the next step is to explore more deeply what claim the author is trying to buttress with his witnesses. What is the main point that he aims to establish by means of the water, blood, and spirit? The answer must be found by a close reading of the immediate literary context, where the author gives several clear indications as to how he intends the three witnesses to function in his argument. Many (if not most) commentators take the reverse of the approach offered here. Seduced by the mysterious and elusive symbols of the water and blood, they jump directly into deciphering their meaning, and only at the end of their discussion do they address the use to which 204 205 206 207

Tertullian, Bapt. 3–5 (water); 16 (blood). Origen, Comm. Jo. 6.26. See above, p. 69. See above, fn. 6 in this chapter.

306

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

1 John puts them. It seems more practical, however, to recognize that the blood and water are, by themselves, rather flexible symbols, and thus to begin with an attempt to narrow the range of their possible meanings by clarifying their function in the context.

2. Water, Blood and Spirit as Pointers to Jesus as Messiah The literary context indicates very clearly that the author appeals to the water, blood, and spirit in order to provide his audience with three witnesses that support the central and foundational confession of the community: that Jesus is the Messiah. Several elements in the context confirm this. First, 1 John 5:1–5, the section leading up to the three witnesses, begins with an endorsement of this very confession: Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός (v. 1). This confession serves here as a defining mark that a person has become a child of God (ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται). Second, 5:4 explains the implications of the child of God’s belief vis-àvis the world. The child of God overcomes the world by virtue of his belief. In 5:5, the belief is stated once again in a confessional formula: Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. The tight logical chain from v. 1 to v. 5 establishes the essential identity of the two confessions. This is in keeping with the way that the two titles, Messiah and Son of God, are previously linked in the epistle (2:22–23; 3:23; 4:2, 9),208 as well as in Jewish tradition (probably based on Psalm 2 and 2 Sam 7:14). Third, the title Χριστός is again used in 5:6, where Jesus is identified as the one coming through water and blood. Fourth, once the three witnesses have been named, 5:9 states the content of God’s testimony that has been given through them: μεμαρτύρηκεν περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ. What precisely has God testified about his Son? In 5:11, the author provides the answer: God has testified that it is through his Son that he has given his children eternal life.209 Thus, while most commentators hold that the witnesses are meant to prove something about the mode of Jesus’ coming (whether

208 Another significant connection between 1 John 4:6 and 5:4–5 is the way in which both speak of faith in Jesus as Messiah as that which overcomes the world. First John 2:13–14 also speaks of “overcoming,” which it seems to link to initial confession and conversion. 209 This is missed by many commentators (cf. e.g., Brown, Epistles, 591) who take the content of the witness to be simply that God has given believers eternal life. The passage’s focus, however, is on the fact that the eternal life has been given in God’s Son. Cf. Brooke, Johannine Epistles, 140; Grayston, Epistles, 134.

A Non-Polemical, Legal-Messianic Proposal

307

physical, sacramental, or indivisible)—i.e. to testify to a specific truth about Jesus’ coming that is disputed by the secessionists—this reading ignores the explicit statement of the author. In other words, 1 John 5:1–12 is simply repeating, in similar terms, the same basic point made before in numerous passages: in order to have a proper relationship with God, and thus to have eternal life, one must acknowledge Jesus as God’s Son, the Messiah. 210 Those who accept God’s testimony are children; they “have” the Son, they have an internal witness to the truth of their confession, and they have eternal life (5:10–12). All these results depend on the (continued) confession of Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God. It is this central confession to which the three witnesses point and for which the three witnesses are meant to provide continued assurance. What is at issue, therefore, is no peripheral dispute about the details of sacramental presence, the precise manner of Jesus’ relation to physical realities during his life, or the exact correlation of the divine and the human in Jesus. The text is clear: the issue is the most basic boundary marker of the Johannine community, namely, the confession of Jesus as the Messiah.

3. The Connection to the Fourth Gospel’s Confessional Core That the witnesses are focused on eliciting such a confession should not surprise anyone familiar with the Fourth Gospel. As I discussed above in Chapter 3 regarding 1 John 2:22, the messianic status and divine sonship of Jesus are the constant refrain of the Gospel’s narrative. In John 1:34, John the Baptist confesses, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. In 1:41, Andrew and the “other disciple” tell Simon Peter, “We have found the Messiah.”211 John 1:49 portrays Nathanael exclaiming, σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, σὺ βασιλεὺς εἶ τοῦ Ἰσραήλ. John 3:18 promises life to those who believe εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ.212 In 3:36, the one who believes in the Son has eternal life.213 In 9:22, it is the same messianic confession (ἐάν τις αὐτὸν ὁμολογήσῃ χριστόν) which

210 It is interesting to note the way that 5:10 echoes 2:22 in its use of term ψεύστης. 211 John 1:41 explains that Μεσσίας means, in Greek, Χριστός. This demonstrates clearly that the author intends his audience to understand his subsequent uses of Χριστός in a messianic titular sense. See above, fn. 103 in Chapter 2 for discussion of the titular sense of Χριστός. 212 This thought is closely paralleled in 1 John 5:12. 213 ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον. This is very closely paralleled in its language by 1 John 5:10–13.

308

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

brings expulsion from the synagogues. In 10:24–25, Jesus responds to the “Jews” that he has told them plainly that he is the Messiah, and a few verses later states explicitly, υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ εἰμι. In 11:27, Martha confesses, σὺ εἶ ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. In 17:3, Jesus identifies himself in his high priestly prayer as ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. This central theme culminates in the purpose statement (20:31)—almost a perfect parallel to 1 John 5:13—with its confessional formula, ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ.

4. The Witness Motif in the Fourth Gospel Also notable is the way the Fourth Gospel employs the witness motif to demonstrate the truth of this central confession— a direct parallel to the use of witnesses in 1 John 5 to point to the same truth. 214 The first witness the Fourth Gospel introduces is John the Baptist, who testifies repeatedly to Jesus as the pre-existent Light and the Messiah/Son of God who possesses the Spirit (1:7–8, 15, 19, 32, 34; 3:26–33). In ch. 4, the Samaritan woman testifies and produces belief in many of her fellow Samaritans (4:39). In John 5, the witness motif is heavily emphasized, as Jesus adduces John the Baptist, Jesus’ own works, his Father, and the Scriptures as witnesses on his behalf (5:31–39); the same line of thought is repeated in 8:18 and 10:25. In 12:17, those who saw Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead testify to Jesus and cause the “world” to go after him (v. 19). In the Farewell Discourse, Jesus tells his disciples that after he returns to the Father, the Paraclete will come and testify about him, and the disciples will also be his witnesses. Finally, in 19:35, the beloved disciple witnesses to the way Jesus’ death fulfills the Scriptures. The witness motif clearly plays a central role in the Fourth

214 On the witness motif see most recently Martin Asiedu-Peprah, Johannine Sabbath Conflicts as Juridical Controversy (WUNT 132; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001); Urban Von Wahlde, “The Witnesses to Jesus in John 5:31–40 and Belief in the Fourth Gospel,” CBQ 43 (1981): 385–404; James Montgomery Boice, Witness and Revelation in the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970); Trites, Witness, 124–27; J. Beutler, Martyria: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Zeugnisthema bei Johannes (Frankfurt: Knecht, 1972), 276–81; S. Pancaro, Law in the Fourth Gospel: The Torah and the Gospel, Moses and Jesus, Judaism and Christianity according to John (NovTSup 42; Leiden: Brill, 1975), 208–31; Andrew T. Lincoln, Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2000). L. Sánchez Navarro, “Estructura testimonial del Evangelio de Juan,” Bib 86 (2005): 511–28, who sees the Fourth Gospel structured on the principle of three witnesses to Jesus as the Messiah, namely John the Baptist, the Father, and the beloved disciple.

A Non-Polemical, Legal-Messianic Proposal

309

Gospel’s presentation of Jesus. The multitude of witnesses is introduced with the same goal in mind: to testify to the truth that Jesus is the divinely-commissioned messianic Son who brings eternal life. The one who hears the Gospel and believes that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God will have a firm juridical basis upon which to make that confession (20:30–31). The function of the witness motif in the Fourth Gospel, then, supports my contention that the witnesses of 1 John 5 are meant to point to the messianic sonship of Jesus and to bolster the central confession of the community.

5. The Witness Motif in 1 John The confession that Jesus is the messianic Son of God is also a central point in 1 John and is likewise connected with a witness/testimony motif. First John 1:1–3 opens the letter with an appeal to the author’s eyewitness testimony (v. 2, ἑωράκαμεν καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν) that Jesus is Messiah and Son of God (v. 3) and that he has made eternal life manifest (v. 2). These are the same key terms that appear in 5:1–13 as the content of God’s testimony; with their appearance at the beginning and end of the epistle, they serve as an inclusio pointing to a central theme pervading the discourse.215 The same concept appears once more in 4:14–15, where the author testifies that Jesus is the Savior of the world, sent by the Father. This testimony is meant to elicit the confession of v. 15, that Jesus is the Son of God. The one who so confesses comes into fellowship with God. Elsewhere, the language of testimony is not used, but the concept appears, and the testimony is again the same: that Jesus is the messianic Son of God. In 2:18–27, for example, it is the “anointing from the Holy One,” closely related to “what you have heard from the beginning” (v. 24), that leads to confession of Jesus as the Messiah (v. 22) and Son of God (v. 23) and results in eternal life (v. 25). Similarly in 4:1–6, it is those who listen to “us”—presumably the eyewitness(es) of 1:1–3—who have the Spirit from God and thus confess that Jesus is the Christ who has come in the flesh (v. 2). As is widely recognized, the author of 1 John establishes his points by means of repetition with rhetorical variation. It is no surprise, then, that he repeats this pattern of testimony-confession-life in 5:1–12. The pattern throughout the epistle supports my assertion that the point of 215 So Brown, Epistles, 591, 593–94; Navarro, “Estructura,” 517; Grayston, Epistles, 134.

310

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

the witnesses in 5:6–12 is to evoke and bolster the confession that Jesus is the messianic Son who is the bearer of eternal life. In light of these facts, the section should not be read as addressing an abstruse debate about the sacraments, the hypostatic union, or the relationship of the atonement to the reception of the Spirit.

C. The Meaning of the Water, Blood and Spirit 1. A Strategy for Understanding Their Reference Having established the function of the three witnesses, it is now appropriate to address the complex question of what the water, blood, and Spirit refer to. Since the confession they are intended to elicit and reinforce is the same confession at the heart of the Fourth Gospel, that is the most natural place to begin the search. 216 It is reasonable to suppose that 1 John 5:6 is drawing its witnesses from the community’s foundational narrative. This is all the more likely if the passage contains (at least part of) a confessional formula that would have been affirmed by 1 John’s audience at their conversion—a suggestion supported by the passage’s content and linguistic compactness.217 This confession would have touched upon the key events of Jesus’ life and ministry using the kind of highly allusive language (“symbolic shorthand”)218 found in other confessions (e.g. Rom 1:3–4; 1 Tim 3:16). If this is the case, then the referents for the water, blood, and spirit must meet the following criteria: 1) They must be accessible and comprehensible to the audience of 1 John. That is, the water, blood and spirit are unlikely to be referring to some obscure teaching that is not present in the Gospel. They are much more likely to refer to the first thing the audience would think of when they heard the term.219 2) They must be able to function as witnesses, in some form, to Jesus’ messianic sonship. That is, there should be something about the 216 Schnackenburg, Epistles, 244. 217 Those who find confessional material in 5:6 include Schmid, Gegner, 198; Neufeld, Confessions, 70–75; Black, “Catholicism,” 134; Rensberger, 1 John, 131. See above, fn. 119 in Chapter 4 for a discussion concerning the criteria by which preformed confessional materials may be identified. 218 Boer, “Jesus the Baptizer,” 90. 219 Accessibility here also implies the public nature of the events, which would be essential if they were to serve as effective witnesses. Cf. Brown, Epistles, 579. This would tend to rule out Jesus’ birth as the referent of the water, or water and blood.

A Non-Polemical, Legal-Messianic Proposal

311

thing/event that could lead the audience to conclude that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.220 3) A final criterion, not necessary but desirable, is that the events or things to which the blood, water and spirit refer should be somehow already connected in the Gospel narrative itself to the witness motif. Thus, if a clear reference to blood appears in the Fourth Gospel that is both closely tied to the Evangelist’s main themes and connected somehow to the motif of testimony, then that referent would be a very good candidate.

2. The Meaning of the Water a. The Baptism of Jesus or the Baptism by Jesus? The most obvious referent of the “water” in 5:6, as long recognized by almost all interpreters, is baptism.221 This is especially the case given the way that water imagery is linked to baptism very early in the Gospel narrative (John 1:26, 31, 33, all with reference to John’s baptizing activity).222 The linkage is made explicit in 3:23.223 But, does 1 220 So Wurm, Irrlehrer, 64. That is, it is unlikely that the witnesses were adduced to settle a complicated and nuanced doctrinal dispute. They are rather intended to inspire the kind of faith essential to eternal life, a world-conquering faith that has as its object the world-conquering Messiah, Jesus (1 John 5:5; John 16:33). Therefore, Griffith, “Non-Polemical,” 272, misses the mark when he calls the water, blood and spirit “identity markers.” Again, the focus in 1 John 5 is on the way the three testify to Jesus’ messiahship. It is the confession of Jesus as Messiah, not the witnesses themselves, that could rightly be called an “identity marker.” 221 Historically, Tertullian is evidence that by the late second century the “water” was read as the baptism of Jesus, with secondary reference to believers’ baptism. This secondary reference prevailed in the Middle Ages, but among modern interpreters the historical reference has dominated. See Bultmann, Epistles, 80; Marshall, Epistles, 231; Yarbrough, 1–3 John, 282; Brooke, Johannine Epistles, 131; Westcott, Epistles, 181; Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 294; J. Denney, “He that Came by Water and Blood,” Expositor VII, 5 (1907), 417; P. W. Keppler, “Geist, Wasser und Blut. Zur Erklärung von I. Joh 5,6–13 (ev. Joh. 19,34),” TQ 68 (1886), 7; A. Klöpper, “1 John 5.6–12,” ZWT 43 (1900), 381–82; Winterbotham, “Spirit,” 64–65; Griffith, Keep, 159; Weiss, “Gnosis,” 347; Grayston, Epistles, 141. 222 See also the explicit connection of water and baptism in Mark 1:8 and parallels; Acts 1:5; 11:16. I am not arguing that every reference to water in the Fourth Gospel has baptism in view. Oftentimes, the symbol is used in bibitory, lustrative, or ablutionary senses. Indeed, the closest verbal parallel to 1 John 5:6 comes in John 19:34, where water clearly cannot have primary reference to baptism. There are, however, good reasons to think that the reference to water in 1 John 5:6 does not have John 19:34 specifically in mind. See below, p. 266, for discussion.

312

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

John 5:6 refer to the water-baptism which Jesus underwent at the hands of John, or the baptism which he brought, i.e., Christian baptism (in water and the Holy Spirit)? The latter has several vocal proponents, who point out that the Fourth Gospel never actually narrates John’s baptism of Jesus, and that the Gospel preserves the expectation (implicit in the Pharisees’ question in John 1:25) that the Messiah would baptize when he came.224 This view, cannot, however, account for the grammar of 1 John 5:6, since it is very difficult to take δι᾽ ὕδατος as a reference to the baptism which Jesus brought. It makes more sense to read the phrase as indicating an experience through which (διά) Jesus passes during his ministry. This is in keeping with the centrality of Jesus’ baptism by John in the Synoptic tradition. All three Synoptics (and the Fourth Gospel, as well) portray Jesus’ ministry as beginning at John’s baptism. Similarly, the apostolic sermons in Acts point to the baptism as the inaugural moment (Acts 10:37; 13:24). In Acts 1:21–22, the replacement for Judas is required to have been with the Eleven “beginning with the baptism of John.” This requirement, it is important to note, is explicitly tied to the need to be a “witness” (μάρτυς) to Jesus’ ministry (Acts 1:22).

b. The Important Role of Jesus’ Baptism by John Jesus’ baptism by John is essential to early Christian proclamation in three ways. First, it is when Jesus receives the anointing with the Spirit 223 Many commentators believe that John 3:5 (“born of water and Spirit”) may also refer to baptism. Some believe it refers to the baptism of John (water) and the baptism of the Messiah (Spirit), which are juxtaposed in John 1:33. See Westcott, Gospel, 108– 109; Godet, Gospel, 379. Others hold that only Christian baptism (water and spirit) is in view. See Dunn, Baptism, 191; Barrett, Gospel, 174. Many, however, reject a reference to baptism and hold that Ezek 36:25–26 is the determinative background for the passage, so that John 3:5 would be speaking in hendiadys of the single new spiritual birth as a cleansing. This reading is supported both by the syntax of the phrase, where both nouns are governed by a single preposition, as well as by several later uses of water in the Gospel (4:10–15; 7:38–39; 19:34). See Morris, Gospel, 193; Köstenberger, John, 123–24; Carson, Gospel, 191–196. The Fourth Gospel, however, is likely reading Ezek 36:25–26 as a reference to Christian baptism. For a general discussion of sacramental allusions in the Fourth Gospel, see C. H. Cosgrove, “The Place Where Jesus is: Allusions to Baptism and the Eucharist in the Fourth Gospel,” NTS 35 (1989): 522–39. 224 Brown, Epistles, 577. It should be noted that John 4:2 explicitly states that Jesus did not himself baptize, which certainly militates against seeing water as a reference to the practice of Christian baptism brought by Jesus. Proponents of such a view usually take John 4:2 as redactional.

A Non-Polemical, Legal-Messianic Proposal

313

that he is constituted as the Messiah, or “anointed one.”225 Second, it is when God publicly proclaims that Jesus is his “beloved Son.”226 Third, it is linked to John the Baptist’s public testimony to Jesus’ messianic role. John is portrayed in the Synoptic tradition as the prophet and forerunner who predicts Jesus’ advent and whose testimony concerning Jesus is used polemically against unbelieving Jews.227 In the Fourth Gospel, it is this testimonial aspect that comes to the fore. While Jesus’ baptism is not explicitly narrated, it is clearly assumed.228 The Baptist’s activity is repeatedly described as witnessing in order to bring about belief in Jesus (John 1:7, 8, 15, 19). The content of his testimony is that Jesus is the Spirit-possessing Son of God (1:32–34), the Messiah (1:41), and the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (1:29, 36).229 The purpose of John’s baptism is to reveal to Israel that Jesus is the Messiah (1:31). John gives the model response when confronted by the Jewish authorities: he does not deny, but confesses the truth (1:20).230 Later in the Fourth Gospel, John again testifies to Jesus’ messianic sonship (3:28, cf. 3:35–36). Subsequently, he is the first witness to whom Jesus appeals in his debate with the Jews (John 5:32– 36), and he is credited with the testimony that leads those beyond the Jordan to believe in Jesus (10:40–41). In summary, John the Baptist, with his baptism of Jesus in water, serves as a crucial witness to Jesus’ identity in both the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics. Thus, “water” as a reference to Jesus’ baptism fulfills all three of my criteria outlined above. First, it is what the audience of 1 John would most likely think of when “water” is mentioned. Second, it is portrayed in the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics as the event which identifies or constitutes Jesus as the messianic Son of God. Third, it is directly and repeatedly connected in the Fourth Gospel to the motif of witness.231 225 226 227 228 229

Luke 4:18; Acts 4:27; 10:38; Mark 1:10 and pars. Mark 1:11 and pars. Mark 1:7–8 and pars.; Luke 1:17, 76; Matt 11:9; Mark 11:30–32 and pars. See Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 294, for discussion. Ibid., 294, notes the numerous verbal connections between the Baptist episode in the Fourth Gospel and the statement in 1 John 5:6. Cf. Wurm, Irrlehrer, 66; Bengel, Gnomon, 806; Grayston, Epistles, 141. 230 Cf. 1 John 2:22–23; 4:2–3 for similar confession/denial language. 231 This interpretation of “water” is further confirmed by the use of the term in early Christian literature. In the Epistle of Barnabas, for example, ὕδωρ is used as a stand-in for baptism repeatedly (11:1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10). Barnabas summarizes Jesus’ ministry as τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ ὁ σταυρός, that is, the two termini of his public ministry (11:1, 7). A similar use of ὕδωρ as a cipher for baptism also appears in Ign. Eph. 18.2, and Herm. Mand. 4.3.1; Herm. Sim. 9.16.4. Finally, in The Clementine Recognitions 48 (ANF 8:90),

314

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

3. The Meaning of the Blood a. Blood as a Reference to Death The most obvious referent for the “blood” in 1 John 5:6 is Jesus’ death.232 The only other instance of αἷμα in the Epistles is 1:7, where Jesus’ blood is said to cleanse believers from all sin. This meaning is also the most prominent in the Fourth Gospel, as the crucifixion scene focuses on the blood (and water) which flows from Jesus’ side (John 19:34–36). The term is also used four times in the Bread of Life discourse, where Jesus insists that his followers eat his flesh and drink his blood (6:53–56). While there are eucharistic overtones here, at least a secondary (if not primary) reference is to Jesus’ impending death, in which his followers must participate.233 Jesus, as the Passover lamb (6:4 establishes a Paschal context), will give his flesh for the life of the world (6:51). This teaching causes his temporary followers to “stumble” (6:61)—the same effect the theologia crucis has in other early Christian texts (Matt 13:21; 16:23; 26:31; Rom 9:33, 1 Cor 1:23, Gal 5:11). Blood is also used as shorthand for Jesus’ death in numerous other NT texts, many of which, notably, are thought (like 1 John 5:6) to contain preformed confessional material like 1 John 5:6 (cf. Mark 14:24 and pars.; Acts 20:28; Rom 3:25; 5:9; Eph 1:7; 2:13; Col 1:20; 1 Pet 1:2, 19; Hebrews passim; Rev 1:5; 5:9; 7:14, et alia).

Peter speaks of Jesus as the high priest who was installed in that office at his baptism, when he was also called the Son of God. 232 Even those who take “blood” in 5:6 to refer to the Eucharist recognize that the Eucharist presupposes Christ’s sacrificial death, so that “blood” would thus indirectly refer to the death. 233 Thus, John 6:53 could be seen as the Johannine equivalent of the Synoptic logion in Mark 8:34 (εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω μου ἀκολουθεῖν, ἀπαρνησάσθω ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθείτω μοι). If John 6:53 is calling for martyrdom on the part of the disciples, it would make sense of the promise of resurrection (6:54) connected to the requirement. On the passage and the question of Eucharistic allusions, see especially J. D. G. Dunn, “John VI—a Eucharistic Discourse?” NTS 17 (1971): 328–38; M. J. J. Menken, “John 6,51c–58: Eucharist or Christology?” in Critical Readings of John 6 (ed. R. Alan Culpepper; Leiden: Brill, 1993), 183–204; Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 268; Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (2 vols.; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003), 1:688. Another possible conceptual framework for participating in Jesus is the Passover lamb, which is ingested for apotropaic purposes (protection from the wrath of God). See below, fn. 238.

A Non-Polemical, Legal-Messianic Proposal

315

b. “Blood” as Sacrificial Death It is important, however, to recognize that “blood” in 5:6 is not simply a stand-in for the “death” of Jesus, but is a theological characterization of that death as a sacrifice. This is in keeping with the sacrificial theology of 1 John 1:7; 2:2; 4:10.234 While the Fourth Gospel is often portrayed as suppressing the sacrifical or atoning aspect of Jesus’ death in favor of depicting his death as a return to the Father, this cannot be sustained by a careful exegesis of the key passages. 235 Examples abound: In John 3:14–15, Jesus’ death is compared to the lifting up of the snake in the wilderness. In 10:14–18, he is the good shepherd who lays his life down for his sheep. In 11:49–52, the High Priest prophesies unknowingly that Jesus would die for the people and, the Evangelist adds, for the scattered children of God. In 15:13, Jesus describes his death as an act of love for his disciples whereby he lays down his life for them.

234 Both 2:2 and 4:10 use ἱλασμός, which has atoning significance in the OT. 235 See R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament (2vols.; trans K. Grobel; London: SCM, 1983), 2:54, who acknowledges atonement theology in the Fourth Gospel, but thinks it is “a foreign element in his [the Evangelist’s] work.” Käsemann, Testament, 7, treats the Passion narrative in John as an awkward and ill-fitting “postscript.” J. T. Forestell, The Word of the Cross: Salvation as Revelation in the Fourth Gospel (AnBib 57; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1974), 113, 120, argues strongly that the Fourth Gospel depicts Jesus’ death as revelatory, not atoning. Cf. William R. G. Loader, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Structure and Issues (BBET 23; New York: Lang, 1989); U. B. Müller, “Die Bedeutung des Kreuzestodes Jesus im Johannesevangelium,” KD (1975): 49–71; J. Ramsay Michaels, “Atonement in John’s Gospel and Epistles,” in The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Theological, and Practical Perspectives (ed. Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James III; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2006), 106–18, who sees atonement theology as a development of 1 John; Ashton, Understanding, 485– 501. For a defense of atonement theology in the Fourth Gospel, see M. Turner, “Atonement and the Death of Jesus in John: Some Questions to Bultmann and Forestell,” EvQ 62 (1990): 99–122; J. T. Williams, “Cultic Elements in the Fourth Gospel,” in Studia Biblica 1978 (ed. Elizabeth Anne Livingstone; JSNTSup 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), 339–50; G. L. Carey, “The Lamb of God and Atonement Theories,” TynBul 32 (1981): 97–122; B. H. Grigsby, “The Cross as Expiatory Sacrifice in the Fourth Gospel,” JSNT 15 (1982): 51–80; C. Gieschen, “The Death of Jesus in the Gospel of John: Atonement for Sin?” CTQ 72 (2008): 243–61; L. Morris, “The Atonement in John’s Gospel,” CTR 3 (1988): 49–64; Kenneth V. Neller, “Water into Wine (John 2:1–11): Foreshadow of the Atonement,” in Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-Critical and Exegetical Studies (ed. J. W. Childers and D. C. Parker; Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias, 2006), 196–211, who contends that the Cana miracle foreshadows Jesus’ atoning death.

316

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

By far, though, the most prominent strand of sacrificial theology in the Fourth Gospel has to do with the typology of the Passover lamb.236 In John 1:29, 36, Jesus is identified by John the Baptist as the lamb who takes away the sin of the world.237 In John 6:51–58, Jesus speaks of his flesh and blood which he gives for the life of the world. This discourse occurs just prior to Passover, and may portray him as the Passover lamb who is ingested by his followers and thus both protects and liberates them.238

236 This is in keeping, it should be noted, with other traditions in early Christianity, cf. 1 Cor 5:7; 1 Pet 1:19–20. 237 Questions as to whether this incident is historical or not and whether the description “Lamb of God” had pre-Christian sacrificial connotations are ultimately irrelevant for our purposes. My argument is that on the narrative level of the Fourth Gospel, “Lamb of God” in 1:29 is to be understood as coming to its fullest expression in Jesus’ Passover death (in John 19), with reference back to Isaiah 53:7. It is notable that the Aquilan version of Isa 53:12 uses αἴρω (like John 1:29) to describe the Servant’s bearing, or taking away, of sins. Many scholars deny that the Passover lamb originally had sacrificial significance, or even that it would have been considered sacrificial in Second Temple Judaism. In Exod 13:11–16, though, it functions as a kind of substitutionary sacrifice for the firstborn sons of Israel, and in Deut 16:1–5, it is prescribed that the Passover lamb be slaughtered and eaten in the sanctuary, which is in keeping with a sacrificial meaning. The LXX notably translates Exodus 12:21, 27 with θύσατε and θυσία, both normally used for sacrifices. See Pancaro, Law, 348; Bruce G. Schuchard, Scripture within Scripture: The Interrelationship of Form and Function in the Explicit Old Testament Citations in the Gospel of John (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 137–38. For dissenting views, see the sources cited above, fn. 235. Cf. also Painter, “Sacrifice,” who denies any sacrificial significance to Jesus’ death in John, and argues that John 1:29 is neither a reference to a sacrifice nor to Passover. Painter does recognize that Passover motifs play a part in the Fourth Gospel, but he does not see the Passover lamb depicted as a sin offering in the Gospel. Christine Schlund, Kein Knochen soll gebrochen werden: Studien zu Bedeutung und Funktion des Pesachfests in Texten des frühen Judentums und im Johannesevangelium (WMANT 107; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2005), likewise detects no Passover reference in John 1:29, but does see a Passover theme overall in the Fourth Gospel, though it has more to do with Jesus’ protection of his followers than with atonement. J. Beutler, “Die Heilsbedeutung des Todes Jesu im Johannesevangelium nach Joh 13,1–20,” in Der Tod Jesu: Deutungen im Neuen Testament (ed. K. Kertelge; QD 74; Freiburg: Herder, 1976), 192, identifies the “Lamb of God” in John 1:29 with the daily sacrifice or tamid, not the Passover lamb. 238 See Scot McKnight, Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2005), 324, 369.

A Non-Polemical, Legal-Messianic Proposal

317

c. Sacrificial Imagery in John 19 In John 19, the account of Jesus’ death contains numerous nuanced allusions to the Passover ritual and to sacrifical theology.239 First, Jesus’ death occurs at the same time as the slaughtering of the Passover lambs in the temple (19:14).240 Second, Jesus is offered sour wine on a hyssop branch—the same instrument used to spread the blood of the Passover lamb upon the lintels of the house (19:29; Exod 12:22). 241 Third, the fact that Jesus’ bones remain unbroken (19:33) is explicitly related to the regulations for the Passover lamb (19:36; Exod 12:10, 46; Num 9:12).242 Fourth, the description of blood and water flowing immediately from Jesus’ side may be meant to show that Jesus’ death meets the requirement that the blood of the sacrifices be free-flowing, i.e., not congealed.243 The Evangelist’s depiction of Jesus as the fulfillment of 239 For discussions of Passover imagery in the passion narrative, see J. M. Ford, “‘Mingled Blood’ from the Side of Christ (John xix, 34),” NTS 15 (1968–69): 337–38; Culpepper, Gospel, 237; John Paul Heil, Blood and Water: The Death and Resurrection of Jesus in John 18–21 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1995), 104–13; Schuchard, Scripture, 138–39; Jaime Clark-Soles, Scripture Cannot Be Broken: The Social Function of the Use of Scripture in the Fourth Gospel (Boston: Brill, 2003), 292–93. 240 Raymond Edward Brown, The Gospel according to John (2 vols.; AB 29–29A; Garden City, N. J.: Doubleday, 1966–1970), 2:882–83. The exact time of Jesus’ death is not stated in the Fourth Gospel. It is only stated that his sentencing occurred (19:14) at the “sixth hour” (noon). Jewish sources vary as to when the Passover lambs were actually slaughtered. Josephus, J. W. 6.423–428 locates them from 3 to 5pm (the “ninth to the eleventh hour”). In QE 1.11, Philo concurs, while in Spec. Laws 2.148, he states that they occur from noon until the evening. 241 Cf. Maarten J. J. Menken, “Die Feste im Johannesevangelium,” in Israel und seine Heilstraditionen im Johannesevangelium: Festgabe für Johannes Beutler SJ zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. M. Labahn, K. Scholtissek, and A. Strotmann; Paderborn: Schöningh, 2004), 284; Brown, Gospel, 2:930. 242 Keener, Gospel, 2: 1153, notes also that the Passover lamb was pierced through with a piece of pomegranate wood according to m. Pesah. 7:1. Also, according to m. Pesah. 5:9, the Passover lambs were hung up on a wall with hooks to be flayed. Both of these could also have enhanced the resemblance of Jesus’ crucifixion to the Passover sacrifice in the Evangelist’s mind. Meeks, Prophet-King, 77, notes a possible allusion to Psalm 33:20 LXX, where the righteous one’s bones are protected from being broken. He tentatively supports Bultmann’s assertion that Psalm 33 was the basis for the original tradition, and that the Evangelist adjusted the quotation to tie Ps 33:20 to Ex 12:10. 243 See Ford, “Blood,” 337–38, for discussion and references. The requirement seems to be based on the Biblical description of the blood flowing from the sacrificial animal “like water” (Deut 12:16, 24; 15:23). Cf. M. Miguens, “‘Salió sangre y agua’ (Jn. 19,34),” Studii Biblici Franciscani Liber Annuus 14 (1963–64), 13–20. Melito of Sardis is the earliest interpreter on record to read John 19 in light of the Passover sacrifice. In his Paschal Homily, 4, 71, he makes reference to Jesus’ unbroken bones as a fulfillment of the Passover requirement, while in 56, he interprets Jesus’ statement,

318

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

the Passover feast fits well with his overall program of tying Jesus’ ministry to the fulfillment of the Jewish festivals. 244 Even if the flow of blood and water does not address the issue of congealed blood, it probably still has sacrificial significance.245 This is supported by the numerous places in the priestly code where blood and water are used together in rituals to consecrate priests (Exodus 29), inaugurate covenants (Exodus 24), and purify lepers (Leviticus 14). These are picked up by the author of Hebrews in several places. For example, Heb 9:19 speaks of Moses inaugurating the “first” covenant with water and blood.246 Hebrews 10:22 portrays believers in terms of Exodus 29:4, 21 as having been consecrated into an eschatological priesthood by having their bodies washed with pure water and their hearts sprinkled (presumably with blood, cf. Heb 12:24, 1 Pet 1:2) from uncleanness.247

244

245

246

247

τετέλεσται (John 19:30) as indicating fulfillment of the mystery of the Passover: τὸ τοῦ μυστήριον τετέλεσται ἐν τῷ τοῦ κυρίου σώματι. See Nagel, Rezeption, 85, 89. On the theme of feast and fulfillment in John, see Brown, Gospel, 1:201–206; Gale A. Yee, Jewish Feasts and the Gospel of John (Zacchaeus Studies; Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, 1989); Michael A. Daise, Feasts in John Jewish Festivals and Jesus’ “Hour” in the Fourth Gospel (WUNT 229; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007); Aileen Guilding, The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship: A Study of the Relation of St. John’s Gospel to the Ancient Jewish Lectionary System (Oxford: Clarendon, 1960). For a detailed discussion of the water and blood in John 19:34, see Brown, Death, 1179–88. Cf. Larry Paul Jones, The Symbol of Water in the Gospel of John (JSNTSup 145; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997); G. T. Manning, Echoes of a Prophet: The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John and in Literature of the Second Temple Period (JSNTSup 270; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 172–193. Frédéric Manns, Le Symbole Eau-Esprit dans le Judaisme Ancien (SBF 19; Jerusalem: Franciscan, 1983). This is significant also because Hebrews is quoting from Exod 24:5–8, which mentions only blood, not water. It may be that the common sacrificial practice of diluting the blood with water (for the purpose of sprinkling) is assumed, but it could also be that the passion tradition preserved in John 19:34 has shaped the author’s depiction of the first covenant inauguration. For discussion of water and blood in Hebrews 9:19, see D. DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 310; Craig Koester, Hebrews: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 36; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 419; Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 257; Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 467–68; Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox), 241; William L. Lane, Hebrews 9–13 (WBC 47b; Dallas: Word, 1991), 244–45. Most commentators hold that the author of Hebrews has simply conflated Exodus 24 with other sacrificial rituals, such as Lev 14:1–9 and Num 19:1–10. A. H. Franke, Das alte Testament bei Johannes: Ein Beitrag zur Erklärung und Beurteilung der johanneischen Schriften (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1885), 268, sees John 19:34 as a possible reference to the priestly consecration of Exodus 29.

A Non-Polemical, Legal-Messianic Proposal

319

Early Christian interpreters also noted the connection between John 19 and OT sacrifices. Origen, for instance, in his Homiles on Leviticus, links the blood and water in both John 19:34 and 1 John 5:6 to the elements used in Lev 14:5 in the cultic purification of leprosy.248 Origen also considers the flow of blood in John 19:34 to be a miraculous sign of the sacrificial nature of Christ’s death, since the blood usually congeals in a dead body.249 Of course, it may well be that the Evangelist intends the blood by itself to indicate the sacrificial significance of the death, while the water is meant to show that the living water of the Holy Spirit is released through Jesus’ glorification/death. This would be in fulfillment of John 7:37–39, as well as in keeping with the possible epexegesis of water and spirit in John 3:5 and 4:14, 23 (probably looking back to Ezekiel 36:25–26; 47:1–9, and Zechariah 13:1; 14:8).250

d. Jesus as Priest in the Fourth Gospel Another angle from which the sacrificial significance of Jesus’ death can be analyzed is the depiction of Jesus as priest in the Fourth Gospel.251 If Jesus is pictured as a priest, then his death may very well be portrayed as his priestly sacrifice or offering. While this suggestion 248 Origen, Hom. Lev. 8.12. See also Comm. Joh. 6.224. Justin, Fragments, 10, if authentic, contains the same interpretation. Even if it is not authentic, it likely goes back at least to the second century. 249 Origen, Cels. 2.36. 250 See Manning, Echoes, 172–93; M. J. J. Menken, “The Origin of the Old Testament Quotation in John 7:38,” NovT 38 (1996): 160–75; M. J. J. Menken, “‘Rivers of Living Water Shall Flow From His Inside’ (John 7:38),” in Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form (CBET 15; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996), 187–203; Joel Marcus, “Rivers of Living Water from Jesus’ Belly (John 7:38),” JBL 117 (1998): 328–30; Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Body-Piercing, the Natural Sense, and the Task of Theological Interpretation: A Hermeneutical Homily on John 19:34,” Ex Auditu 16 (2000): 1–29, who sees a reference back to Ezekiel 47, as well as a Paschal reference. An allusion back to Ezekiel 47 would be especially significant in that it would work well with the Johannine concept of Jesus’ body as temple (in John 2:21). Alan R. Kerr, The Temple of Jesus’ Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John (JSNTSup 220; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 241–42, sees the blood as an allusion to the Passover sacrifice, while the water represents the giving of the Spirit, with reference back to John 7:38–39. Kerr, Temple, 244, also points out that the order of the flow, blood then water, supports the thought of 7:38–39, indicating that the death of Jesus precedes the giving of the Spirit. For discussion of Temple typology in the Fourth Gospel, see Paul M. Hoskins, Jesus as the Fulfillment of the Temple in the Gospel of John (PBM; Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006). 251 For discussions, see John Paul Heil, “Jesus as the Unique High Priest in the Gospel of John,” CBQ 57 (1995): 729–45; Kerr, Temple, 314–370.

320

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

is, like the sacrificial question as a whole, hotly contested by Johannine scholars, there are several avenues that merit exploration. First, Jesus seems to be depicted in a priestly role in John 17, as he intercedes on behalf of his disciples, emphasizes his role as the bearer of the divine name (17:6, 11–12, 26),252 and sanctifies himself in order to sanctify his disciples (17:19, 17; cf. 10:36).253 Second, the seamless tunic of John 19:23 has often been taken as an allusion to the tunic worn by the high priest on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:4)—which Josephus says was woven seamlessly254—or to the ephod of the high priest (Exod 28:32; 39:23).255 Third, Exodus 29:4 describes how Moses consecrated Aaron into the high priesthood by means of a ritual bathing; perhaps when Jesus washes the feet of his disciples, he is consecrating them as priests in a new temple created by his death and resurrection.256 While all of these sacrificial or priestly allusions may not have been intended by the author of the Fourth Gospel, they do suggest the likelihood of a sacrificial significance for Jesus’ death in the Evangelist’s presentation.

252 Ibid., 335, 345. 253 The sanctification or consecration here may be depicting Jesus as high priest or as sacrifice. Either supports the argument for a sacrificial significance for his death in John. See Lindars, John, 528–29; Kerr, Temple, 367–68. 254 Josephus, Ant. 3.161: ἔστι δ᾽ ὁ χιτὼν οὗτος οὐκ ἐκ δυοῖν περιτμημάτων ὥστε ῥαπτὸς ἐπὶ τῶν ὤμων εἶναι καὶ τῶν παρὰ πλευράν, φάρσος δ᾽ ἓν ἐπίμηκες ὑφασμένον σχιστὸν ἔχει βροχωτῆρα πλάγιον. Noted by R. Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John (3 vols.; New York: Crossroad, 1982), 3:274. 255 See I. de la Potterie, “La tunique sans couture, symbole du Christ grand prêtre?” Bib 60 (1979): 255–69; Schnackenburg, Gospel, 3:274; Heil, Blood, 89–92; M. Coloe, Dwelling in the Household of God: Johannine Ecclesiology and Spirituality (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2007), 287, argues for the ephod reference. Most recently, see the defense of priestly imagery in H. K. Bond, “Discarding the Seamless Robe: The High Priesthood of Jesus in John’s Gospel,” in Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity: Essays in Honor of Larry W. Hurtado and Alan F. Segal (ed. David B. Capes, Larry W. Hurtado, and Alan F. Segal; Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007), 183–94. 256 See J. C. Thomas, Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine Community (JSNTSup 61; Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1991), 26–31; Kerr, Temple, 278–92. This would not conflict with the likelihood that footwashing also had connotations of hospitality, i.e., that Jesus acts as host. See Arland J. Hultgren, “The Johannine Footwashing (13.1–11) as Symbol of Eschatological Hospitality,” New Testament Studies 28 (1982): 539–46; M. Coloe, “Welcome into the Household of God: The Footwashing in John 13,” CBQ 66 (2004): 400–15. The house into which Jesus’ symbolic act of hospitality welcomes his disciples could be construed as the new temple, the house of God. The priesthood into which he inducts his disciples would grant them the ability to forgive and retain sins (John 20:23).

A Non-Polemical, Legal-Messianic Proposal

321

e. Blood and Water in Jewish Midrash A final possibility for intepreting John 19:34 is to take the flow of blood and water as an allusion to the Pentateuchal story of Moses striking the rock in the wilderness. Exodus Rabbah 3.14 contains an interpretation of Psalm 78:20, which retells the wilderness water episode. The Psalm uses the same word (bwz) for the gushing of the water from the rock that Lev 15:25 uses for the menstrual flow. This allows the Midrash to connect the two by means of gezerah shawah, and thus to interpret the wilderness rock as issuing both blood and water. The same tradition appears also in the Palestinian Targum of Num 20:11. The Biblical text states that Moses struck the rock twice, a puzzling fact the Targum accounts for by explaining that the first time Moses struck the rock, blood flowed out; the second time, waters gushed forth. In early Christian exegesis, Christ was commonly identified with the rock, 257 so it is not impossible that the flow from Jesus’ side could have been read in light of the Jewish exegetical tradition, especially since John 7:38–39 probably also alludes back to the episode of the wilderness rock.258 If this is the case, the implication would be that Jesus, like the messianic prefiguration, the wilderness rock, provides life to his pilgrim people in the flow of blood and water. Several of the above explanations of the blood and water of John 19:34 are quite involved, and would require keen insight or substantial background information on the part of the reader. 259 This, however, should not necessarily be seen as a point against them. That the Fourth

257 Via Ps 118:22; Isa 8:14; 28:16. See 1 Cor 10:4; cf. Rom 9:33; 1 Pet 2:8. For discussion, see R. Longenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (SBT 17; London: SCM, 1970), 50–53. 258 See Menken, “Origin,” 160–75; Burge, Community, 91. See also Germain Bienaimé, Moïse et le don de l’eau dans la tradition juive ancienne: targum et midrash (AnBib 98; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1984), 78–80, 82–87, 120–21; T. F. Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel (London: SCM, 1963), 54–55; DeYoung, “Middle-Heaven,” 19–20; Vanhoozer, “Body,” 1–29, also detects an echo here. It is significant that the order of the two issues (blood, then water) matches the order of John 19:34. 259 Lest there be any confusion at this point, I wish to make clear that I believe the “blood” in 1 John 5:6 refers back to Jesus’ death, especially as narrated in the Fourth Gospel. Because the Fourth Gospel’s narration depicts a flow of “blood and water” after Jesus’ death, it is natural that many commentators have thought that both the “blood” and the “water” of 1 John 5:6 referred back to the death of Jesus. I, however, take the water to refer to Jesus’ baptism, and the blood alone to refer to Jesus’ death. First John’s use of the “blood” symbol is likely meant to invoke the entire Johannine presentation of Jesus’ death, with all its sacrificial layers of meaning, as well as its effect in releasing the Spirit.

322

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

Gospel’s account of Jesus’ crucifixion and death is a locus of numerous highly symbolic events is indicated by the authorial aside in 19:35, which emphatically and solemnly attests to the beloved disciple’s veracity.260 The Evangelist clearly believes that this is an event worthy of close reflection, especially the kind of reflection that discerns how the crucifixion brings Israel’s sacrificial practices and institutions to a climax and fulfillment.

4. Jesus’ Sacrificial Death as a Witness to his Messiahship I have argued so far that when 1 John 5:6 says that Jesus the Messiah came “through/in blood,” it is referring to the climactic point of his ministry, his death on the cross, conceived as a liberating Passover sacrifice, just as the Fourth Gospel portrays it. The next step, therefore, is to ask whether the Fourth Gospel in any way portrays Jesus’ sacrificial death as a witness to Jesus’ messianic identity and status. Did the Evangelist see Jesus’ atoning death as something essential to Jesus’ messiahship? There is every reason to answer in the affirmative.261

a. Messianic Titles and Sacrifice in the Fourth Gospel First, the Fourth Gospel links the key messianic titles to the concept of an atoning sacrifice. John 1 exemplifies this, as the testimony of the Baptist that Jesus is the Son of God (1:34) is sandwiched between two declarations that Jesus is the Lamb of God (1:29, 36). The reader is intended to deduce from the sequence that Jesus’ function as the Passover lamb who takes away the sin of the world is intimately connected to his status as God’s Son. The two disciples who hear John call Jesus the Lamb of God (1:37) evidently draw the correct conclusion, as they soon report to Simon that Jesus is the Messiah (1:41). Likewise, in John 6, Jesus’ discourse concerning his flesh and blood, which the disciples must eat (reminiscent of the Passover lamb), is brought to a 260 Brown, Death, 1178, notes that the flow of blood and water fills a slot similar to that filled by the earthquake and rending of the temple veil in Matthew and Mark. All of these are symbolic pointers to the significance of Jesus’ death; they are intended to lead to the proper confession (see, e.g., Matt 27:54 for the centurion’s confession). 261 Brooke, Johannine Epistles, xl, takes the testimonial use of blood in 1 John 5:6 to indicate “that both His sufferings and His death were essential parts of His Messianic work of salvation.”

A Non-Polemical, Legal-Messianic Proposal

323

climax when Peter and the rest of the faithful disciples are not turned away by this saying, but instead make the correct confession: “We have believed and know that you are the Holy One of God” (6:69). This ascription is most likely to be taken in a messianic sense.262 It is the Johannine version of the Synoptic confession at Caesarea Philippi: “You are the Christ” (Mark 8:29 and pars.).263 Once again, the proper conclusion to draw from Jesus’ talk of his sacrificial death is that Jesus is the promised Messiah.

b. Messianic Prophecies Fulfilled in Jesus’ Sacrificial Death Second, many times, the Fourth Gospel alludes to messianic prophecies when it speaks of Jesus’ sacrificial death, thus indicating that Jesus meets messianic requirements precisely through his atoning work. Most prominent among these is Isaiah 53, 264 probably a source for the lamb (ἀμνός) terminology in John 1 that undergirds the entire Johannine Passover sacrifice motif. Isaiah 53 is also quoted in John 12:38 to describe Jesus’ rejection by the people, which eventually climaxes in his death. The use of δίκαιος, the motif of intercession, and the concept of atoning sacrifice in 1 John 2:1–2 could very well all have

262 See the discussion above, p. 152, on this title and its use in 1 John 2:20. While it was probably not widely used as a messianic title prior to Jesus, early Christian exegesis likely took it in a messianic sense, as witnessed by Acts 3:14; Mark 1:25; Luke 1:35; Rev 3:7. See O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1980), 285. It may have been derived from Ps 16:10 (so Köstenberger, John, 221), which is interpreted messianically in Acts 2:27; 13:35, but the psalm uses dysj/ὅσιος, not vdq/ἅγιος. Also possible is a source in Dan 9:26, where “Messiah” and “Holy One” are juxtaposed. 263 As Cullmann, Christology, 288, says, “‘Son of God’ and ‘Holy One of God’ are almost interchangeable.” Cullmann also notes the way that John 10:36 refers Jesus’ holiness to his consecration by God prior to being sent into the world. The title has frequently been taken in a priestly sense, with a possible background in Ps 105:16 LXX, where Aaron is called the “holy one of the Lord.” G. Friedrich, “Beobachtungen zur messianischen Hohenpriestererwartung in den Synoptikern,” ZTK 53 (1956), 275–78, argues that its use in the Synoptics reflects the anticipation of a messianic eschatological high priest. 264 On the use of Isaiah 53 in John, see especially Peter Stuhlmacher, “Isaiah 53 in the Gospels and Acts,” in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources (ed. B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 159–60.

324

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

their source in Isa 53:11–12, where the servant bears the same name and performs the same actions.265 Another strand of messianic imagery is that of the eschatological Davidic shepherd in Ezekiel 34–37. Jesus alludes to this numerous times when he portrays himself as the “good shepherd” in John 10.266 Once again, this messianic prophecy is linked to Jesus’ death: he gathers God’s people and fulfills the role of the good Davidic shepherd by laying down his life for the sheep (John 10:15, 17–18).267 Not surprisingly, it is at the crucifixion that the messianic allusions pile up. I discussed above the sacrificial imagery in the crucifixion account, with its background in Isaiah 53 and the Passover ritual. In addition to these, though, are allusions to Zech 12:10 in John 19:36, and Psalm 22:18 in John 19:24.268 Both of these were taken to be messianic prophecies by the early church,269 and the Evangelist has closely connected them, especially the prophecy from Zechariah, to the details of the Passion.270 In the Fourth Gospel, Jesus is truly revealed as 265 The same title appears in other passages linked to Isaiah 53. See Acts 7:52, James 5:6, Wis 2:12–13, 17–20. For discussion of the messianic interpretation of the term, see Hays, “Apocalyptic,” 119–42. See above, p. 242. 266 See Andreas J. Köstenberger, “Jesus the Good Shepherd Who Will Also Bring Other Sheep (John 10:16): The Old Testament Background of a Familiar Metaphor,” BBR 12 (2002): 67–96; Manning, Echoes, 100–131; see also the essays in Johannes Beutler and R. T. Fortna, eds., The Shepherd Discourse of John 10 and Its Context (SNTSMS 67; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991). 267 As Köstenberger, “Good Shepherd,” 78–80, argues, John 10 reads Ezekiel 34–37 through the lens of the smitten shepherd image in Zech 13:7. 268 Psalm 22 may also be in the background of the account of the blood and water that flowed from Jesus’ side. In Ps 22:14 the righteous sufferer exclaims, “I am poured out like water.” The image of “pouring out” in Isa 53:12 may also be compared (Brown, Death, 1180; Franke, Das alte Testament, 184). John may read this in concert with the possible references to “piercing” in Ps 22:16 and Isa 53:5. It is also possible that the Evangelist is invoking the broader context of the piercing in Zechariah 12, which speaks of mourning over an “only son” and a “firstborn” (12:10). Notably, in Zech 12:10, the piercing is tied to the pouring out of God’s Spirit upon his people. 269 See Mark 15:24 and pars.; Matt 24:30; Rev 1:7. 270 Whether they would have been thought messianic in pre-Christian interpretation is hotly disputed. Cullmann, Christology, 56, is representative when he says, “One can at best find faint traces of a suffering Messiah in Judaism.” Cf. John J. Collins, Encounters with Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 171–72; M. Pickup, “The Emergence of the Suffering Messiah in Rabbinic Literature,” in Approaches to Ancient Judaism (ed. J. Neusner; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 143–62. J. Jeremias (in W. Zimmerli and J. Jeremias, The Servant of God [SBT 20; London: SPCK, 1957]), famously argued that Isaiah 53 was interpreted messianically prior to Jesus. Certainly, by the time of the Similitudes of Enoch and the targums (Targum PseudoJonathan and Targum Isaiah), the Isaianic servant was seen as a Messiah, but the aspect of suffering is suppressed (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Qumran Messianism,” in The

A Non-Polemical, Legal-Messianic Proposal

325

Messiah when he is lifted up as the crucified one.271 His sacrificial death as an atoning Passover lamb-good shepherd-high priest-righteous suffering servant is an essential part of his messianic mission and a clear witness to his messianic identity. The readers of the Gospel are meant to rely upon the beloved disciple’s reliable eyewitness testimony to the events of the Passion and to believe that Jesus is the prophesied Messiah, i.e., that “these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture” (John 19:35–36).

c. Messiah and Sacrifice Elsewhere in the NT The Fourth Evangelist is not alone among early Christians in insisting that Jesus’ sacrificial death is part and parcel of his messianic mission. Such a claim is at the heart of many New Testament texts. In the Synoptic tradition, a constant theme is the prophetic necessity for the Son of Man to fulfill the Scriptures through his sacrificial suffering, often depicted as a ransom (with a background either in Passover or

Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins [SDSSRL; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], 74– 75; Bruce Chilton, The Isaiah Targum [Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, 1987], 80, 84, 103– 04). For recent statements in favor of a pre-Christian suffering Messiah, see Roy A. Rosenberg, “The Slain Messiah in the Old Testament,” ZAW 99 (1987): 259–61; Hengel, “Jesus, der Messias Israels: Zum Streit über das ‘messianische Selbstbewußtsein’ Jesu,” in Messiah and Christos: Studies in the Jewish Origins of Christianity. Presented to David Flusser on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday (ed. by I. Gruenwald, et al; TSAJ 32; Tübingen: Mohr, 1992), 164, who calls the reigning opinion “questionable” in light of Qumran evidence; W. Horbury, “Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose,” in Messianism among Jews and Christians: Twelve Biblical and Historical Studies (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 289–327; Knohl, Messiah. A messianic interpretation of Zech 12:10 appears in b.Sukkah 52a, to describe Messiah ben Joseph’s death. It seems probable that this interpretation dates to the preChristian era, since rabbinic interpreters would be unlikely to lend credence to Christian messianic testimonia. See Justin, Dial. 36.1; 39.7; 89.2; 90.1, where Trypho seems to accept a messianic reading of Isaiah 53’s suffering servant. Assuming that Justin has reliably represented Jewish opinion, it is unlikely that Jewish exegetes would arrive at this interpretation after early Christians had done so, and thus concede the basic point to the Christians. More recently, the discovery of the lithograph Hazon Gabriel, dated to the first century BCE or early first century CE on linguistic and paleographical bases, has brought to light a possible witness for a preChristian suffering Messiah concept. See the discussion in Knohl, “Three Days,” 147–58, for an argument that the text is a precursor to the more fully developed Messiah Ben-Joseph of Rabbinic thought. 271 Note John 12:27 where Jesus states that his coming crucifixion (called his “glorification” in v. 23) is the very purpose for which he has “come.”

326

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

the Day of Atonement).272 Mark 15:39 brings this theme to an ironic climax when the Roman soldier becomes a mouthpiece for Mark’s point: Jesus is the fulfillment of messianic prophecy (the Son of God) precisely in that he is the unjustly crucified suffering servant. This is demonstrated throughout the Synoptic Passion narratives by the constant references to Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 and 69—all used to highlight the way that Jesus’ death fulfills his mission as the anointed Servant of the Lord. Luke 24:46 makes the point explicitly: it has been written in Scripture that the Messiah had to suffer and rise on the third day. Likewise, throughout Hebrews, Jesus’ sacrificial death and his offering in the heavenly tabernacle is explained as the reason for the Messiah’s “coming” into the world (10:5–11; a very Johannine thought), and as the eschatological fulfillment of Israel’s cultic institutions.273 In Revelation, it is by his death as the slain Passover lamb, whose blood has freed his people from sin (1:5–6; 5:9), that Jesus carries out his messianic mission as the conquering Lion of Judah (5:5–6). In light of this widespread pattern linking Jesus’ death to his messianic mission, it should be evident that Jesus’ sacrificial death was commonly understood as a witness to his messianic identity; his death as a ransom (ἀντίλυτρον) was, in the words of 1 Timothy, a testimony (μαρτύριον) given at the right time (2:6).

d. Water and Blood as the Termini of the Messianic Mission In view of the way that Jesus’ baptism and sacrificial death were represented as pointers to his messianic sonship, 1 John 5:6 begins to make sense as a direct, succinct summary of the two terminal points of Jesus’ ministry. Jesus Christ is the one “who came through” (ὁ ἐλθὼν διά) these two events in the sense that they mark the beginning and completion of his messianic mission.274 He is the one “coming in” the 272 See Mark 8:27–33; 9:12, 30–33 (with allusions to Isaiah 53 by use of “handed over” and “despised”); Mark 10:32–34, 45; 14:24 and pars. Cf. Acts 3:18; 17:3; 26:23. 273 One sees the same messianic loci appealed to in Hebrews. E.g., see Heb 2:12 for a quotation of Psalm 22. 274 See above, p. 219, on the use of ἔρχομαι in messianic formulations. In the Fourth Gospel especially ὁ ἐρχόμενος seems to be a messianic title of sorts (cf. Matt 11:3; Luke 7:20), where it appears to function as the complement to the frequent language of “sending” in the Fourth Gospel. When the Evangelists speak of Jesus’ coming, the focus is often not on the incarnation as such, but on the “salvific mission” as a whole (so Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 265; Westcott, Epistles, 181; Brown, Epistles, 576;

A Non-Polemical, Legal-Messianic Proposal

327

water and the blood in the sense that his baptism and sacrificial death are both crucial moments for revealing the nature of his messianic mission.275 They testify both to the fact and the character of messiahship.276

Schnackenburg, Epistles, 232; Michaels, “Water,” 160). This sense is ubiquitous in the Synoptics: Luke 5:32, οὐκ ἐλήλυθα καλέσαι δικαίους ἀλλὰ ἁμαρτωλοὺς εἰς μετάνοιαν; Luke 12:49, πῦρ ἦλθον βαλεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, καὶ τί θέλω εἰ ἤδη ἀνήφθη; Luke 19:10, ἦλθεν γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ζητῆσαι καὶ σῶσαι τὸ ἀπολωλός; cf. Mark 1:38; Luke 7:34; 13:35; 19:38. When διά is used with verbs of coming or going, it almost always has a local force (see Carson, “Witnesses,” 223; contra Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 267, who sees it indicating manner). In 1 John 5, the local force likely applies, but each of the media (water and blood) is symbolic of an event. One may compare Isa 43:2 LXX and Ps 65:12 LXX, where ὕδωρ and πῦρ function similar to water and blood in 1 John 5:6: διήλθομεν διὰ πυρὸς καὶ ὕδατος. Miguens, “Tres Testigos,” 85–87, argues on the basis of these two parallels that water and blood in 1 John 5:6 should be seen as the human experiences of baptism and the martyr’s death through which Jesus passed and through which his followers must also be willing to pass to participate in his salvation. For Miguens, the “overcoming” faith in 1 John 5:5 is conceptually parallel to the overcoming faithfulness of the martyrs in Revelation, who wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb by following him to martyrdom. Cf. Winterbotham, “Spirit,” 62–71. This reading can be traced back as far as the end of the second century (Tertullian, Bapt. 16). In the same vein, Rusam, Gemeinschaft, 176–77, has proposed that because of persecution, the author’s opponents are unwilling to be baptized, and are thus unwilling to follow Jesus in water and blood. That is, they are not willing to convert. Rusam understands 1 John to be confronting two groups, one of apostates who have left the community to return to their former beliefs (present in 2:18–27) and one of those who are refusing to take the final step of conversion. See above, fn. 62, in Chapter 4. 275 I see, then, a subtle shift in focus between ἐν and διά, in slight contrast to most commentators, who see only a stylistic variation (Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 267; Marshall, Epistles, 232; Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 301; Rensberger, 1 John, 131; Brooke, Johannine Epistles, 135). As to the purpose of the statement that Jesus came in water and blood, see Westcott, Epistles, 181: “He was shown to be the Christ” by the water and blood. For him the focus is on Jesus as the coming one in the sense of “He that fulfilled the promises of the Father, as the Saviour sent from God.” Bengel, Gnomon, 806, has the same idea: “Jesus, who came by water and blood, is by this very fact pointed out as the Christ.” Cf. Griffith, Keep, 159. 276 It is interesting to note that early Christian literature apparently adopts this way of summarizing Jesus’ ministry. The synagogue homily of Paul and Barnabas in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:16–41) moves directly from Jesus’ baptism by John (v. 24) to his crucifixion (vv. 27–28). Barnabas 11:1 sums up Christ’s ministry as “the water and the cross.” Ignatius, in his letter to the Ephesians, encapsulates Christ’s ministry with a creedal formula that moves from his baptism to his passion (18:2; ἐβαπτίσθη ἵνα τῷ πάθει τὸ ὕδωρ καθαρίσῃ).

328

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

5. The Role of the Spirit The third witness in 1 John 5:6 is the Spirit. Any explanations of the Spirit’s function in this passage—especially how it relates to the water and blood—must answer the following questions: 1) Does πνεῦμα refer to the divine Spirit or the human spirit (or both)? 2) Is the Spirit’s witness internal or external (or both)? 3) Is the Spirit’s witnessing activity past or present (or both) in relation to the audience? 4) How does the Spirit witness to Jesus’ messiahship? 5) How is the Spirit’s witness related to that of the water and blood?

a. The Spirit in First John The first step to answering these questions is to examine the use of πνεῦμα in the letter up to this point.277 In 1 John 3:24 πνεῦμα appears to refer to the divine Spirit, or at least a spirit which has its origin in God, who gives it. The Spirit that God gives provides knowledge and assurance that God/Jesus dwells in or among the author and his audience (ἐν ἡμῖν). This appears to be a present testimony to a present fact. Whether it is internal to the individual or external to the individual (but internal to the community) is not explicit. A closer parallel to our passage is 4:1–6, discussed above in Chapter 4. Here, it is only necessary to note that πνεῦμα probably refers to a spirit (or the Spirit) that inspires an individual to prophesy. 278 The Spirit that is from God can be discerned by the content of its testimony. It confesses that Jesus is the Messiah-come-in-the-flesh. This witnessing activity is thus a present reality for the community, and is internal (ἐν 277 For discussion of the role of the Holy Spirit in 1 John, see J. E. Coetzée, “The Holy Spirit in 1 John,” Neot 13 (1979): 43–67; I. de la Potterie and Stanislas Lyonnet, The Christian Lives by the Spirit (Staten Island, N.Y.: Alba House, 1971); Burge, Anointed, 171–78; Potterie, “Anointing,” 79–143; Mills, “Holy Spirit,” 33–50; Moberly, “Test,” 296–307; R. Schnackenburg, “Die Johanneische Gemeinde und ihre Geisterfahrung,” in Die Kirche Des Anfangs (ed. R. Schnackenburg, J. Ernst, and J. Wanke; Freiburg: Herder, 1978), 277–306. First John 2:18–27 should also be included in the discussion, because while it does not use πνεῦμα, the term χρῖσμα appears to be functionally equivalent as it has the same effects: it provides knowledge of the truth and is closely connected to the confession of Jesus as the Christ; it abides in the community/individual and results in the indwelling of the Father and Son in the believer and vice versa, accompanied by eternal life. See Bultmann, Epistles, 80, who links 1 John 2:20, 27 with 4:2 and 5:6. 278 Thus, it is a spirit of external origin and not the individual’s own spirit, although it may work in tandem with, or even functionally replace, the individual’s own spirit.

A Non-Polemical, Legal-Messianic Proposal

329

ὑμῖν) to the community, and possibly to the individual. The Spirit here is identified as the “Spirit of God” and the “Spirit of Truth.” The next instance, in 4:13, is closely parallel to that in 3:24. God has given “us” his Spirit, and this assures “us” that “we” abide in him and vice versa.279 First John 5:6–8, and its use of πνεῦμα, appear to fall into the same pattern, which is not surprising given the author’s use of repetition to establish his points. Here, as well, it appears that πνεῦμα most likely has reference to a spirit or the Spirit from God, which presently witnesses to the community (and individuals within the community)280 that Jesus is the messianic Son of God, and that by virtue of their confession of Jesus—prompted by the presence of the divine Spirit281— the members of the community are assured that they have the eternal life mediated through the Son. The Spirit thus provides a present, more immediate, witness to Jesus as Messiah, in concert with the past events of Jesus’ baptism and sacrificial death.282 It would be incorrect, then, to understand the πνεῦμα in 5:6–8 to refer to instances in the earthly ministry of Jesus where the Spirit provided witness to Jesus and his messiahship.283 While these are certainly important moments within the Johannine tradition, the focus

279 I have placed “we” and “us” in quotes because the referent is ambiguous. On the one hand, they seem to be inclusive of the audience, as in 4:12 (ἐὰν ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους, ὁ θεὸς ἐν ἡμῖν μένει), while in 4:14, they appear to link back to the more exclusive group of witnesses who saw and touched and subsequently testified about the appearance of the word of life (1:1–2). 280 The individual and internal aspect of the Spirit’s witness may be expressed in 1 John 5:10: ὁ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ἔχει τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ. Theodor Häring, Die Johannesbriefe (Stuttgart: Calwer Vereinsbuchhandlung, 1927), 243; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 267, 272–73; Bonnard, Épitres, 108; Preiss, Témoignage, 36–39. It might better be understood in light of Rev 6:9; 12:17; 19:10, as holding on to the testimony, without a stress on its internality. 281 Grayston, Epistles, 138, is probably correct: “Presumably he means here [5:6] what he means in 4:1, namely, an inspired prophetic utterance.” Dodd, Epistles, 131, also sees the Spirit as a reference to prophetic activity. Cf. R. Kempthorne, “‘As God is my Witness!’ John 19, 34–35,” SE 6 (1973), 289. Wurm, Irrlehrer, 76–77, thinks the Spirit’s witness takes the form of spiritual gifts and charismatic signs. Bonnard, Épitres, 108, argues that the Spirit’s testimony is better understood as the initial catechesis (the chrisma, or teaching) received at baptism, not prophecy or the inner testimony of the Spirit. 282 Wurm, Irrlehrer, 76–77; Weiss, “Gnosis,” 347. 283 As, for example, Grayston, Epistles, 138, does. He is then unable to explain why the Spirit is presented as a third witness alongside the blood and water.

330

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

in the Epistle is on the present work of the Spirit.284 Jesus is not said in 5:6 to have come διὰ πνεύματος or ἐν τῷ πνεύματι, as he did δι᾽ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος and ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ ἐν τῷ αἵματι.285 Of course, the Spirit’s present work is in substantial continuity with its past activity, as presented in the Fourth Gospel.286 The content of the testimony is essentially the same: that Jesus is the messianic Son of God. The continuing work of the Spirit, though, takes on a greater importance as a second generation joins the community, a generation that does not itself have the eyewitness experience preserved in the Fourth Gospel.287 Unlike Thomas, they believe, even though they have not seen (John 20:29). They must rely on the accounts of eyewitnesses, but these accounts are accompanied by the witnessing presence of the Spirit.

b. The Spirit in the Fourth Gospel My explanation is supported by a survey of the Spirit’s activity in the Fourth Gospel.288 The first clear reference to the Spirit occurs in the

284 Contra Rensberger, 1 John, 133, who thinks that “the author wants to identify the testimony to the blood and water in [John] 19:34–35 as that of the Spirit.” That would make the focus of the Spirit’s witness the true humanity of Jesus. 285 The thought of Jesus coming διὰ πνεύματος is not impossible, as Heb 9:14 attests. 286 Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 267. 287 Thus, the witness of the Spirit should not be limited to the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, as Witherington, Letters, 545, seems to do. 288 For discussion of the role of the Holy Spirit in the Fourth Gospel, see Tricia Gates Brown, Spirit in the Writings of John: Johannine Pneumatology in Social-Scientific Perspective (JSNTSup 253; London: T&T Clark, 2003); Cornelis Bennema, The Power of Saving Wisdom: An Investigation of Spirit and Wisdom in Relation to the Soteriology of the Fourth Gospel (WUNT 2.148; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002); Burge, Community; George Johnston, The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John (SNTSMS 12; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970); E. Franck, Revelation Taught: The Paraclete in the Gospel of John (ConBNT 14; Lund: Gleerup, 1985); J. Becker, “Endzeitlicher Geist und gottesdienstliche Gestaltung im johanneischen Kreis,” in Eschatologie und Ethik im frühen Christentum. Festschrift für Günter Haufe zum 75. Geburtstag (ed. Christfried Böttrich; Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2006), 11–30; L. Wehr, “‘Er wird euch alles lehren und euch an alles erinnern, was ich euch gesagt habe’ (Joh 14,26): Die hermeneutische Funktion des Geist-Parakleten und die Kriterien der Traditionsbildung im Johannesevangelium,” in Pneuma und Gemeinde: Christsein in der Tradition des Paulus und Johannes. Festschrift für Josef Hainz zum 65. Geburtstag (ed. Jost Eckert et al; Düsseldorf: Patmos, 2001), 325–59; David Pastorelli, Le Paraclet dans le corpus johannique (BZNW 142; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006); F. Moloney, “The Johannine Paraclete and Jesus,” in Dummodo Christus annuntietur: Studi in onore del prof. Jozef

A Non-Polemical, Legal-Messianic Proposal

331

testimony of John the Baptist, who sees the Spirit descend from heaven and remain upon Jesus (John 1:32–33). This is explained as the mark which identifies Jesus as the one who baptizes in the Spirit, i.e., the Son of God. In John 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus that the Spirit allows those who possess it (those “born of Spirit”) to discern its activity and to recognize the truth. In 3:34, it is the Spirit who inspires accurate speech about God. In 4:23–34, the Spirit enables correct eschatological worship (the context indicates that this is worship of God through the Messiah). In John 6:63, it is the Spirit which prompts followers of Jesus to understand the salvific nature of his flesh and blood, given for the world. In 7:38–39, the Spirit is the promised blessing for those who believe in Jesus; it provides eternal life. It is to be noted that all these passages fit well with the function of the Spirit in 1 John. The focus of the Spirit’s activity is to witness to Jesus’ messiahship, to prompt proper confessions about Jesus, and thus to enable the eschatological worship of God. Talk of the Spirit clusters in the Farewell Discourse (John 13–17). In 14:12–17, Jesus returns to the Father in order that the Paraclete, identified as the Spirit of Truth (cf. 1 John 4:6), might be sent. The Paraclete-Spirit performs the following functions: 1) It abides in/among the disciples (14:17). 2) It allows the disciples to perform greater works than Jesus (14:12). 3) It teaches the disciples all things, i.e., it allows them to remember and understand what Jesus has told them (14:26; 16:12–15). 4) It will testify about Jesus (and will perhaps empower the disciples’ testimony about Jesus; 15:26–27). 5) It convicts the world concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment (16:7–11). In the Farewell Discourse, the work of the Spirit is wholly future. Its primary function is to empower proclamation and effect belief in Jesus as the Son, much the same as in 1 John. A direct parallel to 1 John 4:5–6 is John 14:17, where the world is not able to receive, recognize, or see the Spirit of Truth, because they do not possess it.289 Heriban (ed. Andrzej Strus et al.; Rome: Libreria Ateneo Salesiano, 1998), 213–28; J. Swetnam, “Bestowal of the Spirit in the Fourth Gospel,” Bib 74 (1993): 556–76. 289 The final two references to the Spirit in the Fourth Gospel occur in 19:30 and 20:22. These both have to do with the giving or imparting of the Spirit, proleptically at the crucifixion, and finally on the evening of the resurrection (the “Johannine Pentecost”). John 19:30 and 20:22 confirm what 7:38–39 and the Farewell Discourse taught, that the Spirit-Paraclete would not be sent until Jesus was lifted up; 20:22 reiterates the Spirit’s role in empowering the disciples’ witness and mission. The two passages also highlight Jesus as the Messiah who baptizes in the Spirit, as announced at the beginning of the narrative in John 1:33 (cf. Neander, First Epistle, 288).

332

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

The conclusion to be drawn from the survey is easily discerned. When 1 John 5:6–8 refers to the Spirit as the third witness, along with the water and the blood, it is almost certain that the author has in mind the Spirit-Paraclete of the Fourth Gospel, whose task it is to teach and to assure believers of the truth concerning Jesus—in short, to witness to Jesus. Just as the Spirit witnessed to Jesus as the messianic bearer of eternal life at his baptism, death, and resurrection, so it continues by means of the disciples’ mission to testify to the salvation wrought by the Son of God.290 Thus, the three witnesses—the water, blood, and Spirit—have the same purpose and goal, and they agree with regard to the content of their testimony (οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν, 5:8).

c. The Witnessing Spirit in the Rest of the NT The understanding of the Holy Spirit as a witness to the messianic sonship of Jesus is not limited to the Johannine tradition, but comprises an important strand of early Christian theology. In Acts, the coming and presence of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is conceived of as a witness to Jesus and his significance; it is by virtue of his death and resurrection-exaltation that the Spirit is dispensed (Acts 2:33). Thus the Spirit testifies by its very presence that Jesus is the one whose death and life marks the transition into the last days (Acts 2:17). Later, in Acts 5:32, the Spirit is expressly called a witness to Jesus’ messianic work: ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν μάρτυρες τῶν ῥημάτων τούτων καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὃ ἔδωκεν ὁ θεὸς τοῖς πειθαρχοῦσιν αὐτῷ. In Acts 14:3, it is through the apostles’ signs and wonders that the Lord “testifies to the message of his favor” (ἐπὶ τῷ κυρίῳ τῷ μαρτυροῦντι [ἐπὶ] τῷ λόγῳ τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ). Similarly, in Acts 15:8, God “witnesses” to the incorporation of Gentiles into the people of God by giving them the Holy Spirit. It should also not be ignored that the Spirit is portrayed throughout Acts as the empowering force behind the witness of the Apostles (see, e.g., Acts 1:8), and thus witnesses to Jesus as Messiah indirectly in this capacity. The Pauline letters291 and the rest of the NT292 follow the same pattern: the Spirit witnesses both to the truth of apostolic claims 290 A majority of commentators agree that the Spirit of 1 John 5:6–8 should be understood with reference to the Spirit-Paraclete of the Fourth Gospel. See Schnackenburg, Epistles, 234. 291 See 1 Cor 1:6; Gal 3:1–3; Eph 3:5; Rom 8:16; 1 Thess 1:5. 292 See Heb 2:4; 9:8; 10:15; 1 Pet 1:11–12; Rev 2:7 and pars; 19:10; 22:6; 22:16; 3 John 12.

A Non-Polemical, Legal-Messianic Proposal

333

concerning Jesus’ messianic status and salvific mission, and to the identity of believers as participants in that sphere of salvation. These are essentially the same functions found in the Johannine tradition, a fact that reinforces my reading of 1 John 5:6–8.

6. The Contrast Between Human and Divine Testimony The last major interpretive issue to be addressed regarding 1 John 5:6– 12 is the contrast between human and divine testimony in 5:9.293 The author uses a lesser-to-greater argument to support his claim that Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah, the bearer of eternal life. According to the author, God has testified these things concerning his Son. If “we” (the author and audience) accept the testimony given by human beings, surely we ought to accept the testimony given by God, which is far greater and of more value. The key question to be answered here is how the divine testimony and the human testimony relate to the three witnesses (water, blood, Spirit) just adduced. There are several proposals to be briefly considered.

a. The Three Witnesses as Human Testimony First, it may be that the human testimony refers to all three witnesses (water, blood, Spirit), in the sense that they are all mediated through human activity, whether that of John the Baptist (water), the apostolic eyewitness to the sacrificial death (blood), or the oracles of the prophets (Spirit).294 If this is the case, however, it is difficult to see how there could be any “purely” divine testimony to be appealed to, that is, testimony without human mediation. When would the testimony of God that Jesus is the saving Son have taken place? 295 Thus, this option is not very probable.

293 See the discussion in Brown, Epistles, 586–87. 294 Bonsirven, Épitres; Greiff, “Zeugen,” 479. 295 Brown, Epistles, 586, thinks that the divine testimony is another divine witness (the internal witness in the believer), in addition to the three already stated. In other words, the divine witness is 1 John 5:11 itself. This view, however, seems to unnecessarily multiply entities. It also divorces the three witnesses of 5:6–8 from their purpose, which is to point to Jesus’ messiahship. For another advocate of this view, see Talbert, Reading John, 50.

334

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

b. Blood and Water as Human Testimony, Spirit as Divine Testimony A second option is to take the first two witnesses (water and blood) as the human testimony, in the sense that they are clearly tied to historical events (baptism and crucifixion), to which human eyewitnesses (John the Baptist, the beloved disciple, the “we” of 1:1–2) give their testimony. The Spirit, however, is clearly on the divine side of the divine-human divide. It is God speaking directly to his people, whether through prophets or through an internal individual witness. The problem with this explanation, however, is that it fails to recognize that John the Baptist is certainly considered a prophet in the Johannine tradition, and thus speaks the words of God just as surely as the later community’s prophets. In addition, it is doubtful that the community would strictly differentiate the beloved disciple’s testimony, as well as that of the apostles, from God’s testimony, since, as the Fourth Gospel makes clear, it is the Spirit-Paraclete which empowers and inspires the apostolic witness.

c. Water as Human Testimony, Blood and Spirit as Divine Testimony Third, one could argue that only the first witness (water) is human, while the other two (blood and Spirit) are divine.296 While this is subject to the same objection as the previous view, it may find support in the Fourth Gospel, which appears to describe John the Baptist’s testimony as human, in contrast to the testimony of God. For example, in John 3:22–36, John the Baptist (or, perhaps the Evangelist) responds to some of his followers who have returned from a dispute with Jesus’ disciples.297 He reiterates his own testimony to Jesus as Messiah (3:28) but distinguishes his testimony, as one from the earth, from Jesus’ testimony, given by one from heaven. The one who accepts Jesus’ testimony has affirmed that God is true (3:31–32). The negative form of this statement appears in 1 John 5:10b, “The one who does not believe 296 This is similar to the view of Brown, Epistles, 586, 598, who sees the human testimony as John the Baptist’s, which the secessionists depended upon for their interpretation of Jesus’ baptism as the salvific moment as opposed to his crucifixion. The author, in response, adduces three witnesses to support his position that the death is salvific (Brown takes the “water and blood” to be a reference solely to the death). Cf. the same argument in Rensberger, 1 John, 133; Harris, 1, 2, 3 John, 219. 297 On this passage, see Jeffrey Wilson, “The Integrity of John 3:22–36,” JSNT 10 (1981): 34–41; J. Neyrey and R. Rohrbaugh, “‘He Must Increase, I must Decrease’ (John 3:30): A Cultural and Social Interpretation,” CBQ 63 (2001): 464–83.

A Non-Polemical, Legal-Messianic Proposal

335

God has made God a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning his Son.” The same contrast between human and divine testimony appears in John 5:31–40, 298 where Jesus, adducing witnesses on his behalf, appeals to John’s testimony (5:33), but identifies it as “human testimony” which he does not need, but which has been provided to the Jews that they may be saved (5:34). John’s human testimony is contrasted with the divine testimony of the Father on behalf of Jesus, in the form of the works he has given Jesus to do. This divine testimony “is greater than the testimony of John” (5:36). The clear parallels between this passage and 1 John 5:9–10 are compelling and have led many commentators to support this explanation.299

d. The Three Witnesses as Divine Testimony A fourth possibility is to explain the divine-human contrast as merely rhetorical. That is, none of the three witnesses is to be identified as human testimony. They are all components of God’s testimony concerning the Son. God’s witness was present at the baptism of Jesus in the form of the Spirit, and the inspired prophecy of the Baptist.300 It was present at the cross in the miraculous outflow of water and blood. And it abides in the community through the presence of the Spirit in individual believers as well as prophets. The human-divine contrast, then, appeals to the general legal practice of the day. In everyday life, people accept as true and valid the testimony of two or three human

298 See Von Wahlde, “Witnesses,” 385–404. Rensberger, 1 John, 133, argues for a strong link between John 5:31–40 and 1 John 5:9. Cf. Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 312. It is not, however, necessarily unassailable that the “human testimony” is referring specifically to John’s testimony. John is elsewhere explicitly said to be “from God” (John 1:6). It could be, then, that in John 5, the “human testimony” that Jesus does not need is the Jews’ (i.e., the conversation partners of Jesus) own testimony. Thus, in John 5:34, Jesus is saying that he has not adduced John’s testimony in order to persuade the Jews to testify about him, but in order for them to saved. 299 This view is all the more persuasive if 1 John 5:6 is taken as a contrast between John the Baptist who “comes in water only” and Jesus who comes bringing both water and blood. See above, pp. 294ff, for discussion. 300 The Synoptic tradition also includes God’s witness in the form of the voice from heaven.

336

1 John 5:6–12: Three Witnesses to Jesus the Messiah

witnesses; how much more should they accept as true and valid the three testimonies of God? 301 A similar argument is made in John 8:17–18, where “human testimony” refers to the generally accepted legal practice (i.e., not specifically to John’s testimony). Therefore, in the absence of an explicit reference to John the Baptist’s testimony, it seems likely that the divinehuman comparison in 1 John 5:9–10 has no specific human testimony in mind, but is merely a general lesser-to-greater argument.

VII. Conclusion In this chapter, I discussed the way that various historical reconstructions have identified the opponents of 1 John on the basis of 1 John 5:6–12, especially the key “three witnesses” passage. I then proposed an alternative explanation that better accounts for the textual and historical data. My conclusions concerning the passage are as follows: 1) None of the doctrinal deviations commonly proposed as the target of this passage clearly explains the language and rhetoric of the passage itself. 2) The passage should not be taken as a polemic against doctrinally deviant heretics. 3) The passage is meant rather to assure community members that their confession of Jesus as Messiah, Son of God, is correct and wellfounded. 4) The introduction of two or three witnesses is in accordance with Jewish legal practice regarding valid testimony. 5) The water and blood are references to Jesus’ baptism and death as the historical events which marked the inception and conclusion of Jesus’ messianic mission. 6) The use of “blood” to refer to Jesus’ death is intended to highlight its sacrificial significance. 7) By his presence in the community and its prophets, the third witness, the Spirit, presently affirms the messiahship of Jesus and testifies, for the benefit of those who were not eyewitnesses, to the truth of the community’s core beliefs. 301 Trites, Witness, 127; Westcott, Epistles, 185; Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 309; Carson, “Witnesses,” 229; Strecker, Letters, 192–93; Dodd, Epistles, 131–32; Witherington, Letters, 435.

Conclusion

337

8) The comparison between human and divine testimony is a lesser-to-greater argument that reiterates the force of the threefold divine witness (water, blood, and Spirit).

Chapter 6

2 John 4–11: The Teaching about the Messiah

In the previous chapters, I dealt with the three passages in 1 John (2:18– 27; 4:1–6; 5:6–11) upon which most scholarly reconstructions of the opponents depend. In addition to those three passages, most scholars also draw upon 2 John to supplement their picture of the opponents. The material in 2 John that addresses the problem of the secessionists is limited to verses 7–11. Much of the material repeats the themes and language of the key passages in 1 John. For example, the apocalyptic rhetoric of “antichrists” and “deceivers” who have “gone out into the world” echoes the warnings of 1 John 2:18–27 and 1 John 4:1–6, as does the emphasis on the confession of Jesus as the dividing line between friend and foe. Because the opponent material in 2 John is so similar to that of 1 John, scholars have almost unanimously identified the “antichrists” of 2 John with those of 1 John. Those who saw docetism, Cerinthianism, or a devaluation of Jesus’ life or death as the issue in 1 John find the same issue also being addressed in 2 John. There is therefore no need in this chapter to rehearse the major interpretive approaches. Rather, I will focus here on the two key elements in 2 John’s description which differ from, or supplement, the description in 1 John. First, 2 John 7 speaks of deceivers who “do not acknowledge Jesus Christ coming in flesh” (οἱ μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί). This is almost identical to the statement in 1 John 4:2. Only the tense of the participle differs.1 While 1 John 4:2 has the perfect tense ἐληλυθότα, 2 John 7 uses the present tense ἐρχόμενον. I will discuss

1

The word order is slightly different as well, but this does not affect the sense of the passage.

The Love Commandment (vv. 4–6)

339

whether the tense change indicates that the author is attacking a different aspect of the secessionists’ belief, as some have argued. The second issue to be dealt with is the meaning of 2 John 9, which warns against those who do not “remain in the teaching of Christ.” Such a person is designated as ὁ προάγων. This term, προάγω, has often been used to support a portrayal of the opponents as those who “go forward,” “press ahead,” or “go too far.” That is, they are “progressives”—whether they themselves claimed this title or not is disputed—who have left behind the teaching of Christ and have moved on to new beliefs and formulations which the author sees as an abandonment and betrayal of the community’s tradition. I will ask whether “progressive” is a sound translation of ὁ προάγων, and I will examine other options for understanding this term. These issues are best addressed through exegesis of the key verses in their context. Most of this chapter, therefore, will be devoted to a close reading of the body of the letter (vv. 4–11), with special attention to tracing the flow of the author’s argument, and to determining how the description of the opponents in 2 John can supplement the understanding of them gained from 1 John.2

I. The Love Commandment (vv. 4–6) Second John 4–6 sets the stage for the discussion of the opponents in vv. 7–11 by reiterating the love commandment, the ethical centerpiece of the Johannine literature. In v. 4, the author speaks of the audience as a community3 that “walks in truth,” an OT way of describing 2

3

The chronological relationship between 1 John and 2 John has little significance for the question of the opponents’ identity. Commentators have typically held that the Johannine Epistles are all roughly contemporaneous, but that an order may perhaps be discerned. Usually, the canonical order has been thought to reflect the chronological order. See, e.g. Brown, Epistles, 31–32; Westcott, Epistles, lvi; Harris, 1, 2, 3 John, 27; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, xx–xxi; J. Polhill, “The Setting of 2 John and 3 John,” SBJT 10 (2006), 29–30; Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 334. Some, however, have suggested that 2 John is written as the secession is still in progress, while 1 John appears to speak of the secession as a past event. Those who see 2 John preceding 1 John include Marshall, Epistles, 3–4; Talbert, Reading John, 4; Olsson, “History,” 35; Strecker, Letters, xxxvii–xlii; idem, “Chiliasm,” 45–61; Schnelle, Antidocetic, 46–53; J. C. Thomas, “The Order of the Composition of the Johannine Epistles,” NovT 37 (1995): 68–75; Lieu, Second, 90. The inscribed audience of the letter is, of course, the “elect lady,” but it is generally held that this is a cipher for the church community, and that the lady’s “children” are church members. See discussion in Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 54–56; Smalley, 1, 2, 3

340

2 John 4–11: The Teaching about the Messiah

faithfulness to God.4 This faithful lifestyle is in accordance with the commandment from the Father. The Johannine tradition mentions only two commandments as such.5 The most frequently mentioned in the Epistles is the love commandment (1 John 4:21), which is also the topic of the following verse (2 John 5) and is thus a very strong possibility here. The second commandment is to believe in the name of Jesus. This is joined to the love commandment in 1 John 3:23. 6 Given the tight connection in the Johannine tradition between faith in Jesus and love for the brethren, there is no need to choose between these two as the referent of 2 John 4. “Walking in the truth” in accordance with God’s command encompasses both faith toward God and love for fellow believers. The special focus of 2 John 5, though, is the love commandment. As in 1 John 2:7–8 and 3:11, the author explains here that the love commandment is not a novelty, but has in fact been the theme of the Johannine ethical instruction “from the beginning,” probably a reference to Jesus’ own ministry, which was the source of the love commandment (John 13:34). Verse 6 goes on to define this love in terms of living (περιπατεῖν) according to God’s commandments. This same definition of love appears in 1 John 2:4–5 and 5:3: love of God and one another is primarily manifested in keeping God’s commandments. There is a certain amount of circularity in v. 6, but it is there in order to link love and obedience by defining them in terms of one another.

II. The Mission of the Antichrists and Deceivers (v. 7) Verse 7 provides the reason (ὅτι) the author feels it necessary and helpful to reiterate the centrality of obedient love. 7 Obeying the

4 5 6 7

John, 304–305; Houlden, Epistles, 142; Edwards, Epistles, 26–29; Lieu, Theology, 2–3; Harris, 1, 2, 3 John, 239; Marshall, Epistles, 10. The use of the partitive, ἐκ τῶν τέκνων σου, to describe those walking in truth does not indicate that some of the community’s members have fallen away (contra Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 310–11; Brooke, Johannine Epistles, 172), but rather simply that the author only knows specifically about the behavior of some of the members. See Harris, 1, 2, 3 John, 215. See, e.g., tmab Elh in 1 Kgs 2:4; 3:6; 2 Kgs 20:3; Ps 26:3; 86:11; Isa 38:3; cf. the same phrase in 3 John 3–4. See Von Wahlde, Commandments, 3, who understands the two commandments to be the love commandment and the commandment to keep the word of Jesus. See Brooke, Johannine Epistles, 172. Most commentators recognize the link between v. 6 and the opponent-material of vv. 7–11, but many illegitimately mirror-read the love commandment, inferring that

The Mission of the Antichrists and Deceivers (v. 7)

341

commandments, loving God, and loving the brothers—all of these take on heightened importance in light of the eschatological events unfolding around the community. If possible, even greater vigilance is needed if the community is going to survive the onslaught of the eschatological deception. The announcement in v. 7 echoes 1 John 4:2. Πολλοὶ πλάνοι has replaced πολλοὶ ψευδοπροφῆται, but the meaning is virtually the same.8 Like ἀντίχριστος, ψεύστης and ψευδοπροφήτης in 1 John, πλάνος speaks of the eschatological opponent of the Messiah,9 but as 1 John 2:18 explains, the opponent has numerous forerunners at the present time. Jesus himself is reported to have warned his disciples about the eventual rise of many false prophets and deceivers (Matt 24:4–5, 11, 24). Jesus prophesies that such deceit will be accompanied by an increase in lawlessness and a decrease in love (Matt 24:12). It may be that our author has such a prophecy in mind when he stresses the need for his church to love one another in the face of the eschatological rebellion.

A. “Going Out” The “many deceivers” are said to “have gone out into the world” (ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὸν κόσμον).10 This is the same language used of the false prophets in 1 John 4:1. While it is possible that ἐξέρχομαι is being used to describe secession or apostasy, as it was in 1 John 2:19, 11 there is no clear indication in 2 John that the “deceivers” have come from the

8 9

10

11

the opponents were ethical indifferentists or gnostic elitists (see, e.g., Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 353). The more likely reason the author stresses the love commandment is to promote unity among his audience in the wake of the apostasy. Perhaps, the author would describe the apostates as, by virtue of their apostasy, failing to obey God’s commandments and to love the brothers, but this is probably not specifically what motivates the instructions of vv. 5–6. First John 2:18 is also a very close parallel. It uses the designation ἀντίχριστοι πολλοί. In 1 John 2:26, the antichrists and liars are said to be attempting to deceive (πλανάω) the audience; likewise, in 4:6, the false prophets are animated by the “spirit of deceit” (τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς πλάνης). See Brown, Epistles, 670. It is difficult to determine whether κόσμος here is neutral or negative in its connotations. Given its use in the close parallel, 1 John 4:1, 5, it seems more likely to be negative and to refer to the easily deceived world which welcomes and receives such false prophets. Nevertheless, 2 John 10 seems to envision that such deceivers might visit one of the Johannine house churches, so it may be that κόσμος retains its more neutral meaning as well. As argued, inter alia, by Brown, Epistles, 668.

342

2 John 4–11: The Teaching about the Messiah

Johannine community. The better parallel, then, is 1 John 4:1, which, as I argued above in Chapter 4, has in view an itinerant ministry.12 The term ἐξέρχομαι is therefore very close in function to ἐγείρω in Matt 24:11, or γίνομαι in 1 John 2:18. Just as Jesus relies upon Deut 13:1 when he speaks of false prophets “arising,” so 2 John draws its language of false prophets “going out” to deceive from the same passage (Deut 13:13).13 This passage, then, is less a warning about enemies within than about predators without. It is stock apocalyptic paraenesis of the type found throughout the NT.14

B. “Not Confessing” As in 1 John 4:2, the defining quality of the deceivers, or “antichrists” as they are called at the end of the verse, 15 is their failure to confess

12

13 14

15

See pp. 251ff. Third John 7 also uses this phrase to describe missionary activity. See Schnackenburg, Epistles, 284, 286; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 315; Witherington, Letters, 571; Strecker, “Chiliasm,” 55. Cassem, “Inventory,” 81–91, sees “go out into the world” as a technical phrase used in Johannine literature for mission. Cf. Vouga, “Johannine School,” 372–73, who does not believe the “outgoers” are Johannine in origin. Cf. Strecker, Letters, 237, who believes Deuteronomy 13 was “eschatologized.” See, e.g., the Olivet Discourse; 1 Tim 4:1–2; 2 Tim 3:1–9. Of course, such apocalyptic paraenesis could also speak of internal opponents, such as wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matt 7:15; Acts 20:29) and other false teachers who would arise within the community (2 Pet 2:1–3; Jude 12), but the same rhetoric is notably not being used here in 2 John 7. See above, p. 155, for discussion of the possible pesher formula in 1 John 2:22, which is also present here in 2 John 7. Cf. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 317, who believes that the use of the article indicates that both πλάνος and ἀντίχριστος were concepts with which the audience would have been familiar. Schnackenburg, Epistles, 285, discusses the possibility that πλάνος and ἀντίχριστος may be separate figures here, like the two beasts of Revelation 13, but he ultimately rejects such a line of thought.

The Mission of the Antichrists and Deceivers (v. 7)

343

“Jesus Christ coming in the flesh.”16 Here it will suffice to reiterate briefly what was argued above in Chapter 4: the confession of 2 John 7, like that of 1 John 4:2, has as its focus the messiahship of Jesus who has come “into the world,” or come “in flesh,” as these passages put it. The focus is not on the mode of Jesus’ coming, but on the identity of Jesus as the Messiah. This is suggested both by the grammar of the confession, as well as by the numerous similar early Christian confessions which speak of Jesus or the Messiah coming in flesh without any hint of anti-docetic intent.17

C. The Meaning of the Present Tense ἐρχόμενον 1. A Chiliastic Controversy? The most pressing exegetical question concerning 2 John 7 is whether the present tense ἐρχόμενον has in view something different from the perfect tense ἐληλυθότα used in the parallel passage in 1 John 4:2. G.

16

17

It should be noted that the “deceivers” are not defined positively by a specific teaching they advocate, but negatively by their failure to confess the central belief of the Johannine community. That is, the deceivers are not said to “deny” (ἀρνέομαι) that Jesus came in the flesh, but simply not to confess it (οἱ μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες). This is in contrast to the description of the secessionists in 1 John 2:22, who are said to “deny” Jesus’ messiahship—fitting since they confessed it at one time. The description of the itinerant false prophets in 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7 as “not confessing” Jesus as Messiah is appropriate for Jews who were never part of a Christian fellowship. In the author’s mind, of course, both groups (the secessionists and the false prophets) are part of the same antichrist rebellion, so that the theological similarities between them are emphasized. Most commentators, it seems, in their haste to pin a specific doctrinal deviation on the opponents, simply assume that in 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7, μὴ ὁμολογεῖν=ἀρνεῖσθαι. Of course, in some cases, “not confessing” and “denying” can be used synonymously. The context must determine the meaning. John 12:42 may be a helpful parallel, as it describes certain Jews who did not deny or denounce Jesus, but simply were not confessing (οὐχ ὡμολόγουν) him publicly. I am not attempting to argue that the “deceivers” of 2 John 7 or the “false prophets” of 1 John 4:2 were “crypto-Christians,” as the Jews in John 12:42 have sometimes been identified. Rather, I am merely trying to demonstrate that a slight distinction can be made between “not confessing” and “denying.” If the opponents were docetists of some sort, as the majority interpretation holds, we should perhaps expect the author to phrase their message in terms of a denial. Griffith, Keep, 181, argues that the grammar of 2 John 7 actually places less emphasis on Jesus’ flesh than 1 John 4:2, as it moves the phrase ἐν σαρκί to a less emphatic position after the participle. Cf. Lieu, Theology, 86.

344

2 John 4–11: The Teaching about the Messiah

Strecker has forcefully argued that it does.18 According to Strecker, 1 John 4:2 addresses a docetic rejection of the incarnation, while 2 John 7 opposes those who denied a future physical Parousia of Jesus and a physical millennium.19 Strecker believes that the early Johannine tradition, represented by 2 John and Revelation, was thoroughly apocalyptic and chiliastic in its eschatology, and that evidence for a debate over chiliasm may be found in contemporary documents such as the Epistle of Barnabas, Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho, and especially Revelation.20 He relies, however, less on the historical parallels, which are rather weak, than on the grammar of 2 John 7. The present participle, he argues, cannot be translated the same as the perfect participle of 1 John 4:2. It must carry either a present or future meaning.21 Thus, the author “at this point is presenting the chiliastic idea of an intervening messianic reign.…[the] earthly reality, the empirical fact of the substance of apocalyptic hope.”22 The opponents, on the other hand, in the elder’s mind, “deny the real substance of the apocalyptic expectation.”23

2. A Present or Future Reference? Strecker’s reconstruction of the situation has met with very limited support. On one hand there does not seem to be any strong historical evidence for an early controversy over the physical Parousia of Jesus; on the other hand, Strecker presents no good argument that chiliasm was necessarily an essential component of early belief in the Parousia.24

18 19

20

21 22 23 24

See Strecker, Letters, 233–36; idem, “Chiliasm,” 52–53; idem, “Die Anfänge der johanneischen Schule,” NTS 32 (1986): 31–47. Strecker believes that 2 John is from an earlier and quite different phase of the community from that of 1 John and the Fourth Gospel. He places 2 John around the end of the first century, while 1 John and the Fourth Gospel were written in the first half of the second century. See Strecker, “Die Anfang,” 31–47. Strecker, Letters, 235. He cites specifically Barn. 6:9; 7:9, which speak of Christ being manifested in the flesh at his second coming. For a detailed discussion of Johannine eschatology, see the three volumes of J. Frey, Die johanneische Eschatologie (3 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1997–99). Strecker, Letters, 233. Ibid., 235–36. Ibid., 236. See Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 316–17; Rensberger, 1 John, 153. The passages Strecker cites affirm a physical Parousia but they do not indicate that such a belief was controversial or necessarily connected to the idea of a physical millennial kingdom.

The Mission of the Antichrists and Deceivers (v. 7)

345

Many, however, share his view that the participle is best understood as referring to the present or future.25 Most of these scholars believe that 2 John 7 is attacking the same docetic or Cerinthian opponents as those in 1 John 4:2, but from a slightly different angle. While 1 John 4:2 stressed the past act of incarnation, 2 John 7 places the emphasis on Jesus’ continued present physicality, or union with the divine Christ.26 Thus, Westcott explains that 2 John 7 “centres upon the present perfection of the Lord’s Manhood which is still, and is to be manifested, and not upon the past fact of His coming.”27 Others, such as F. Vouga, believe that the dispute in view has more to do with Christ’s continued physical presence in the form of the sacraments. 28

3. Interchangeable with the Perfect Tense It is probably best, however, to interpret the confession of 2 John 7 as virtually interchangeable with that of 1 John 4:2. 29 Both have the past messianic mission, or coming, of Jesus in view. Perhaps Dodd is correct that the author of 2 John, “not so skilled in the niceties of Greek idiom,” uses the present participle when he really intends to refer to Jesus’ past coming.30 Others attribute a more nuanced intention to the author and

25

26

27 28 29

30

The first signs of such a controversy do not come until Irenaeus and Tertullian. See Lieu, Theology, 285, for discussion. Loader, Epistles, 92; Gore, Epistles, 226–28; O. Baumgarten, Die Johannesbriefe (SNT 4; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1920), 225. Brown, Epistles, 686, notes that a reference in v. 7 to the Parousia would flow nicely into the discussion of future rewards in v. 8. See Westcott, Epistles, 229; Stott, Letters, 209–10; Marshall, Epistles, 70–71; Schnackenburg, Epistles, 284; Kinlaw, Christ, 95; Burge, Letters, 234; Lieu, Second, 84. A reference to Jesus’, or the Christ’s, continued physicality would imply a future fleshly Parousia as well. Westcott, Epistles, 229. Vouga, “Johannine School,” 372, 376; cf. Thüsing, Erhohung, 193. This is the dominant view among commentators and exegetes. See Windisch, Briefe, 139; Holtzmann, Briefe, 270; Dodd, Epistles, 149; Painter, “Opponents,” 71; Yarbrough, 1–3 John, 343–44; Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 260; Brooke, Epistles, 175; Brown, Epistles, 112, 670; Griffith, Keep, 181; Kruse, Letters, 210; Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 53–55; Rensberger, 1 John, 153; Bultmann, Epistles, 112; J. Frey, “Eschatology,” 62–66; Lieu, Second, 86–87; Jonge, “Use of the Word ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ,” 69; Jones, 1,2 & 3 John, 258. This view is supported by the way that the early church fathers who were native speakers of Greek uniformly interpreted 2 John 7 with reference to 1 John 4:2. See, e.g. Polycarp, Phil. 7:2; Irenaeus, Haer. 3.16–18. Dodd, Epistles, 149.

346

2 John 4–11: The Teaching about the Messiah

propose that he is stressing “the timelessness of the Christ event” 31 or the “supratemporal significance of the incarnation.”32

4. Formulaic Phraseology A simpler explanation, however, is that 2 John 7 preserves a formulaic way of talking about the Messiah’s coming. In the OT, the Messiah’s advent is typically described as a “coming,” using the verb awb or ἔρχομαι.33 By the first century, both Psalm 117:26 LXX and Hab 2:3 LXX were read as using ὁ ἐρχόμενος as a sort of title for the Messiah.34 In the NT, the messianic sense of the phrase is evident in Luke 7:19, where the Baptist’s disciples ask Jesus, σὺ εἶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος; In the Fourth Gospel, the messianic use of ἐρχόμενος is especially notable.35 In John 1:15, 27, John the Baptist refers to the Messiah as ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος. John 3:31 refers to Jesus as the ὁ ἐρχόμενος ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ/ἄνωθεν. In John 6:14, the people acclaim Jesus as ὁ προφήτης ὁ ἐρχόμενος, while in 11:27 Martha declares Jesus to be ὁ χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἐρχόμενος, thus closely linking three key titles that also play an important role in 1 John.36 Early Christians, of course, believing that the Messiah had already come, usually

31

32 33 34

35 36

Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 317; cf. Bultmann, Epistles, 112; Brooke, Epistles, 175; Brown, Epistles, 112. For a discussion of 2 John 7 from the perspective of verbal aspect theory, see Porter, Aspect, 379n11. Schnackenburg, Epistles, 284. See, e.g., Mal 3:1. Brown, Epistles, 686, believes this passage is in the background of 2 John 7. Cf. also Gen 49:10. In Hab 2:3 LXX, ἐρχόμενος appears without the article, but Heb 10:37 quotes it using the articular form. See Hays, “Apocalyptic,” 125, who believes that ὁ ἐρχόμενος as a messianic title derives from a midrashic reading that correlates Ps 118:26 and Hab 2:3. For discussion of the use of Psalm 118 in the Fourth Gospel, see Andrew C. Brunson, Psalm 118 in the Gospel of John: An Intertextual Study on the New Exodus Pattern in the Theology of John (WUNT 2.158; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 240–64. The key passage, of course, is John 12:13. For a discussion of the verb ἔρχεσθαι in the Johannine literature, see J. F. T. Cuadrado, “El viniente”: estudio exegético y teológico del verbo erchesthai en la literatura joánica (Monografías de la revista Mayéutica 1; Spain: Monografícas de la Revista Mayéutica, 1993). For discussion, see Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 53–55; Painter, “Opponents,” 71; Brown, Epistles, 670. Other references which speak of the Messiah’s expected future coming include John 4:25–26; 7:27, 41–42. Jesus’ frequent use of the “I have come…” formula is possibly intended to indicate fulfillment of this expectation. On this formula, see most recently Simon J. Gathercole, The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).

The Mission of the Antichrists and Deceivers (v. 7)

347

referred to his coming in the past tense, as in 1 John 4:2. 37 But, the present or future tense was more natural when they were discussing the meaning of OT prophecies, especially in dialogue with fellow Jews. Thus, the question could be posed from the OT perspective: is Jesus the one who is to come (ὁ ἐρχόμενος/abh)?38 This form is especially appropriate in 2 John 7, which I have argued has in view Jewish prophets or teachers who refuse to acknowledge that Jesus is the expected Messiah.

5. Evidence of Translation There is one other possible explanation that merits discussion. I argued above in Chapter 4 that 1 John 4:2 probably contains a fixed confessional formula that is likely primitive and very possibly arose in a Palestinian setting.39 Second John 7 contains the same formula. 40 The only difference, the tense of the participle, is easily accounted for if the creed is a translation of an original Hebrew or Aramaic formulation. As O. Piper, in his study of the Johannine Epistles’ use of early tradition, notes, “Differences of verbal expression in substantially identical phrases usually point to translation from a foreign language.” 41 The Hebrew participle ab is variously translated in the LXX with both the present ἐρχόμενος,42 and the aorist ἐλθών.43 If 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7 are simply variant renderings in Greek of the community’s originally 37 38

39 40

41

42 43

Cf. 1 John 5:6 (ὁ ἐλθών); 5:20 (ἥκει). Just as in Matt 11:3/Luke 7:19. The present tense form of the title could also be used to refer to Jesus’ future coming, as in Heb 10:37; Rev 1:8. Such usage should be seen as a reapplication of the original messianic sense of the title. See p. 248249. Those who recognize the formulaic nature of 2 John 7 include Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 332; Barrett, “Johannine Christianity,” 335–6; Yarbrough, 1–3 John, 343; Windisch, Briefe, 139, calls it a “lehrsatzmässige Formulierung.” Cf. P. R. Tragan, “Las fórmulas de fe en las Cartas de S. Juan,” in Mysterium Christi Symbolgegenwart und theologische Bedeutung: Festschrift für Basil Studer (ed. Basil Studer, Magnus Löhrer, and Elmar Salmann; Rome: Pontificio Ateneo S. Anselmo, 1995), 79–106. Piper, “Didache,” 442. For a discussion of possible Semitism in the Epistles, see J. Héring, “Y-a-t-il des Aramaïsmes dans la Première Épître Johannique?” RHPR 36 (1956): 113–21. See, e.g., Gen 33:1; 2 Sam 2:23; 15:32. The same holds for the Aramaic hta. See, e.g., Dan 7:13 in the Theodotionic text. See Num 25:6; 1 Chr 2:55; 12:1; 2 Chr 20:12; 30:25; Ezra 8:35. The blurring of the lines between the aorist and perfect tenses in the Johannine literature makes this evidence very relevant to the question of 1 John 4:2, even though it contains the perfect tense ἐληλυθότα.

348

2 John 4–11: The Teaching about the Messiah

Aramaic or Hebrew confessions, it would lend support to the view that no great significance should be attributed to the tense variation between the two passages.

III. The Need to Abide (vv. 8–9) The description of the eschatological opponents in v. 7 flows naturally into the warning in v. 8. In view of the many antichrists and deceivers who have embarked on their Satanically-inspired mission, the audience must “be on guard.”44 If they fall prey to the deception of the antichrists, all previous labor will be for naught. 45 If, however, they are vigilant and repel the antichrists’ offensive, they can expect to receive a “full reward,”46 presumably on the eschatological day of reckoning. 44

45

46

The language of 2 John 8, βλέπετε ἑαυτούς, is the typical warning that appears in eschatological paraenesis throughout the NT. Cf. Mark 13:5, 9, 23, 33, where the warning is needed because of the coming false prophets and false Christs. See below for discussion of the text-critical issue. The verb ἀπόλλυμι, which appears here in the active voice, may carry a sense of “destroy” or “ruin.” The author would then be urging his audience not to nullify the labor which he and his colleagues have invested in the community’s formation. A similar thought may be found in Gal 2:2; 4:11; Phil 2:16; 1 Thess 3:5; 1 Cor 4:16. Second John 8 has been controversial in several ways. First, there is the textual variant involving the three main verbs: ἀπολέσητε…εἰργασάμεθα… ἀπολάβητε. It is generally agreed that the Byzantine reading (ἀπολέσωμεν…εἰργασάμεθα …ἀπολάβωμεν) is secondary, and that the more difficult reading contains a shift from the second-person verb to the first person and back. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 652–53; Brown, Epistles, 671. The sense of the statement, then, is that the audience must be careful not to waste or destroy the work the Elder has done for the community. It is also possible that εἰργασάμεθα should be taken inclusively to refer to both author and audience as working together for the Lord, in which case the reward of both the author and audience would be at stake. Alternatively, if the correct reading is ἀπολέσητε…ἀπολάβητε, the statement would then focus on the audience’s reward, which they must be careful not to lose. In favor of this reading, see Schnackenburg, Epistles, 285; Bonnard, Épitres, 125. The second issue concerns the nature of the μισθός. Does the author have in mind different levels or degrees of reward, so that one’s unfaithfulness would result in a decreased reward? Or, does μισθὸς πλήρης simply refer to salvation itself, conceived of as an “abundant” reward? In favor of the latter is the parallel in Ruth 2:12, where the phrase does not appear to carry any connotation of degrees of reward. See J. R. Harris, “The Problem of the Address in the Second Epistle of John,” The Expositor 6.3 (1901): 194–203. Thomas, Pentecostal, 47, proposes that the phrase “full reward” may imply that “a partial reward is already available but that it will be granted in full one day.” He understands the full reward to be eternal life. Cf. Schnackenburg, Epistles, 285; Brown, Epistles, 672, 689; Houlden, Epistles, 146; Bonnard, Épitres, 125; Marshall, Epistles, 72; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 318. The context of

The Need to Abide (vv. 8–9)

349

This thought is amplified in v. 9, as the author further explains the necessity of holding on to the confession. The first half of the verse describes the person who falls prey to the antichrists’ deception. The antichrists’ message is fundamentally opposed to the basic beliefs of the community, so that to accept their message is by necessity not to remain in the “teaching of Christ,” and therefore not to “have God.” Conversely, the second half of the verse states, to remain in the teaching of Christ is to “have” both the Father and the Son. The same language of “having” God and the Son also appeared in 1 John 2:23, where, as I argued, it speaks of being in a proper covenantal relationship with God.47 There, “having” God was conditioned upon confessing the Son. Here, the condition is remaining in the “teaching of Christ.”

A. The Meaning of ὁ προάγων 1. “Progressive” There are two main interpretive issues in v. 9 that affect the reconstruction of the Johannine opponents. The first is the meaning of the verb προάγω. The dominant interpretation holds that 2 John uses this term to describe the false teachers who are attempting to lead the audience astray. The word is to be taken in the sense of “moving forward,” “progressing,” or “innovating.”48 It was probably used by the teachers themselves to portray their teaching as an “advanced” form of knowledge, superior to the basic teaching of the elder and his colleagues.49 Such a claim could easily have been made by gnostics,

47 48 49

the present passage strongly suggests that the μισθός is equivalent to “having” God and his Son (v. 9). Those who bring to naught the author’s labor by failing to abide in the teaching of Christ will not receive their abundant reward (eternal life), since they have cut themselves off from the source of that life, namely God and his Son. For a parallel to the idea of losing one’s reward, see Mark 9:41. Those who believe the reward is something other than eschatological salvation include Stott, Letters, 210; Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 353. See above, p. 156. Rensberger, 1 John, 154; Edwards, Epistles, 31; Kruse, Letters, 212. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 319. Schnackenburg, Epistles, 286, thinks that the opponents “aspire to higher insights in a manner typical of gnostic behavior.” Burge, Letters, 235, refers to the “elitist attitudes” of the secessionists. For others who detect hints of Gnosticism here, see Bultmann, Epistles, 113; Ernst Gaugler, Die Johannesbriefe (ANS 1; Zürich: EVZ, 1964), 287; Windisch, Briefe, 139, calls προάγω a “Schlagwort der Gnostiker.” The term is used in the context of Gnosticism in Hipp. Haer. 6.18 and

350

2 John 4–11: The Teaching about the Messiah

Cerinthians, or docetists, who might purport to have moved beyond attachment to the “flesh” of Jesus and to have progressed to an understanding that stressed the spiritual nature of the Christ and of salvation.50 If the opponents were “ultra-Johannine” in their theology, it might seem especially appropriate to call them “progressives.” While the opponents themselves may have used the term, it seems that the author applies it to them in a pejorative sense, much as 2 Tim 3:13 uses προκόπτω of its opponents.51 They thought they were “advancing,” but the author accuses them of “progressing” so much that they have abandoned the crucial doctrines of the community and have ceased remaining in the “teaching of Christ.” If the truth is “from the beginning” then innovation is not a good thing.52

2. Problems with the “Progressive” Reading There are two key problems with this reading of 2 John 9. First, the flow of the author’s argument in 2 John 8–9 makes it clear that ὁ προάγων refers not to the antichrists and deceivers of v. 7, as most exegetes assume, but rather to members of the audience who might fall under the spell of the deceivers and be led to leave the community. While v. 8 warns the audience against forfeiting their reward, v. 9 provides the reason that following the “deceivers” would result in forfeiture: such an action would sever the individual from God and his Son. In these verses, then, the same kind of situation is envisioned as in 1 John 2:18–27 and 4:1–6. The audience is told of antichrists and false prophets who are on the move, and they are warned not to give heed to

50

51

52

Clement of Alexandria, Exc. 33.3; 41.2, 4, but only to refer to “emanation” from the Godhead. Cf. Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 350; Lieu, Second, 92. Brown, Epistles, 373, proposes that the opponents were progressives in the sense that they “gave a greater role to the Spirit’s ability to interpret the tradition in a new way.” Cf. Von Wahlde, Commandments, 143; Sloyan, Walking, 65; Rensberger, 1 John, 81, uses 2 John 9 to argue against the view that the secessionists are Jewish apostates: “The opponents are accused of going forward not backward (2 John 9).” See Stählin, “προκοπή, προκόπτω,” TDNT 6:703–19. Cf. Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 350, who supports the parallel. Those who believe that “progressive” was the opponents’ self-description include Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 319; Loader, Epistles, 95; Dodd, Epistles, 149; Kruse, Letters, 212; Strecker, Letters, 242; Brooke, Epistles, 177; Westcott, Epistles, 230. Witherington, Letters, 576, notes that in the ancient social context, tradition was valued more than innovation. Strecker, Letters, 243, however, argues that in the Christian tradition, there was a strong sense of eschatological newness seen in passages like Mark 2:21 or 2 Cor 5:17.

The Need to Abide (vv. 8–9)

351

them because to do so is to join the eschatological rebellion and to be cut off from the only source of eternal life. The term προάγω, then must denote a course of action that the author wishes to prevent his audience from taking, much like ἀρνέομαι in 1 John 2:23. Second, the “progressive” interpretation lacks a firm lexicographical basis. Indeed, most of the commentators who advance such a reading do not offer any evidence that ὁ προάγων may mean “progressive.”53 The reason for this may be that there is no good evidence for such a meaning. Apart from 2 John 9, the word appears 19x in the Greek NT, and 13x in the LXX. When it is passive, it may refer to being promoted, being led, or being brought forward. In the active voice, transitive and intransitive uses must be distinguished. Used transitively it may refer to leading or guiding others or to bringing them forth or presenting them, for example, in a trial setting. Used intransitively, the dominant meaning is to precede, or to go in front of others, whether spatially or temporally. This meaning occasionally shades into the transitive sense of leading or guiding. It may also be used intransitively to refer to forward movement, often in a military context. The meaning proposed by the dominant interpretation (“progress”) is unattested in extant Greek literature.54 For such a meaning, προκόπτω would be the expected term.55

53

54

55

Polhill, “Setting,” 38, is typical in this regard. Without citing any evidence, he glosses προάγω as “advance,” and asserts that it can have a “negative tone” meaning “to go too far.” Brown, Epistles, 673, likewise, has no extended lexical discussion and offers only Sir 20:27, which is not a true parallel, to support his translation. A TLG search on all forms of προάγω turns up no clear parallels. The usage in Sir 20:26–27, which Brown, Epistles, 673, and Brooke, Epistles, 177, cite as a parallel, is quite different in meaning from that required by the dominant interpretation. It speaks of a wise man who is able to “promote” himself in rank by offering wise advice to his superiors. The usage is transitive and reflexive, with a clearly stated direct object—none of these applies to 2 John 9. Furthermore, there is no extant usage where the verb by itself carries the meaning of “going too far,” as many commentators believe the usage in 2 John must be intending. Both Grayston, Epistles, 154, and Bultmann, Epistles, 113, accept the “progressive” interpretation, but admit that it is the only extant metaphorical usage of the term in this sense. See Lieu, Second, 91–92; Thyen, “Johannesbriefe,” 197. Lieu, Second, 92.

352

2 John 4–11: The Teaching about the Messiah

3. Other Possible Interpretations What, then, does ὁ προάγων mean in 2 John 9? Any answer must account for three factors. First, unlike many of its extant uses, the verb is used absolutely in this verse; i.e. it does not have a stated direct object, indirect object, or sphere in which the subject is said to προάγει. Second, it must be decided whether the verb is transitive or intransitive. If it is transitive, it must be determined what the implied direct object is. Third, the meaning must fit in the context, where προάγων appears to be antithetical to μένων. The following meanings have been proposed: 1) “Leading.” A. Jülicher proposed that ὁ προάγων referred to “the one who takes the lead.”56 This could either be a neutral reference to those who are already leaders in the community, or it could refer pejoratively to someone attempting to usurp leadership. Thus, Plummer proposes the rendering, “Every one who sets himself up as a leader.”57 Along the same lines, Hans Wendt suggested that Diotrephes might be in view, since he is called ὁ φιλοπρωτεύων in 3 John 9.58 Lexical evidence for such a view may perhaps be found in the fact that προάγων was a title applied to Roman provincial magistrates in Asia.59 2) “Inducing.” This meaning is well-attested in ancient texts.60 It is only slightly different from the previous definition. If the author intends this meaning, he is portraying the opponents as false teachers who are no longer remaining in the teaching of Christ, and are also trying to persuade or induce others to follow their lead.61 It would therefore have a conative sense similar to that of πλανώντων in 1 John 56

57 58 59

60 61

Adolf Jülicher, An Introduction to the New Testament (trans. Janet Penrose Ward; New York: Putnam, 1904), 254; cf. C. F. Evans, “‘I Will Go Before You into Galilee,’” JTS n.s. 5 (1954): 3–18; H. Wendt, “Zum zweiten und dritten Johannesbriefe,” ZNW 23 (1924), 23, translates ὁ προάγων as “Führer Vorangehenden.” In Wendt, Johannesbriefe, 21, 27, he translates it, “Anführer.” Cf. Bonnard, Épitres, 125. Plummer, Epistles, 138. Plummer ultimately opts for the “progressive” meaning. Wendt, “Johannesbriefe,” 23. Inscriptional evidence from the II–III CE uses the term προάγων for the position of estate manager, and προάγοντες for the board which collectively managed the colonies. See LSJ Supplement, 257. LSJ 1466. The verb would therefore be transitive with the implied direct object being ὑμᾶς. See Kinlaw, Christ, 95; Lieu, Second, 93, for arguments in favor of this meaning. Cf. K. L. Schmidt, “ἀγωγή, κτλ,” TDNT 1:131, who discusses the same meaning. In keeping with this, the nominalized form of the verb, προαγωγεία, may carry the sense of pandering or leading someone on, while προαγωγή can refer to rhetorical trickery used in such an attempt. See LSJ 1466.

The Need to Abide (vv. 8–9)

353

2:26. The weakness with this suggestion is that when the term is used in such a sense it almost always includes a complementary infinitive stating what the person is trying to persuade others to do.62 3) “Going Forth.” The meaning that satisfies all the criteria above, and best fits the context, is that of departure, or going forth. This meaning can account for the absolute and intransitive use of the verb in 2 John 9. It is also well attested in the ancient evidence. 63 If the idea of departure is in view in our passage, προάγω presents a direct antithesis to μένω, and would be roughly synonymous with ἐξέρχομαι, the term used in 1 John 2:19, a parallel passage that likewise speaks of apostasy and contains the same opposition between leaving and staying.64 In 2 John 9 the author likely uses προάγω instead of ἐξέρχομαι because he used the latter in v. 7 to refer to the “deceivers,” who, as I argued above, are to be distinguished from those who might leave, or have already left, the community. This understanding of ὁ προάγων as “the one going forth, or departing” is also witnessed by the early textual variant in the Byzantine tradition, which “clarifies” ὁ προάγων with ὁ παραβαίνων, the term used in the LXX for transgression of the covenant, or apostasy.65 The apocryphal 3 Corinthians also seems to support such an understanding.66 In 2:36–39, clearly dependent on 2 John, the text reads, “If anyone remains [μένει] in the rule which he received through the blessed prophets and the holy gospel, he will receive a reward [λήμψεται μισθόν]. If anyone transgresses [παραβαίνει] this rule, the fire is with him and with those who make their way forward [προοδοιπορούντων] in this way.” Here, perhaps, προάγω is explained by both παραβαίνω and προοδοιπορέω.

62 63

64

65

66

See the examples in LSJ 1466. See, e.g. 2 Macc 10:27; Polybius, Histories 2.65.1; 3.35.1. A very common transitive meaning for the word is “to bring forth” or “to bring out.” When the verb is used intransitively, it simply means “to go forth.” The NLT helpfully brings out this sense when it translates, “Anyone who wanders away.” Lieu, I, II, & III John, 258, remarks, “it is not the going forward that is at fault so much as the failure to remain.” Both the Syriac and Old Latin versions also seem to be translating ὁ παραβαίνων, or perhaps understanding ὁ προάγων in the same way as the scribe who originally emended the text. For παραβαίνω as apostasy in the LXX, see Hos 6:7; Ezek 17:15. Schmidt, “ἀγωγή, κτλ,”130 considers it a good possibility that the intransitive sense of προάγω is synonymous with παραβαίνω, i.e., “going astray,” although he ultimately rejects such a meaning for 2 John 9. This text is cited by Lieu, Second, 98, but the significance for 2 John 9 is not developed.

354

2 John 4–11: The Teaching about the Messiah

B. ἡ διδαχὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ 1. What Christ Taught The second main interpretive issue in this verse is the meaning of the phrase, ἡ διδαχὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. The author warns that everyone who does not remain ἐν τῇ διδαχῇ τοῦ Χριστοῦ does not have God. The phrase may be taken either a) as a subjective genitive, referring to the teaching that Christ himself propagated during his earthly ministry, 67 or b) as an objective genitive, referring to the teaching about Christ. 68 In favor of the subjective reading, one may note the emphasis in the Johannine tradition on the love commandment, which was given by Jesus. This emphasis is especially notable in 2 John 4–6, which stresses the need to continue walking in love in obedience to the commandment.69 Likewise, 1 John 4:16 uses similar language when it speaks of “abiding in love.” The Fourth Gospel refers to Jesus’ teaching on several occasions (John 6:59; 7:14–17, 28, 35; 8:2, 20, 28; 9:34; 18:19– 20). The Holy Spirit’s task, Jesus tells the disciples, will be to remind them of everything that Jesus taught them (14:26). True disciples are those who remain in Jesus’ word (8:31). It would be natural, therefore, for 2 John to describe faithfulness in terms of continuing in the things Jesus taught. The grammar of the phrase also favors a subjective reading. In the Greek NT, when διδαχή is followed by an articular noun in the genitive case, the phrase always refers to the teaching propagated by the noun in the genitive. 70

67

68

69 70

Those in favor of the subjective reading include Brown, Epistles, 674; Schnackenburg, Epistles, 286; Westcott, Epistles, 230; Kruse, Letters, 212–13; Brooke, Epistles, 177; Stott, Letters, 214. Those in favor of the objective reading include Witherington, Letters, 577; Smith, First, Second, and Third John, 144–45; Loader, Epistles, 95; Painter, 1, 2, and 3 John, 332, 354; Strecker, Letters, 242; Kinlaw, Christ, 97; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 319; Thyen, “Johannesbriefe,” 197; Bultmann, Epistles, 113; Marshall, Epistles, 72. Brown, Epistles, 674. See Matt 16:12 (τῆς διδαχῆς τῶν Φαρισαίων καὶ Σαδδουκαίων); Acts 2:42 (τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων); Rev 2:15 (τὴν διδαχὴν τῶν Νικολαϊτῶν). Acts 13:12, which is the closest parallel to 2 John 9, could be either subjective or objective: ἐπίστευσεν ἐκπλησσόμενος ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ τοῦ κυρίου. For an anarthrous example, see Rev 2:14, τὴν διδαχὴν Βαλαάμ.

The Need to Abide (vv. 8–9)

355

2. The Teaching about the Messiah On the other hand, there are several good reasons to prefer the objective reading. It is noteworthy that the author does not refer to ἡ διδαχὴ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, but to ἡ διδαχὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. The former would probably be more natural if the author wished to speak of Jesus’ own teachings.71 ὁ Χριστός, as I have argued previously, most likely maintains its titular significance in the Johannine writings, so that while it is quite possible the author may be referring to the teachings brought by the Messiah, it is perhaps slightly more likely that he has in mind the teaching about the Messiah. At the heart of the Johannine tradition is in fact just such a teaching, namely that Jesus is the Messiah (John 20:31; 1 John 2:22). The context of 2 John 9 also favors the objective reading. Only two verses before, the author has spoken of the confession of Jesus as Messiah as the dividing line between truth and deception. This, then, is the teaching about the Messiah that the author refers to in v. 9. To “remain” in the teaching is to maintain one’s confession that the expected Messiah is indeed Jesus. Verse 10 confirms this by warning the audience not to welcome anyone who does not bring this “teaching”—an injunction that makes perfect sense in light of the way v. 7 declares anyone who does not confess Jesus’ messiahship to be a “deceiver” and “antichrist.” Similarly in 1 John 4:2–3, the confession of Jesus as Messiah is what distinguishes the true visiting prophet from the false. As Bultmann remarks on 2 John 7–11, “the author hangs everything on his Christology.”72 The parallel in 1 John 2:22–23 is also illuminating. That passage states that the one who denies that Jesus is the messianic Son, does not “have” the Father. In 2 John 9, the condition for “having” the Father is remaining in ἡ διδαχὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Proper confession is thus functionally equivalent to remaining in the teaching. This suggests that the content of the “teaching” is the identification of Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of God. On the other hand, it is, of course, not impossible that 2 John 9 is a case of “semantic density,” 73 and that P. Bonnard is correct when he says, “ce qui est enseigné sur le Christ c’est ce qu’il a enseigné sur lui-même.”74 Even if this is the case, however, it 71 72 73 74

Weiss, Briefe, 182. Bultmann, Epistles, 113. E. R. Wendland, “What is Truth? Semantic Density and the Language of the Johannine Epistles (with Special Reference to 2 John),” Neot 24 (1990): 310. Bonnard, Épitres, 125.

356

2 John 4–11: The Teaching about the Messiah

would still be correct to identify the content of the διδαχή as Jesus’ messiahship.

IV. Instructions Concerning Visiting Teachers (vv. 10–11) Having announced the existence of the antichrists’ mission of deception in v. 7, and having warned his audience in vv. 8–9 not to give up their promised reward but to maintain faithfulness to the basic teaching of Jesus’ messiahship, the author now instructs his audience how to deal with visitors to the congregation. Specifically, these visitors appear to be itinerant teachers or prophets, since v. 10 refers to the teaching they carry.75 In the synagogue setting, visiting rabbis were often invited to provide a “word of exhortation,”76 and there is no reason to think that the Johannine house churches would not have held to the same custom. The author, however, wants to make sure that his audience does not fall prey to the “antichrists,” so he warns his audience to apply the key Christological criterion: does the visitor carry the teaching that Jesus is the Messiah? If so, then he may be welcomed and heeded, but if not he must be spurned and the right hand of fellowship must not be extended to him. In a first-century setting, to welcome him (λέγων αὐτῷ χαίρειν) would be to provide him hospitality and support, and thus to participate in his rebellion and to take part in the propagation of the lie.77 A situation involving visiting teachers is probably also envisioned in 1 John 4:1–3, which provides the same criterion for discerning true prophets from false.78 It is easy to imagine that in a situation where normal Jewish synagogues were not outwardly or visibly differentiated from JewishChristian synagogues or ἐκκλησίαι, 2 John’s Jewish-Christian audience might not hesitate to welcome an esteemed scribe or rabbi who was 75

76 77

78

The other possibility is that they are simply visitors seeking hospitality, whether they be non-Christian Jews, or those who have seceded from the community, as Brown, Epistles, 52, holds. Brown’s reconstruction assumes a decisive parting of the ways between Jews and Christians as a result of Yavneh and the institution of the Birkhat Ha-minim. For reasons to question this assumption, see above p. 99. See, e.g., Acts 13:15; Luke 4:16. The same type of logic may be found in Matt 10:12–14. See Gehring, House Church, 283; Brown, Epistles, 676; Lieu, Second, 95–97. Lampe, “Grievous Wolves,” 262, notes that the Johannine policy of not even greeting false teachers may have a background in the total ban on false prophets in Deut 13:16–17. Didache 11:1–2 is also a very close parallel. Revelation 2:2 likewise speaks of testing apostles, possibly itinerant ministers or prophets, and finding them to be false.

Conclusion

357

able to teach the Scriptures but did not hold to Jesus’ messiahship. Perhaps, the “elder” writes to head off such openness, which could conceivably lead to some of the members abandoning their faith. In good Johannine fashion he holds that the coming of the Messiah has introduced a rift in the Jewish nation, and that those who do not accept Jesus as Messiah are not to be received as brothers and sisters, since they have rejected the Son and therefore the Father. 79

V. Conclusion Second John has in view essentially the same situation as 1 John. The “elder” writes to a community to warn them about itinerant missionaries, prophets, or teachers who do not accept the messiahship of Jesus. He encourages his audience to test such visiting figures and to discover where their loyalties lie. Like 1 John, 2 John describes the itinerants in apocalyptic terms, as “antichrists” and “deceivers.” This emphasizes the importance of avoiding such opponents. The audience’s fellowship with the Father and the Son, and thus their eternal reward, is at stake. When viewed in this setting, the two key exegetical cruces of 2 John 9 are more easily resolved. The puzzling term προάγω is likely meant to describe the departure of those who heed the itinerants and fail to maintain their confession of Jesus. Likewise, ἡ διδαχὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ refers to the central confession about the Messiah—namely, that he is Jesus—which the audience must not forsake if they wish to maintain their covenant relationship with God as Father.

79

In discussions of the “parting of the ways,” the role of hospitality has perhaps not been accorded the importance that it deserves. A restriction on hospitality among Christians would have served to mark them out visibly from other Jews, and to hasten the divergence of the two traditions.

Conclusion This work has attempted to provide an alternative to the dominant reconstruction of the historical situation addressed by 1 John. The vast majority of scholars are convinced that 1 John addresses a situation substantially different from that of the Fourth Gospel. The Fourth Gospel, it is usually held, was written in the midst of a struggle with the synagogue and sought to demonstrate that Jesus was the Messiah. First John, however, reflects a later period of the Johannine community’s history, when the struggle with the synagogue was past, and a new enemy—an internal one—had arisen, propounding a Christological heresy, often thought to be docetic or gnostic in nature.1 In arguing for my alternative proposal I began in Chapter 1 by surveying the dominant approaches to identifying the opponents. I noted both the exegetical and historical basis for each identification, and pointed out the weaknesses and problems that rendered each theory less than convincing. In their place, I proposed that 1 John was written in a Jewish context and was addressing the same basic issue as the Fourth Gospel: the messiahship of Jesus. In Chapter 2, I discussed the mirror-reading approach used to reconstruct the opponents and their beliefs. I noted that the majority of scholars engage in a maximalist form of mirror-reading in which the entire letter is mined for clues as to what the opponents taught and believed. I critiqued such a maximalist mirror-reading for its lack of controls, its subjectivity, its leaps of logic, and its unrealistic assumptions about the polemical nature of 1 John. In the place of a maximalist mirror-reading, I argued for a restrained and realistic 1

I want to make it clear at this point, in case it has not already been stated clearly enough, that my thesis does not depend upon, nor does it presuppose, a specific reconstruction of the Fourth Gospel’s situation or purpose. I am quite content to accept a form of the current consensus—hotly contested by some, of course—that the Fourth Gospel was written in a Jewish context that featured conflict or tension with the synagogue over Johannine claims concerning Jesus’ Messiahship. I believe that a measured mirror-reading of the emphases and shape of the Fourth Gospel leads in that general direction. Nevertheless, my primary argument concerning the Fourth Gospel and its relationship to the Epistles is a negative one, namely that there is no compelling evidence in the Epistles to indicate that a great change in setting or situation had taken place since the composition of the Gospel.

Conclusion

359

historical reconstruction, one that understands 1 John as primarily pastoral. The polemical material in 1 John is limited to two sections (2:18–27; 4:1–6), both of which explicitly mention opponents, but are also rather general in their scope and clearly pastoral in their purpose. In Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6, I worked out my proposal at the exegetical level by addressing the four passages that form the basis of almost every scholarly reconstruction. Chapter 3 focused on 1 John 2:18–27, the first passage in the Epistle to mention secessionists. This section describes the secessionists in apocalyptic tones as “antichrists” and “liars” who have left the community. According to 1 John 2:22–23, their identifying mark—and presumably the reason for their departure—is their denial that Jesus is the Messiah. It was the confession of Jesus as Messiah that served as the capstone of the Fourth Gospel, and functioned as the primary boundary marker and most basic statement of faith for the Johannine community. It thus appears that the secessionists of 1 John 2:19 were “apostates” who had once confessed that Jesus was the Messiah, but later reneged on their confession and left the community. There is therefore no reason to think that the secessionists left because of a Christological heresy such as docetism or Cerinthianism. In Chapter 4, I addressed 1 John 4:1–6, which forms the cornerstone of the view that the opponents were docetists of some kind who denied the “flesh” of Jesus Christ. I demonstrated, however, that none of the dominant theories are actually able to account for the text of this passage in all its details. I further showed that 1 John 4:2 was not an expanded confession devised as a response to docetism, but in fact used the same language (concerning Jesus Christ’s flesh) as numerous primitive Christian confessions that appear elsewhere in the NT— confessions that predated any docetic controversy. The focus of the confession is the same as that of 2:22: the messiahship of Jesus. I also pointed out that there is no convincing reason to believe that the “false prophets” denounced in 1 John 4:1–6 were the same figures as the secessionists of 2:19. It is more likely that 1 John 4:1–6 is a general preventive warning concerning Jewish itinerant prophets who would refuse to confess Jesus as the Messiah, and thus, the author urges, should not be allowed to teach or prophesy in the Johannine churches. In Chapter 5, I dealt with 1 John 5:6–12, the subject of much unrestrained speculation by those who believe it provides the key to reconstructing the opponents. After noting the serious shortcomings of each major interpretation, I attempted to demonstrate that the passage was not actually polemical and should not therefore be expected to provide a direct quote or summary of the opponents’ teachings. The

360

Conclusion

key statement of the passage—that Jesus Christ came “through water and blood, not in the water only, but in the water and in the blood”—is not a refutation of a verbatim quote from the opponents, but is rather a way of rhetorically emphasizing that Jesus’ messianic status is amply testified to, in accordance with the Jewish requirement of at least two witnesses to establish a fact. I proposed, on the basis of their use elsewhere in the Johannine tradition, that the “water” referred to Jesus’ baptism by John, while the “blood” referred to his death, viewed as an atoning sacrifice. The author adduces these two witnesses in order to assure his audience of the ample testimony God has provided to Jesus’ divine sonship. In line with the requirement of two or three witness, the author adds that God’s Spirit—i.e., the Spirit’s presence in the believing community—also bears testimony, by its present ministry, to the fact the Jesus is the Messiah and the source of eternal life. I concluded my exegetical treatment of the key passages in Chapter 6, with 2 John 4–11. Because this passage repeats much of the language of the polemical passages in 1 John, I focused on the aspects where it differed. First, I discussed the tense shift of the key verb ἐρχόμενον in the confessional criterion of 2 John 7. I argued that the meaning of the confession had not changed—the focus was still the messiahship of Jesus—and that the tense shift may have reflected a formulaic way of talking about the Messiah’s advent. Second, I discussed the meaning of ὁ προάγων in 2 John 9. Many believe this describes the opponents as “progressives” who have pushed the envelope with their avant-garde theological speculations. In place of this interpretation, which lacks any firm lexicographical basis, I proposed that the phrase has “departure” primarily in view. The author is thus exhorting his audience to remain in the teaching of Christ, and not to depart from it. What is meant by the “teaching of Christ” was the final issue to be addressed. While both subjective and objective interpretations of the phrase have good support, the context indicates that the messiahship of Jesus—that is, the “teaching about the Messiah”—is the key issue. The objective reading is therefore the most likely. Our exploration of the identity of the opponents in 1 John has come to an end, but I hope that this work will spur on the scholarly community to reopen this debate. For too long, discussion about the historical reconstruction of the Johannine situation has been captive to unfounded assumptions and overeager imaginations. If progress is to be made, scholars must resolve anew to walk the narrow way of rigorous exegetical analysis and enter through the strait gate of restrained historical reconstruction.

Bibliography Acerbi, Antonio. “Contributo allo studio della comunità giovannea.” Annali di Scienze Religiose 11 (2006): 9–56. Adamik, Tamás. “The Image of Simon Magus in the Christian Tradition.” Pages 52–64 in The Apocryphal Acts of Peter: Magic, Miracles and Gnosticism. Edited by Jan N. Bremmer. Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles 3. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. Akin, Daniel L. 1,2,3 John: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. New American Commentary 38. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001. Alamo, M. del. “Los ‘Tres Testificantes’ de la primera Epístola de San Juan V. 7.” Cultura Biblica 4 (1947): 11–14. Aland, Barbara. “Marcion: Versuch einer neuen Interpretation” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 70 (1973): 420–47. Alegre, X. “La tradición joánica y su evolución: Un llamado a saber conjugar la fidelidad a Jesús con la creatividad del Espíritu en la Iglesia.” Revista Latinoamericana de Teologia 17 (2000): 117–41. Alexander, Neil. The Epistles of John: Introduction and Commentary. London: SCM, 1962. Ameling, W. “Evangelium Johannis 19,35: Ein aretalogische Motiv.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 60 (1985): 25–34. Anderson, Paul N. The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Its Unity and Disunity in the Light of John 6. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.78. Tübingen: Mohr, 1996. ______. “The Sitz im Leben of the Johannine Bread of Life Discourse and Its Evolving Context.” Pages 1–59 in Critical Readings of John 6. Edited by R. Alan Culpepper. Biblical Interpretation Series 22. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Anderson, Paul N., Felix Just, and Tom Thatcher, eds. John, Jesus, and History, Volume 1. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. Antoniotti, Louise-Marie. “Structure littéraire et sens de la Première Épître de Jean.” Revue Thomiste 88 (1988): 5–35. Arai, Sasagu. “Zur Christologie des Apokryphons des Johann.” New Testament Studies 15 (1968/1969): 302–18. ______. Die Christologie des Evangelium Veritatis: eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Leiden: Brill, 1964. ______. “Zur Lesung und Übersetzung des Evangelium Veritatis: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis seiner Christologie.” Novum Testamentum 5 (1962): 214– 18. Argyle, A. W. “1 John 3.4f.” Expository Times 65 (1953–54): 62–63. Ashton, John. The Interpretation of John. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.

362

Bibliography

______. Understanding the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991. Asiedu-Peprah, Martin. Johannine Sabbath Conflicts as Juridical Controversy. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 132. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Asmussen, Hans. Wahrheit und Liebe: eine Einführung in die Johannesbriefe. Hamburg: Furche, 1957. Attridge, Harold W. “The Gospel of Truth as an Exoteric Text.” Pages 239–55 in Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, & Early Christianity. Edited by Charles W. Hedrick and Robert Hodgson. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1986. ______. “Heracleon and John: Reassessment of an Early Christian Hermeneutical Debate.” Pages 57–72 in Biblical Interpretation: History, Context, and Reality. Edited by C. Helmer and T. Petrey. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. ______. “Johannine Christianity.” Pages 125–144 in Cambridge History of Christianity: Volume 1, Origins to Constantine. Edited by Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Augenstein, Jörg. Das Liebesgebot im Johannesevangelium und in den Johannesbriefen. Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten Testament und Neuen Testament 134. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1993. Aune, David E. Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. ______. “On the Origins of the ‘Council of Javneh’ Myth.” Journal of Biblical Literature 110 (1991): 491–93. Bakken, Norman Kenneth. “The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Study of Their Relationship in the Pre-Canonical Period.” Ph.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary, 1963. Balás, D. “Marcion Revisited: A ‘Post-Harnack’ Perspective.” Pages 95–108 in Texts and Testament: Critical Essays on the Bible and Early Church Fathers. Edited by W. E. March. San Antonio: Trinity University Press, 1980. Baldensperger, G. Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums: sein polemisch-apologetischer Zweck. Freiburg: Mohr Siebeck, 1898. Balz, Horst. “Johanneische Theologie und Ethik im Licht der ‘letzten Stunde.’” Pages 35–56 in Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des Neuen Testaments: Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Heinrich Greeven. Edited by W. Schrage. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Balz, Horst and W. Schrage. Die “Katholischen” Briefe: die Briefe des Jakobus, Petrus, Johannes und Judas, Das Neue Testament deutsch 10. 14th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Bammel, C. P. H. “Ignatian Problems.” Journal of Theological Studies 33 (1982): 62–97. Barbet, Pierre. A Doctor at Calvary: The Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ as Described by a Surgeon. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1953. Barclay, John M. G. “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 31 (1987): 73–93. Bardsley, H. J. “The Testimony of Ignatius and Polycarp to the Writings of St John.” Journal of Theological Studies 14 (1913): 207–20, 489–500.

Bibliography

363

Bardy, G. “Cérinthe.” Revue Biblique 30 (1921): 344–73. Barfield, Virgina C. “I John: A Social-Scientific Interpretation.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University, 2002. Barker, Margaret. The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God. Louisville: Westminster, 1992. Barnard, L. W. “The Background of St. Ignatius of Antioch.” Vigiliae Christianae 17 (1963): 192–206. ______. Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought. London: Cambridge University Press, 1967. ______. Studies in the Apostolic Fathers and their Background. New York: Schocken, 1966. Barnikol, Ernst. Die Entstehung der Kirche im zweiten Jahrhundert und die Zeit Marcions. Forschungen zur Entstehung des Urchristentums des Neuen Testaments und der Kirche 8. Kiel: Mühlau, 1933. Barrett, Charles Kingsley. Essays on John. Philadelphia: Paulist, 1982. ______. The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. 2nd ed. London: SPCK, 1978. ______. The Gospel of John and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. ______. “Jews and Judaizers in the Epistles of Ignatius.” Pages 220–44 in Jews, Greeks and Christians, Essays in Honor of W. D. Davies. Edited by R. Hamerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs. Leiden: Brill, 1976. ______. “Johannine Christianity.” Pages 330–58 in Christian Beginnings: Word and Community from Jesus to Post-Apostolic Times. Edited by Jürgen Becker. Translated by Annemarie Kidder and Reinhard Krauss. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1987. ______. “John and Judaism.” Pages 231–46 in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel. Edited by R. Bieringer, D. Pollefeyt, and F. Vandecasteele-Vanneeuville. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. ______. “Pauline Controversies in the Post-Pauline Period.” New Testament Studies 20 (1973–74): 229–45. ______. “The Place of Eschatology in the Fourth Gospel.” Expository Times 59 (1947–48): 302–05. Bartlet, Vernon. “The Historical Setting of the Second and Third Epistles of St John.” Journal of Theological Studies 6 (1905): 204–16. Barton, S. “Can We Identify the Gospel Audiences?” Pages 173–94 in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Edited by R. Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Bartsch, Hans Werner. Gnostisches Gut und Gemeindetradition bei Ignatius von Antiochien. Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie 44. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1940. Bass, Christopher D. “A Johannine Perspective of the Human Responsibility to Persevere in the Faith through the Use of ΜΕΝΩ and Other Related Motifs.” Westminster Theological Journal 69 (2007): 305–26. Bassler, Jouette M. 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996. ______. “A Plethora of Epiphanies: Christology in the Pastoral Letters.” Princeton Seminary Bulletin 17 (1996): 310–25.

364

Bibliography

______. “Epiphany Christology in the Pastoral Letters: Another Look.” Pages 194–214 in Pauline Conversations in Context: Essays in Honor of Calvin J. Roetzel. Edited by Janice Capel Anderson et al. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 221. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Bauckham, Richard. “For Whom Were the Gospels Written?” Pages 9–48 in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Edited by R. Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. ______. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. ______. “Messianism according to the Gospel of John.” Pages 34–68 in Challenging Perspectives on the Gospel of John. Edited by John Lierman. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.219. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. ______. The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. Bauer, Johannes Baptist. Die Polykarpbriefe. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. Bauer, Walter. Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiocha und der Polykarpbrief. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1920. ______. Das Johannesevangelium. 3rd ed. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 6. Tübingen: Mohr, 1933. ______. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Translated by Robert Kraft. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Bauer, Walter, F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Baumgarten, O. Die Johannesbriefe. Studien zum Neuen Testament 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1920. Baumgarten-Crusius, L. F. O. Theologische Auslegung der Johanneischen Schriften. Jena: Luden, 1845. Baur, F. C. “Die johanneischen Briefe: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Kanons.” Theologische Jahrbücher 7 (1848): 293–337. ______. “Das Verhältnis des ersten johanneischen Briefs zum johanneischen Evangelium.” Theologische Jahrbücher 16 (1857): 315–31. Beasley-Murray, George R. John. 2nd ed. Word Biblical Commentary 36. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999. Becker, Adam H. and A. Y. Reed, eds. The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 95. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Becker, Jürgen. “Die Abschiedsreden Jesu im Johannesevangelium.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 61 (1970): 215–46. ______. “Endzeitlicher Geist und gottesdienstliche Gestaltung im johanneischen Kreis.” Pages 11–30 in Eschatologie und Ethik im frühen Christentum: Festschrift für Günter Haufe zum 75. Geburtstag. Edited by Christfried Böttrich. Greifswalder theologische Forschungen 11. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2006.

Bibliography

365

______. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. 2 vols. 2nd ed. Ökumenischer Taschenbuch-Kommentar. Gütersloh: Mohn,1984–1985. ______. Johanneisches Christentum: Seine Geschichte und Theologie im Überblick. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. ______. “Der Streit um das Bekenntnis im 1. Joh” Pages 172–95 in Bekenntnis und Erinnerung Festschrift zum 75. Geburtstag von Hans-Friedrich Weiss. Edited by Klaus-Michael Bull, Eckart Reinmuth, and Hans-Friedrich Weiss. Rostocker theologische Studien 16. Münster: Lit, 2004. ______. “Das Verhältnis des johanneischen Kreises zum Paulinismus: Anregungen zur Belebung einer Diskussion.” Pages 473–95 in Paulus und Johannes: Exegetische Studien zur paulinischen und johanneischen Theologie und Literatur. Edited by D. Sänger and U. Mell. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 198. Tübingen: Mohr, 2006. Beker, J. Christiaan. “Christologies and Anthropologies of Paul, Luke-Acts and Marcion.” Pages 174–82 in From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge. Edited by M. C. de Boer. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 84. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Belle, G. van. Johannine Bibliography 1966–1985: A Cumulative Bibliography on the Fourth Gospel. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 116. Leuven: Peeters, 1994. Belser, J. E. “Erläuterungen zu 1 Joh.” Theologische Quartalschrift 95 (1913): 514– 31. ______. Die Briefe des heiligen Johannes. Freiburg: Herders, 1906. Bengel, J. A. Gnomon of the New Testament, Volume 5. 7th ed. Translated by William Fletcher. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1873. Bennema, Cornelis. “The Giving of the Spirit in John’s Gospel—A New Proposal?” Evangelical Quarterly 74 (2002): 195–213. ______. The Power of Saving Wisdom: An Investigation of Spirit and Wisdom in Relation to the Soteriology of the Fourth Gospel. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.148. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. ______. “Spirit-Baptism in the Fourth Gospel: A Messianic Reading of John 1,33.” Biblica 84 (2003): 35–60. Berding, Kenneth. Polycarp and Paul: An Analysis of Their Literary and Theological Relationship in Light of Polycarp’s Use of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Literature. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 62. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Berge, Paul S. “The Word and its Witness in John and 1 John: A Literary and Rhetorical Study.” Pages 143–62 in The Quest for Jesus and the Christian Faith. Edited by Frederick J. Gaiser. St. Paul, Minn.: Luther Seminary, 1997. Berger, Klaus. “Die implizierten Gegner: zur Methode des Erschliessens von ‘Gegnern’ in neutestamentlichen Texten.” Pages 373–400 in Kirche. Edited by D. Lührmann and G. Strecker. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980. ______. “Propaganda und Gegenpropaganda im frühen Christentum: Simon Magus als Gestalt des Samaritanischen Christentums.” Pages 313–17 in Religious Propaganda and Missionary Competition in the New Testament World: Essays Honoring Dieter Georgi. Edited by Lukas Bormann et al. Novum Testamentum Supplements 74. Leiden: Brill, 1994.

366

Bibliography

______. Theologiegeschichte des Urchristentums: Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Tübingen: Francke, 1994. ______. “Zu ‘Das Wort ward Fleisch’ Joh. I 14a.” Novum Testamentum 16 (1974): 161–66. Bergmeier, R. “Fragen zur Interpretation der johanneischen Schriften: Homogenität und Widersprüche.” Theologische Zeitschrift 60 (2004): 107–30. ______. “Die Gestalt des Simon Magus in Act 8 und in der simonianischen Gnosis—Aporien einer Gesamtdeutung.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 77 (1986): 267–75. Berkowitz, L., and K. A. Squitier, eds. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: Canon of Greek Authors and Works. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Bernard, J. H. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. 2 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928. Berrin, S. “Qumran Pesharim.” Pages 110–33 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by M. Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Besser, W. F. A. Die Briefe St. Johannis in Bibelstunden für die Gemeinde ausgelegt. Halle: Mühlmann, 1893. Best, Ernest. 1 Peter. New Century Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977. Betz, Hans Dieter. Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Beutler, Johannes. “Der erste Johannesbrief als Zeugnis der johanneischen Schule.” Bibel und Kirche 53 (1998): 170–75. ______. “Die Heilsbedeutung des Todes Jesu im Johannesevangelium nach Joh 13,1–20.” Pages 188–204 in Der Tod Jesu: Deutungen im Neuen Testament. Edited by K. Kertelge. Quaestiones Disputatae 74. Freiburg: Herder, 1976. ______. “Kirche als Sekte? Zum Kirchenbild der johanneischen Abschiedsreden.” Pages 21–32 in Studien zu den johanneischen Schriften. Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbände 25. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1998. ______. “Krise und Untergang der johanneischen Gemeinde: das Zeugnis der Johannesbriefe.” Pages 141–62 in Studien zu den johanneischen Schriften. Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbände 25. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1998. ______. Martyria: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Zeugnisthema bei Johannes. Frankfurt: Knecht, 1972. ______. Die Johannesbriefe. Regensburger Neues Testament. Regensburg: Pustet, 2000. ______. “Die Johannesbriefe in der neuesten Literatur.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt 25.5 (1988): 3733–90. ______. Studien zu den johanneischen Schriften. Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbände 25. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1998. Beutler, Johannes, and R. T. Fortna. The Shepherd Discourse of John 10 and Its Context: Studies by Members of the Johannine Writings Seminar. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Beyschlag, K. Simon Magus und die christliche Gnosis. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 16. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1974.

Bibliography

367

Bianchi, M. “La testimonianza nella tradizione giovannea: vangelo e lettere.” Pages 119–37 in Testimonianza e verità: un approccio interdisciplinare. Edited by P. Ciardella and M. Gronchi. Collana di Teologia 39. Rome: Città Nuova, 2000. Bianchi, Ugo. “Le gnosticisme et les origines du christianisme.” Pages 211–28 in Gnosticisme et monde hellénistique. Edited by Julien Ries. Publications de l’Institut orientaliste de Louvain 27. Lovain-la-Neuve: Institut Orientaliste, 1982. ______. “Marcion: theologien biblique ou docteur gnostique?” Vigiliae Christianae 21 (1967): 141–49. Bianchi, Ugo, ed. Le origini dello gnosticismo: Colloquio di Messina 13–18 Aprile 1966. Studies in the History of Religions 12. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Bienaimé, Germain. Moïse et le don de l’eau dans la tradition juive ancienne: targum et midrash. Analecta Biblica 98. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1984. Bieringer, R., Didier Pollefeyt, and F. Vandecasteele-Vanneuville, eds. AntiJudaism and the Fourth Gospel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Bisping, A. Erklärung des Evangeliums nach Johannes. Münster: Aschendorff, 1865. Black, C. Clifton. “The First, Second, and Third Letters of John.” Pages 363–469 in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. XII. Edited by Leander Keck. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998. ______. “The Johannine Epistles and the Question of Early Catholicism.” Novum Testamentum 28 (1986): 131–58. ______. “Short Shrift Made Once Again.” Theology Today 57 (2000): 386–94. Black, D. A. “An Overlooked Stylistic Argument in Favor of panta in 1 John 2:20.” Filologia Neotestamentaria 5 (1992): 205–208. Blaine, Brad. Peter in the Gospel of John: The Making of an Authentic Disciple. Society of Biblical Literature Biblica Academica. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Blank, Josef. “Die Irrlehrer des ersten Johannesbriefes.” Kairos 26 (1984): 166–93. ______. Krisis: Untersuchungen zur johanneischen Christologie und Eschatologie. Freiburg: Lambertus, 1964. ______. “Was von Anfang an war: zum Proömium des ersten Johannesbriefes.” Pages 167–80 in Studien zur biblischen Theologie. Edited by J. Blank. Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbände 13. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1992. Blasi, Anthony J. A Sociology of Johannine Christianity. Lewiston, N. Y.: Mellen, 1996. Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Bleek, F. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2 vols. Translated by W. Urwick. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1852. Blomberg, Craig. The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues and Commentary. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2001. ______. “Messiah in the New Testament.” Pages 111–42 in Israel’s Messiah in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Richard S. Hess and M. Daniel Carroll R. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.

368

Bibliography

______. From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts through Revelation. Nashville: Broadman, 2006. Bludau, August. Die ersten Gegner der Johannesschriften. Biblische Studien 22.1–2. Freiburg: Herder, 1925. Böcher, O. Der johanneische Dualismus im Zusammenhang des nachbiblischen Judentums. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1965. Bockmuehl, M. “Das Verb φανερόω im Neuen Testament: Versuch einer Neuauswertung.” Biblische Zeitschrift 32 (1988): 87–99. Boer, Martinus C. de. “Het bloed en het water van Jezus Christus in de eerste Johannesbrief.” Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift 89 (1989): 131–39. ______. “The Death of Jesus Christ and His Coming in the Flesh (1 John 4:2).” Novum Testamentum 33 (1991): 326–46. ______. “Jesus the Baptizer: 1 John 5:5–8 and the Gospel of John.” Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988): 87–106. ______. Johannine Perspectives on the Death of Jesus. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 17. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996. Boer, Martinus C. de, ed. From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus & the New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Bogart, John. Orthodox and Heretical Perfectionism in the Johannine Community as Evident in the First Epistle of John. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 33. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977. Boice, James Montgomery. Witness and Revelation in the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970. Boismard, Marie-Émile. “La connaissance de Dieu dans l’Alliance Nouvelle d’apres la première lettre de S. Jean.” Revue Biblique 56 (1949): 365–91. ______. “L’évolution du thème eschatologique dans les traditions johanniques.” Revue Biblique 68 (1961): 507–24. ______. “The First Epistle of John and the Writings of Qumran.” Pages 156–65 in John and Qumran. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. London: Chapman, 1971. ______. Quatre hymnes baptismales dans la premiére épître de Pierre. Lectio divina 30. Paris: Cerf, 1961. Boismard, Marie-Émile, and A. Lamouille. Synopse des quatre Évangiles en français. Vol. 3: L’Évangile de Jean. Paris: Cerf, 1977. Bond, Helen K. “Discarding the Seamless Robe: The High Priesthood of Jesus in John’s Gospel.” Pages 183–94 in Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity: Essays in Honor of Larry W. Hurtado and Alan F. Segal. Edited by David B. Capes, Larry W. Hurtado, and Alan F. Segal. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007. Bonnard, P. “La chair dans le johannisme, et au-delà.” Pages 187–93 in Anamnesis: Recherches sur le Nouveau Testament. Geneva: Cahiers de la Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie, 1980. ______. Les épitres johanniques. Commentaire du Nouveau Testament 2.13c. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 1983. ______. “La première épitre de Jean est-elle johannique?” Pages 195–200 in Anamnesis: Recherches sur le Nouveau Testament. Cahiers de la Revue de theólogie et de philosophie 3. Genève: Revue de Thèologie et de Phil., 1980.

Bibliography

369

Bonsirven, Joseph. Épitres de Saint Jean. 2nd ed. Verbum Salutis: Commentaire du Nouveau Testament 9. Paris: Beauchesne, 1954. Borchert, Gerald L. John 1–11. New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996. ______. John 12–21. New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2002. Borgen, Peder. “Ignatius and Traditions on the Birth of Jesus.” Pages 155–63 in Paul Preaches Circumcision and Pleases Men and Other Essays on Christian Origins. Trondheim: Tapir, 1983. Boring, E. M. “The Influence of Christian Prophecy on the Johannine Portrayal of the Paraclete and Jesus.” New Testament Studies 25 (1978–79): 113–23. Bornhäuser, K. Das Johannesevangelium: eine Missionsschrift für Israel. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1928. Bornkamm, G. “On the Understanding of Worship.” Pages 161–79 in Early Christian Experience. London: SCM, 1969. Bos, Abraham P. “Basilides as an Aristotelianizing Gnostic.” Vigiliae Christianae 54 (2000): 44–60. ______. “Basilides of Alexandria: Matthias (Matthew) and Aristotle as the Sources of Inspiration for His Gnostic Theology in Hippolytus’ Refutatio.” Pages 397–418 in The Wisdom of Egypt. Jewish, Early Christian, and Gnostic Essays in Honour of Gerard P. Luttikhuizen. Edited by A. Hilhorst and G. H. van Kooten. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 59. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Bousset, Wilhelm. The Antichrist Legend. Translated by A. H. Keane. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999. ______. Kyrios Christos: A History of the Belief in Christ from the Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus. Translated by J. E. Steely. Nashville: Abingdon, 1970. Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. ______. “The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John.” Harvard Theological Review 94 (2001): 243–84. ______. “Justin Martyr Invents Judaism.” Church History 70 (2001): 427–61. Braun, François-Marie. “L’eau et l’Esprit.” Revue Thomiste 49 (1949): 5–30. ______. “La réduction du pluriel au singulier dans l’evangile et la Premiere Lettre de Jean.” New Testament Studies 24 (1977): 40–67. Braun, Herbert. “Literar-Analyse und theologische Schichtung im ersten Johannesbrief.” Pages 210–42 in Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt. Edited by H. Braun. 3rd ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1971. Bray, Gerald Lewis, and Thomas C. Oden, eds. James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture 11. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000. Breck, John. “The Function of ΠΑΣ in 1 John 2:20.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 35 (1991): 187–206. Bremmer, Jan, ed. The Apocryphal Acts of John. Kampen: Kok, 1995. Brent, Allen. “Ignatius and Polycarp: The Transformation of New Testament Traditions in the Context of Mystery Cults.” Pages 325–49 in Trajectories

370

Bibliography

through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers. Edited by Andrew F. Gregory and C. M. Tuckett. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Brodie, Thomas L. The Gospel according to John: A Literary and Theological Commentary. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Brooke, Alan England. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles. International Critical Commentary. New York: Scribners, 1912. Brooks, Kent R. “John the Beloved: A Special Witness of the Atonement.” Pages 1–15 in The Testimony of John the Beloved: The 27th Annual Sidney B. Sperry Symposium. Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret, 1998. Brooks, O. S. “The Johannine Eucharist: Another Interpretation.” Journal of Biblical Literature 82 (1963): 293–300. Brown, Charles Thomas. The Gospel and Ignatius of Antioch. Studies in Biblical Literature 12. New York: Lang, 2000. Brown, Raymond Edward. The Community of the Beloved Disciple: The Life, Loves, and Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times. New York: Paulist, 1979. ______. The Death of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. 2 vols. Garden City, N. J.: Doubleday, 1994. ______. The Epistles of John. Anchor Bible 30. Garden City, N. J.: Doubleday, 1982. ______. The Gospel according to John. 2 vols. Anchor Bible 29–29A. Garden City, N. J.: Doubleday, 1966, 1970. ______. An Introduction to the Gospel of John. Edited by Francis Moloney. New York: Doubleday, 2003. ______. “Johannine Ecclesiology—The Community’s Origins.” Interpretation 31 (1977): 379–93. ______. “‘Other Sheep Not of this Fold.’ The Johannine Perspective on Christian Diversity in the Late First Century.” Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978): 5–22. ______. “The Qumran Scrolls and the Johannine Gospel and Epistles.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 17 (1955): 403–19, 560–67. ______. “The Relationship to the Fourth Gospel Shared by the Author of 1 John and By His Opponents.” Pages 57–68 in Text and Interpretation: Studies in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black. Edited by E. Best and R. McL. Wilson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Brown, Tricia Gates. Spirit in the Writings of John: Johannine Pneumatology in Social-Scientific Perspective. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 253. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Brownson, James. “The Odes of Solomon and the Johannine Tradition.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 2 (1988): 49–69. Brox, N. “‘Doketismus’—eine Problemanzeige.” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 95 (1984): 301–14. ______. “Nikolaos und Nikolaiten.” Vigiliae Christianae 19 (1965): 23–30. ______. Die Pastoralbriefe. Regensburger Neues Testament 7.2. Regensburg: Pustet, 1969. ______. Zeuge und Märtyrer: Untersuchung zur frühchristlichen ZeugnisTerminologie. Munich: Kösel, 1961.

Bibliography

371

Bruce, F. F. The Epistles of John: Introduction, Exposition, and Notes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. Bryne, D. de. “Les plus anciens prologues latins des évangiles.” Revue Bénédictine 40 (1928): 193–214. Brunson, Andrew C. Psalm 118 in the Gospel of John: An Intertextual Study on the New Exodus Pattern in the Theology of John. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.158. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Büchsel, Friedrich. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. Das Neue Testament Deutsch. Göttiger Bibelwerk 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1934. ______. Die Johannesbriefe. Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 17. Leipzig: Deichert, 1933. ______. “Zu den Johannesbriefen.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 28 (1929): 235–41. Buckley, J. J. “A Cult-Mystery in the Gospel of Philip.” Journal of Biblical Literature 99 (1980): 569–81. Bühner, Jan Adolph. Der Gesandte und sein Weg im vierten Evangelium: Die kultur- und religionsgeschichtliche Grundlagen der johanneischen Sendungschristologie sowie ihre traditionsgeschichtliche Entwicklung. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1977. Bull, Klaus-Michael. Gemeinde zwischen Integration und Abgrenzung: Ein Beiträg zur Frage nach dem Ort der joh Gemeinde(n) in der Geschichte des Urchristentums. Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie 24. Frankurt: Lang, 1992. Bultmann, Rudolf Karl. “Analyse des ersten Johannesbriefes.” Pages 138–58 in Festgabe für Adolf Jülicher. Tübingen: Mohr, 1927. ______. “Bekenntnis- und Liedfragmente im ersten Petrusbrief.” Pages 1–14 in Coniectanea Neotestamentica in Honorem Antonii Fridrichsen. Lund: Gleerup, 1947. ______. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by George R. BeasleyMurray et al. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971. ______. The Johannine Epistles: A Commentary on the Johannine Epistles. Hermeneia. Translated by R. Philip O’Hara. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973. ______. Theology of the New Testament. 2vols. Translated by K. Grobel. London: SCM, 1983. Bundy, David. “Marcion and the Marcionites in early Syriac Apologetics.” Le Muséon 101 (1988): 21–32. Burge, Gary M. The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. ______. The Letters of John. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. ______. John. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000. Burkitt, F. C. Church and Gnosis: A Study of Christian Thought and Speculation in the Second Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1932. ______. The Gospel History and its Transmission. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1907. Burridge, Richard. “About People, By People, For People: Gospel Genre and Audiences.” Pages 113–45 in The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the

372

Bibliography

Gospel Audiences. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Busenitz, I. A. “The Sin unto Death.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 1 (1990): 17– 31. Byrne, Brendan. Romans. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1996. ______. Sons of God, Seed of Abraham: A Study of the Idea of the Sonship of God of All Christians in Paul against the Jewish Background. Analecta Biblica 83. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1979. Byron, John. “Slaughter, Fratricide and Sacrilege: Cain and Abel Tradition in 1 John 3.” Biblica 88 (2007): 526–35. Byrskog, S. Jesus the Only Teacher: Didactic Authority and Transmission in Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism and the Matthean Community. Coniectanea Biblica New Testament 24. Lund: Gleerup, 1994. Cadbury, H. J. “The Ancient Physiological Notions Underlying John I,13 and Hebrews XI,11.” Expositor 9.2 (1924): 430–39. Callahan, Allen Dwight. A Love Supreme: A History of the Johannine Tradition. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Calmet, A, “Le témoignage de l’eau, du sang, de l’Esprit: I Jean 5,6.8.” Bible et vie chrétienne 53 (1963): 35–36. Calvin, John. Commentary on the Gospel according to John. 2 vols. Translated and edited by William Pringle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949. ______. 1, 2 & 3 John. Crossway Classic Commentaries. Wheaton: Crossway, 1998. Camelot, P. T. Ignace d’Antioche: Lettres. 2nd ed. Sources chrétiennes. Paris: Cerf, 1951. Cameron, Ron. Sayings Traditions in the Apocryphon of James. Harvard Theological Studies 34. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Campbell, B. L. “Honor, Hospitality and Haughtiness: The Contention for Leadership in 3 John.” Evangelical Quarterly 77 (2005): 321–41. Campbell, Joan Cecelia. Kinship Relations in the Gospel of John. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 42. Washington, D. C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 2007. Campbell, R. Alastair. “Identifying the Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral Epistles.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 54 (1994): 73–86. Campenhausen, H. von. Die Idee des Martyriums in der alten Kirche. Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht: Göttingen, 1936. ______. Polykarp von Smyrna und die Pastoralbriefe. Heidelberg: Winter, 1951. Caragounis, Chrys C. The Development of Greek and the New Testament: Morphology, Syntax, Phonology, and Textual Transmission. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 167. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. ______. “What Did Jesus Mean by τὴν ἀρχήν in John 8:25?” Novum Testamentum 49 (2007): 129–47. Carey, G. L. “The Lamb of God and Atonement Theories.” Tyndale Bulletin 32 (1981): 97–122.

Bibliography

373

Carrell, Peter R. Jesus and the Angels: Angelology and the Christology of the Apocalypse of John. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Carson, D. A. “1–3 John, Jude.” Pages 1063–69 in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007. ______. “The Challenge of the Balkanization of Johannine Studies.” Pages 133– 64 in John, Jesus, and History, Volume 1. Edited by Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just, and Tom Thatcher. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. ______. The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God. Wheaton: Crossway, 1999. ______. The Gospel according to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. ______. “The Johannine Letters.” Pages 351–55 in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2000. ______. “John and the Johannine Epistles.” Pages 245–64 in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Edited by D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. ______. “The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: John 20:31 Reconsidered.” Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (1987): 639–51. ______. “Syntactical and Text-Critical Observations on John 20:30–31: One More Round on the Purpose of the Fourth Gospel.”Journal of Biblical Literature 124 (2005): 693–714. ______. “The Three Witnesses and the Eschatology of 1 John.” Pages 216–32 in To Tell the Mystery: Essays on New Testament Eschatology in Honor of Robert H. Gundry. Edited by T. E. Schmidt and M. Silva. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 100. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. ______. “‘You Have No Need That Anyone Should Teach You’ (1 John 2:27): An Old Testament Allusion That Determines the Interpretation.” Pages 269–80 in The New Testament in Its First Century Setting: Essays on Context and Background in Honour of B. W. Winter on His 65th Birthday. Edited by P. J. Williams, A. D. Clarke, P. M. Head, D. Instone-Brewer. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Carter, Warren. John and Empire: Initial Explorations. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2008. Cartlidge, David. “Transfigurations of Metamorphosis Traditions in the Acts of John, Thomas, and Peter.” Semeia 38 (1986) 53–66. Casalini, N. Lettere Cattoliche, Apocalisse di Giovanni. Studium Biblicum Franciscanum 58. Jerusalem: Franciscan, 2002. Casey, P. M. From Jewish Prophet to Gentile God: The Origins and Development of New Testament Christology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991. Casey, R. P. The Excerpta Ex Theodoto of Clement of Alexandria. Studies and Documents 1. London: Christophers, 1934. ______. “The Study of Gnosticism.” Journal of Theological Studies 36 (1935): 45– 60. Cassem, N. H. “A Grammatical and Contextual Inventory of the Use of ‘κόσμος’ in the Johannine Corpus.” New Testament Studies 19 (1972): 81–91.

374

Bibliography

Catto, Stephen. Reconstructing the First-Century Synagogue: A Critical Analysis of Current Research. Library of New Testament Studies 363. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Cebulj, C. “Johannesevangelium und Johannesbriefe.” Pages 254–342 in Schulen im Neuen Testament? Zur Stellung des Urchristentums in der Bildungswelt seiner Zeit, mit einem Beitrag zur johanneischen Schule von Christian Cebulj. Edited by Thomas Schmeller. Herders biblische Studien 30. Freiburg: Herder, 2001. Chaine, Joseph. Les épitres catholiques: la seconde épitre de saint Pierre, les épitres de saint Jean, l´épitre de saint Jude. Études bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1939. Chapman, J. “The Historical Setting of the Second and Third Epistles of St. John.” Journal of Theological Studies 5 (1904): 357–68, 517–34. Charlesworth, James. “A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1QS 3:13–4:26 and the ‘Dualism’ Contained in the Gospel of John.” Pages 76–106 in John and Qumran. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1972. ______. “A Study in Shared Symbolism and Language: The Qumran Community and the Johannine Community.” Pages 97–152 in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Volume 3: The Scrolls and Christian Origins. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006. Childs, Brevard S. The New Testament As Canon: An Introduction. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Chilton, Bruce. The Isaiah Targum. Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, 1987. Clapperton, J. A. “τὴν Ἁμαρτίαν (1 John iii.4).” Expository Times 47 (1935–36): 92–93. Clark-Soles, Jaime. Scripture Cannot Be Broken: The Social Function of the Use of Scripture in the Fourth Gospel. Boston: Brill, 2003. Clemen, C. “Beiträge zum geschichtlichen Verständnis der Johannesbriefe.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 6 (1905): 271–81. Coetzée, J. E. “The Holy Spirit in 1 John.” Neotestamentica 13 (1979): 43–67. ______. “Life (Eternal Life) in John’s Writings and the Qumran Scrolls.” Neotestamentica 6 (1972): 46–62. Cohen, S. J. D. “Crossing the Boundary and Becoming a Jew.” Harvard Theological Review 82 (1989): 13–33. Collins, A. Y., and J. J. Collins. King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Collins, John J. Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Routledge, 1997. ______. Encounters with Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Coloe, Mary L. Dwelling in the Household of God: Johannine Ecclesiology and Spirituality. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2007. ______. God Dwells with Us: Temple Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2001. ______. “The Johannine Pentecost.” Australian Biblical Review 55 (2007): 41–56. ______. “Welcome into the Household of God: The Footwashing in John 13.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 66 (2004): 400–15.

Bibliography

375

Conway, Colleen M. “The Production of the Johannine Community: A New Historicist Perspective.” Journal of Biblical Literature 121 (2002): 479–95. Conzelmann, Hans. “‘Was von Anfang an war.’” Pages 194–201 in Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann. Edited by W. Eltester. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 21. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1954. Cook, W. R. “Hamartiological Problems in First John.” Bibliotheca Sacra 123 (1966): 249–60. Corwin, Virginia. St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960. Cosgrove, C. H. “The Place Where Jesus is: Allusions to Baptism and the Eucharist in the Fourth Gospel.” New Testament Studies 35 (1989): 522–39. Countryman, William. “Asceticism in the Johannine Letters.” Pages 383–91 in Asceticism and the New Testament. Edited by Leif E. Vaage and Vincent L. Wimbush. New York: Routledge, 1999. Coutsompos, Panayotis. “The Idolatry Dilemma in 1 John 5:21.” DavarLogos 2 (2003): 147–52. Couture, P. The Teaching Function in the Church of 1 John (1 John 2.20, 27): A Contribution to Johannine Ecclesiology and Ecumenics. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1968. Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. 2 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1985–86. ______. “Some Comments on Professor J. D. G. Dunn’s Christology in the Making with Special Reference to the Evidence of the Epistle to the Romans.” Pages 267–80 in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Memory of G. B. Caird. Edited by L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987. Crawford, Barry S. “Christos as Nickname.” Pages 337–48 in Redescribing Christian Origins. Edited by Ron Cameron and Merrill P. Miller. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 28. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004. Cuadrado, José Fernando Toribio. “El Viniente”: Estudio exegético y teológico del verbo ἔρχεσθαι en la literatura joánica. Navarra, Spain: Centro FilosóficoTeológico, 1993. Cullmann, Oscar. The Christology of the New Testament. Translated by S. C. Guthrie and Charles A. M. Hall. 2nd ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1980. ______. The Earliest Christian Confessions. Translated by J. K. S. Reid. London: SCM, 1949. ______. Early Christian Worship. London: SCM, 1953. ______. The Early Church: Studies in Early Christian History and Theology. Translated by A. J. B. Higgins and S. Godman. Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1956. ______. “Infancy Gospels.” Pages 414–69 in New Testament Apocrypha, Volume 1. Edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher. Translated and edited by R. McL. Wilson. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003.

376

Bibliography

______. The Johannine Circle: Its Place in Judaism, Among the Disciples of Jesus and in Early Christianity, A Study in the Origin of the Gospel of John. Translated by John Bowden. Philadephia: Westminster, 1976. Culpepper, R. Alan. 1 John, 2 John, 3 John. Knox Preaching Guides. Atlanta: John Knox, 1985. ______. The Anatomy of John. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. ______. “The Christology of the Johannine Writings.” In Who Do You Say That I Am? Essays on Christology. Edited by M. A. Powell and D. R. Bauer. Louisville: Westminster, 1999. ______. The Gospel and Letters of John. Interpreting Biblical Texts. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998. ______. The Johannine School: An Evaluation of the Johannine-School Hypothesis Based on an Investigation of the Nature of Ancient Schools. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 26. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975. ______. John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000. Culpepper, R. Alan, ed. The Johannine Literature. Sheffield New Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Culy, Martin. I, II, III John: A Handbook on the Greek Text. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2004. Cummins, S. A. “Divine Life and Corporate Christology: God, Messiah Jesus, and the Covenant Community in Paul.” Pages 190–209 in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments. Edited by S. E. Porter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Curtis, Edward M. “The Purpose of First John.” Th.D. Dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1986. Dahl, Nils Alstrup. “Der Erstgeborene Satans und der Vater des Teufels (Polyk. 7,1 und Joh 8,44).” Pages 70–84 in Apophoreta: Festschrift für Ernst Haenchen zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag am 10. Dezember 1964. Edited by W. Eltester et al. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 30. Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964. ______. Jesus the Christ: The Historical Origins of Christological Doctrine. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. ______.“The Johannine Church and History.” Pages 147–67 in The Interpretation of John. Edited by John Ashton. Studies in New Testament Interpretation. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. Daise, Michael A. Feasts in John: Jewish Festivals and Jesus’ “Hour” in the Fourth Gospel. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 229. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Daley, Brian. The Hope of the Early Church: A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003. Dalton, William J. Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits: A Study of 1 Peter 3:18–4:6. 2nd ed. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1989. Daly-Denton, Margaret M. “Water in the Eucharistic Cup: A Feature of the Eucharist in Johannine Trajectories through Early Christianity.” Irish Theological Quarterly 72 (2008): 356–70. Daniélou, Jean. The Theology of Jewish Christianity: The Development of Christian Doctrine before the Council of Nicaea, vol. 1. London: Longman, 1964.

Bibliography

377

Davids, Peter H. The First Epistle of Peter. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990. Davies, J. G. “The Origins of Docetism.” Studia Patristica 6 (1962): 13–35. Davies, Stevan L. “The Predicament of Ignatius of Antioch.” Vigiliae Christianae 30 (1976): 175–80. Deichgräber, Reinhard. Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der frühen Christenheit: Untersuchungen zur Form, Sprache und Stil der frühchristlichen Hymnen. Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967. Delebecque, Édouard. Epîtres de Jean. Paris: Gabalda, 1988. Denney, J. “He that Came by Water and Blood.” Expositor VII.5 (1907): 416–28. Dennis, John A. Jesus’ Death and the Gathering of True Israel: The Johannine Appropriation of Restoration Theology in the Light of John 11:47–52. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 217. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Derrett, J. Duncan M. “Jewish Law and Johannine Vocabulary: ἀληθής at Jn 5,31–32; 7,18; 8,13.17.” Filologia Neotestamentaria 17 (2004): 89–97. Destro, Adriana, and Mauro Pesce. “The Gospel of John and the Community Rule of Qumran: A Comparison of Systems.” Pages 201–29 in Judaism in Late Antiquity, Part 5. The Judaism of Qumran, a Systemic Reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Vol. 2: World View, Comparing Judaisms. Edited by Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Avery-Peck. Handbuch der Orientalistik I.57. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Devillers, L. “Les trois témoins: une structure pour le quatrième évangile.” Revue Biblique 104 (1997): 40–87. DeYoung, James B. “Middle-Heaven and the Meaning of ‘The Spirit, the Water, and the Blood’: How a Biblical Writer Discovers Deeper Meaning from His Own Earlier Narrative.” Paper presented at Evangelical Theological Society National Meeting, 2003. Dibelius, Martin. Die urchristliche Überlieferung von Johannes dem Täufer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911. Dibelius, Martin, and Hans Conzelmann. The Pastoral Epistles. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972. Dietzfelbinger, Christian. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. 2 vols. Zürcher Bibelkommentare 4. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 2001. Dionysius bar Salibi. In Apocalypsim, Actus et Epistulas Catholicas. Translated and edited by I. Sedlacek. 2 Vols. Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 53, 60. Durbecq: Louvain, 1954. Dodd, C. H. “The First Epistle of John and the Fourth Gospel.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 21 (1937): 129–56. ______. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953. ______. The Johannine Epistles. Moffat New Testament Commentary 19. New York: Harper, 1946. Donahue, John R., ed. Life in Abundance: Studies of John’s Gospel in Tribute to Raymond E. Brown. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2005. Donahue, P. J. “Jewish Christianity in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch.” Vigiliae Christianae 32 (1978): 81–93.

378

Bibliography

Donelson, Lewis R. From Hebrews to Revelation: A Theological Introduction. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Donfried, K. P. “Ecclesiastical Authority in 2–3 John.” Pages 325–33 in L’ évangile de Jean: Sources, redaction, théologie. Edited by M. de Jonge. Leuven: Duculot, 1977 Drijvers, Hendrik Jan Willem. “Marcionitism in Syria: Principles, Problems, Polemic.” Second Century 6 (1987–1988): 153–72. Dryden, J. de Waal. “The Sense of σπέρμα in 1 John 3:9 in Light of Lexical Evidence.” Filologia Neotestamentaria 11 (1999): 85–100. Dulaey, Martine. Victorin de Poetovio: Sur l’Apocalypse et autres écrits. Sources chrétiennes 423; Paris: Cerf, 1997. Dunderberg, Ismo. The Beloved Disciple in Conflict? Revisiting the Gospels of John and Thomas. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. ______. “John and Thomas in Conflict?” Pages 361–80 in The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration. Edited by J. D. Turner and A. McGuire. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ______. “The School of Valentinus.” Pages 64–99 in A Companion to SecondCentury Christian “Heretics”. Edited by Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 76. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Enquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. London: SCM, 1989. ______. “How Controversial Was Paul’s Christology?” Pages 148–67 in From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge. Edited by Martinus C. de Boer. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 84. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. ______. “John VI—a Eucharistic Discourse?” New Testament Studies 17 (1971): 328–38. ______. The Partings of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity. London: SCM, 1991. ______. Romans 1–8. Word Biblical Commentary 38A. Dallas: Word, 1988. ______. Romans 9–16. Word Biblical Commentary 38B. Dallas: Word, 1988. Düsterdieck, Friedrich. Die drei johanneischen Briefe. 2 vols. Göttingen: Dieterisch, 1852, 1856. Du Toit, B. A. “The Role and Meaning of Statements of ‘Certainty’ in the Structural Composition of 1 John.” Neotestamentica 13 (1979): 84–99. Ebrard, Johannes Heinrich August. Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. Translated by W. P. Pope. Clark’s Foreign Theological Library. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1860. Edwards, M. J. “Gnostics and Valentinians in the Church Fathers.” Journal of Theological Studies 40 (1989): 26–47. ______. “Ignatius and the Second Century: An Answer to R. Hübner.” Journal of Ancient Christianity 2 (1998): 214–26. ______. “Ignatius, Judaism, and Judaizing.” Eranos 93 (1995): 69–77. ______. “Martyrdom and the First Epistle of John.” Novum Testamentum 31 (1989): 164–71. Edwards, Ruth B. The Johannine Epistles. New Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

Bibliography

379

Ehrlich, Uri, and Langer, Ruth. “The earliest texts of the Birkat Haminim.” Hebrew Union College Annual 76 (2005): 63–112. Ehrman, B. D. “1 Joh 4,3 and the Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 79 (1988): 221–43. Eichholz, G. “Erwählung und Eschatologie im 1. Johannesbrief.” Evangelische Theologie 5 (1938): 1–28. ______. “Glaube und Liebe im 1. Johannesbrief.” Evangelische Theologie 4 (1937): 411–37. Eichhorn, J. G. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. II.2. Leipzig: Weidmann, 1811. Elliott, John H. 1 Peter. Anchor Bible 37B. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Ellis, E. Earle. The Making of the New Testament Documents. Leiden: Brill, 2002. ______. “Χριστός in 1 Corinthians 10.4, 9.” Pages 168–73 in From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge. Edited by Martinus C. de Boer. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 84. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Engel, Werner. “Der Stellenwert der Sakramente in der johanneischen Gemeinde.” Wiener Jahrbuch für Theologie 4 (2002): 67–79. Erlemann, K. “I Joh und der jüdische-christlich Trennungsprozess.” Theologische Zeitschrift 55 (1999): 285–302. Ernst, J. Die eschatologischen Gegenspieler in den Schriften des Neuen Testaments. Regensburg: Pustet, 1967. Esler, P. F. “Community and Gospel in Early Christianity: A Response to Richard Bauckham’s Gospels for all Christians.” Scottish Journal of Theology 51 (1998): 235–48. ______. “Introverted Sectarianism at Qumran and in the Johannine Community.” Pages 70–91 in The First Christians in their Social Worlds: Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation. New York: Routledge, 1994. Evans, C. F. “‘I Will Go Before You into Galilee.’” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 5 (1954): 3–18. Evans, Craig A. “On the Prologue and the Trimorphic Protennoia.” New Testament Studies 27 (1981): 395–401. ______. “Root Causes of the Jewish-Christian Rift from Jesus to Justin.” Pages 20–35 in Christian Jewish Relations through the Centuries. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 192. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. ______. Word and Glory: On the Exegetical and Theological Background of John’s Prologue. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 89. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. Evans, Craig A., Robert L. Webb, and Richard A. Wiebe, eds. Nag Hammadi Texts and the Bible: A Synopsis and Index. New Testament Tools and Studies 18. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Ewald, Heinrich. Die Johanneischen Schriften. 2 vols. Göttingen: Verlag der Dieterischenen Buchhandlung, 1861–62. Fee, Gordon D. 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. New International Biblical Commentary 13. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988.

380

Bibliography

______. “On the Text and Meaning of John 20.30–31.” Pages 2193–2205 in The Four Gospels, Vol. III. Edited by F. Van Segbroeck et al. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. ______. “The Use of the Definite Article with Personal Names in the Gospel of John.” New Testament Studies 17 (1970–71): 168–83. Fenske, Wolfgang. Der Lieblingsjünger: Das Geheimnis um Johannes. Biblische Gestalten 16. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2007. Fenton, John Charles. The Passion according to John. London: SPCK, 1961. Ferreira, Johan. Johannine Ecclesiology. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 160. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Feuillet, Andre. Le prologue du quatrieme évangile: Etude de la théologie johannique. Brussels: Desclée de Brouwer, 1968. Filoramo, Giovanni. A History of Gnosticism. Translated by A. Alcock. Oxford: Blackwell, 1990. Filson, F. V. “I John: Purpose and Message.” Interpretation 23 (1969): 259–76. ______. “The Significance of the Early House Churches.” Journal of Biblical Literature 58 (1939): 105–12. Findlay, George G. Fellowship in the Life Eternal: An Exposition of the Epistles of St. John. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1909. Fiorenza, Elizabeth Schüssler. “The Quest for the Johannine School: The Apocalypse of the Fourth Gospel.” New Testament Studies 23 (1985): 402–27. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday, 1993. ______. “Qumran Messianism.” Pages 73–110 in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Fleinert-Jensen, F. Commentaire de la première építre de Jean. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1982. Foerster, Werner. Gnosis. Vol. 1: Patristic Evidence. Translated by R. McL. Wilson. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972. ______. Von Valentin zu Herakleon: Untersuchungen über die Quellen und die Entwicklung der valentinianischen Gnosis. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 7. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1928. Ford, J. M. “‘Mingled Blood’ from the Side of Christ (John xix, 34).” New Testament Studies 15 (1968–69): 337–38. Forestell, J. Terence. The Word of the Cross: Salvation as Revelation in the Fourth Gospel. Analecta Biblica 57. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1974. Forkmann, G. The Limits of the Religious Community: Expulsion from the Religious Community within the Qumran Sect, within Rabbinic Judaism, and within Primitive Christianity. Coniectanea neotestamentica 5. Lund: Gleerup, 1972. Fortna, R. T., and Beverly Roberts Gaventa, eds. The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul & John in Honor of J. Louis Martyn. Nashville: Abingdon, 1990.

Bibliography

381

Fossum, Jarl. The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 36. Tübingen: Mohr, 1985. Foster, Paul. “Polymorphic Christology: Its Origins and Development in Early Christianity.” Journal of Theological Studies 58 (2007): 66–99. Fowl, Stephen E. The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul: An Analysis of the Function of the Hymnic Material in the Pauline Corpus. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 36. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Fowler, R. “Born of Water and the Spirit (Jn. 3:5).” Expository Times 82 (1971): 159. Franck, E. Revelation Taught: The Paraclete in the Gospel of John. Coniectanea Biblica New Testament 14. Lund: Gleerup, 1985. Franke, A. H. Das alte Testament bei Johannes: Ein Beitrag zur Erklärung und Beurteilung der johanneischen Schriften. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1885. Frey, Jörg. “Eschatology in the Johannine Circle.” Pages 47–82 in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by the Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminary. Edited by G. Van Belle, J. G. van der Watt, and P. Maritz. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 184. Leuven: Peeters, 2005. ______. “Erwägungen zum Verhältnis der Johannesapokalypse zu den übrigen Schriften des Corpus Johanneum.” Pages 326–49 in Die johanneischer Frage: Ein Lösungsversuch. Edited by M. Hengel. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 67. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993. ______. “Zu Hintergrund und Funktion des johanneischen Dualismus.” Pages 3–73 in Paulus und Johannes: Exegetische Studien zur paulinischen und johanneischen Theologie und Literatur. Edited by Dieter Sänger and Ulrich Mell. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 198. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. ______. Die johanneische Eschatologie. 3 vols. Tübingen: Mohr, 1997–99. Frey, Jörg, and Udo Schnelle, eds. Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums. Das vierte Evangelium in religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 175. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Frey, Jörg, Daniel R. Schwartz, and Stephanie Gripentrog. Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World. Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 71. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Frey, Jörg, Jan Gabriël Van der Watt, and Ruben Zimmermann, eds. Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 200. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Freyne, Seán. “Christological Debates among Johannine Christians.” Concilium (2002): 59–67. Friedrich, G. “Beobachtungen zur messianischen Hohenpriestererwartung in den Synoptikern.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 53 (1956): 265–311. ______. “Das Lied vom Hohenpriester im Zusammenhang von Hebr 4,14–5,10.” Theologische Zeitschrift 18 (1962): 95–115.

382

Bibliography

Fröhlich, Ida. “Caracteres formels des Pesharim de Qumran et la Litterature Apocalyptique.” Pages 449–56 in “Wünschet Jerusalem Frieden.” Edited by Matthias Augustin and Klaus-Dietrich Schunk. Beiträge zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des antiken Judentums 13. Frankfurt: Lang, 1988. Fuglseth, Kåre Sigvald. Johannine Sectarianism in Perspective: A Sociological, Historical, and Comparative Analysis of Temple and Social Relationships in the Gospel of John, Philo, and Qumran. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 119. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Fuller, R. H. “Christmas, Epiphany, and the Johannine Prologue.” Pages 63–73 in Spirit and Light: Essays in Historical Theology. Edited by M. L’Engle and W. B. Green. New York: Seabury, 1976. Gager, J. “Jews, Gentiles and Synagogues in the Book of Acts.” Harvard Theological Review 79 (1986): 91–99. Gamble, Harry F. Books and Readers in the Early Church. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Garcia, Hugues. “La polymorphie du Christ: remarques sur quelques définitions et sur de multiples enjeux.” Apocrypha 10 (1999) 16–55. García Martínez, Florentino. “Divine Sonship at Qumran: Between the Old and the New Testament.” Pages 261–83 in Qumranica Minora II: Thematic Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 64. Leiden: Brill, 2007. Gärtner, Bertil E. The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas. Translated by E. Sharpe. New York: Harper, 1961. Gathercole, Simon J. The Preexistent Son: Recovering the Christologies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Gaugler, Ernst. Die Johannesbriefe. Auslegung Neutestamentlicher Schriften 1. Zürich: EVZ-Verlag, 1964. Gehring, Roger W. House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 2004. Ghiberti, G. “Ortodossia e eterodossia nelle lettere giovannee.” Rivista Biblica Italiana 30 (1982): 381–400. Gibbard, S. M. “The Eucharist in the Ignatian Epistles.” Studia Patristica 8 (1966): 214–18. Gibbins, H. J. “The Problem of the Second Epistle of St. John.” Expositor VI.12 (1905): 412–24. ______. “The Second Epistle of St. John.” Expositor VI.6 (1902): 228–36. Gibbons, Joseph A., Robert A. Bullard, and Frederik Wisse. “The Second Treatise of the Great Seth (VII, 2).” Pages 329–338 in The Nag Hammadi Library in English. Edited by James M. Robinson. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. Gieschen, Charles A. Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 42. Leiden: Brill, 1998. ______. “The Death of Jesus in the Gospel of John: Atonement for Sin?” Concordia Theological Quarterly 72 (2008): 243–61.

Bibliography

383

Gill, John. Exposition of the Old and New Testament. 9 vols. Streamwood, Ill.: Primitive Baptist Library, 1976. Reprinted from 1748–63. Giurisato, G. Struttura e teologia della Prima Lettera di Giovanni: Analisi letteraria e retorica, contenuto teologico. Analecta Biblica 138. Rome: Pontificio Istitutio Biblico, 1998. Gladder, H. “Cerinth und unsere Evangelien.” Biblische Zeitschrift 14 (1917): 317–32. Glasson, T. F. Moses in the Fourth Gospel. London: SCM, 1963. Gnilka, J. “Zur Christologie des Johannesevangeliums.” Pages 92–107 in Christologische Schwerpunkte. Edited by W. Kasper and J. Gnilka. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1980. ______. Das Johannesevangelium. 2nd ed. Die Neue Echter Bible 4. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1985. Goehring, James E.et al, eds. Gnosticism and the Early Christian World. Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1990. Goetchius, E. V. N. “‘A Descriptive Analysis of ΕΙΝΑΙ’ by L. C. McGaughy.” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1976): 147–49. Gore, Charles. The Epistles of St. John. New York: Scribner, 1920. Goulder, M. “Ignatius’ Docetists.” Vigiliae Christianae 53 (1999): 16–30. ______. “A Poor Man’s Christology.” New Testament Studies 45 (1999): 332–48. ______. A Tale of Two Missions. London: SCM, 1994. Grant, Robert McQueen. “Charges of ‘Immorality’ against Various Religious Groups in Antiquity.” Pages 161–170 in Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions Presented to Gilles Quispel on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Edited by R. van den Broek et al. Leiden: Brill, 1981. ______. “Gnostic Origins and the Basilidians of Irenaeus.” Vigiliae Christianae 13 (1959): 121–25. ______. “Gnostic Worship.” McCormick Quarterly 18 (May 1965): 35–42. ______. Gnosticism and Early Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press, 1966. ______. Ignatius of Antioch. The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary, 4. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1964. ______. Irenaeus of Lyons. Early Church Fathers. London: Routledge, 1997. ______. “Scripture and Tradition in St. Ignatius of Antioch.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 25 (1963): 322–35. ______. Second-Century Christianity: A Collection of Fragments. 2nd ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003. Grässer, E. “Die antijüdische Polemik im Johannesevangelium.” New Testament Studies 11 (1964–65): 74–90. ______. “Die Juden als Teufelssöhne in Joh 8,37–47.” Pages 157–70 in Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament? Edited by W. Eckert et al. Munich: Kaiser, 1967. Graupner, Axel, and Michael Wolter, eds. Moses in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Traditions. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 372. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. Grayston, Kenneth. The Johannine Epistles. New Century Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

384

Bibliography

Grech, P. “Fede e sacramenti in Giov 19,34 e 1 Giov 5,6–12.” Pages 149–63 in Fede e sacramenti negli scritti Giovannei. Edited by Puis-Ramon Tragan. Rome: Abbazia S. Paulo, 1985. Gregory, Andrew F., and C. M. Tuckett, eds. Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Greiff, A. “Die drei Zeugen in 1 Joh. 5.7f.” Theologische Quartalschrift 114 (1933): 465–80. Griffith, Terry. “‘The Jews Who Had Believed in Him’ (John 8:31) and the Motif of Apostasy in the Gospel of John.” Pages 183–92 in The Gospel of John and Christian Theology. Edited by R. Bauckham and C. Mosser. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. ______. Keep Yourselves from Idols: A New Look at 1 John. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 233.Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. ______. “A Non-Polemical Reading of 1 John.” Tyndale Bulletin 49 (1998): 253– 76. Griffiths, D. R. “Baptism in the Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle of John.” Pages 167–69 in Christian Baptism. Edited by A. Gilmore. Chicago: Judson, 1959. Grigsby, B. H. “The Cross as Expiatory Sacrifice in the Fourth Gospel.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 15 (1982): 51–80. Grillmeier, A. Christ in Christian Tradition. Vol. 1: From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451). Translated by J. Bowden. 2nd ed. London: Mowbrays, 1975. ______. “Doketismus.” Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche 3 (1959): 470–71. Grotius, Hugo. Annotationes in Novum Testamentum: Vol. 4, Ad Ioannem. Gröningen: Zuidema, 1828. Grundmann, W. “Die Frage nach der Gottessohnschaft des Messias im Lichte von Qumran.” Pages 86–111 in Bibel und Qumran: Beiträge zur Erforschung der Beziehungen zwischen Bibel- und Qumranwissenschaft. Edited by S. Wagner. Berlin: Evangelische Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft, 1968. Gubler, M.-L. “ ‘Wer sagt, er sei im Licht, aber seinen Bruder hasst, ist noch in der Finsternis…’ (1 Joh 2, 9).” Diakonia 29 (1998): 222–28. Guilding, Aileen. The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship: A Study of the Relation of St. John’s Gospel to the Ancient Jewish Lectionary System. Oxford: Clarendon, 1960. Gundry, R. H. “The Form, Meaning and Background of the Hymn Quoted in 1 Timothy 3:16.” Pages 203–22 in Apostolic History and the Gospel. Edited by W. W. Gasque and R. P. Martin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970. Gunther, John. J. St. Paul’s Opponents and Their Background: A Study of Apocalyptic and Jewish Sectarian Teachings. Novum Testamentum Supplements 35. Leiden: Brill, 1973. ______. “Syrian Christian Dualism.” Vigiliae Christianae 25 (1971): 81–93. Haar, Stephen. Simon Magus: The First Gnostic? Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 119. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003.

Bibliography

385

Haenchen, Ernst. “Gab es eine vorchristliche Gnosis?” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche (1952): 316–49. ______. “Neuere Literatur zu den Johannesbriefen.” Theologische Rundschau 26 (1960): 1–43, 267–91. Hägerland, Tobias. “John’s Gospel: A Two-Level Drama?” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25 (2003): 309–22. Hahn, Ferdinand. The Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity. Translated by Harold Knight and George Ogg. London: Lutterworth, 1969. Häkkinen, Sakari. “Ebionites.” Pages 247–78 in A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics”. Edited by Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 76. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Hakola, Raimo. Identity Matters: John, the Jews and Jewishness. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 118. Leiden: Brill, 2005. ______. “The Johannnine Community as Jewish Christians? Some Problems in Current Scholarly Consensus.” Pages 257–86 in Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts. Edited by Matt A. Jackson-McCabe. Philadelphia: Fortress, 2007. Hall, Bruce. “Some Thoughts about Samaritanism and the Johannine Community.” Pages 207–15 in New Samaritan Studies of the Société d’études samaritaines III & IV. Edited by Alan D. Crown. Sydney: Mandelbaum, 1995. Hällstrom, Gunnar and Oskar Skarsaune. “Cerinthus, Elxai, and Other Alleged Jewish Christian Teachers or Groups.” Pages 488–503 in Jewish Believers in Jewish Believers in Jesus. Edited by O. Skarsaune and R. Hvalvik. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007. Hamori, Esther J. “When Gods Were Men”: The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 384. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008. Hanegraaff, Wouter J. et al., eds. Dictionary of Gnosis & Western Esotericism. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Hänlein, H. K. A. Handbuch der Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. 2 vols. Erlangen: Palm, 1801. Hannah, Darrell. “The Ascension of Isaiah and Docetic Christology.” Vigiliae Christianae 53 (1999): 165–96. Hanson, Anthony Tyrrell. The Pastoral Epistles. New Century Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982. Häring, Theodor. Die Johannesbriefe. Stuttgart: Calwer Vereinsbuchhandlung, 1927. Harnack, Adolf von. Über den dritten Johannesbrief. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur 15.3. Leipzig, 1897. ______. Marcion: The Gospel of the Alien God. Translated by John E. Steely and Lyle D. Bierma. Durham: Labyrinth, 1990. ______. Studien zur Geschichte des Neuen Testaments und der alten Kirche. 3 vols. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1931. ______. “Zur Textkritik und Christologie der Schriften des Johannes.” Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (1915): 534–73.

386

Bibliography

______. “Das ‘Wir’ in den johanneischen Schriften.” Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (1923): 95–113. Harris, Elizabeth. Prologue and Gospel: The Theology of the Fourth Evangelist. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 107. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Harris, J. R. “The Problem of the Address in the Second Epistle of John.” The Expositor 6.3 (1901): 194–203. Harris, W. Hall, III. 1, 2, 3 John: Comfort and Counsel for a Church in Crisis: An Exegetical Commentary on the Letters of John. Dallas: Biblical Studies Press, 2003. Harrison, P. N. Polycarp’s Two Epistles to the Philippians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936. Hartin, P. J. “A Community in Crisis: The Christology of the Johannine Community as the Point at Issue.” Neotestamentica 19 (1985): 37–49. Hartog, Paul A. “The Opponents of Polycarp, Philippians, and 1 John.” Pages 375–92 in Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers. Edited by Andrew F. Gregory and C. M. Tuckett. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Haupt, E. The First Epistle of St John: A Contribution to Biblical Theology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1879. Hauschild, Wold-Dieter. “Christologie und Humanismus bei dem ‘Gnostiker’ Basilides.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 68 (1977): 67–92. Häußer, Detlef. Christusbekenntnis und Jesusüberlieferung bei Paulus. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.210. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Hays, Richard. “Apocalyptic Hermeneutics: Habakkuk Proclaims ‘The Righteous One.’” Pages 119–42 in The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Head, Peter. “The Foreign God and the Sudden Christ: Theology and Christology in Marcion’s Gospel Redaction.” Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1993): 307–21. ______. “On the Christology of the Gospel of Peter.” Vigiliae Christianae 46 (1992): 209–24. Heckel, Theo K. “Die Historisierung der johanneischen Theologie im Ersten Johannesbrief.” New Testament Studies 50 (2004): 425–43. Hedrick, Charles W., and Robert Hodgson, Jr., eds. Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism and Early Christianity. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1986. Heer, J. “The Soteriological Significance of the Johannine Image of the Pierced Savior.” Pages 33–46 in Faith in Christ and the Worship of Christ. Edited by L. Scheffczyk. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1986. Heffern, Andrew J. Apology and Polemic in the New Testament. New York: Macmillan, 1922. Heid, Stefan. Chiliasmus und Antichrist-Mythos: eine frühchristliche Kontroverse um das Heilige Land. Bonn: Borengässer, 1993. Heil, John Paul. Blood and Water: The Death and Resurrection of Jesus in John 18– 21. Washington, D. C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1995. ______. “Jesus as the Unique High Priest in the Gospel of John.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57 (1995): 729–45.

Bibliography

387

Heinze, André. Johannesapokalypse und johanneischen Schriften: Forschungs- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1998. Heise, Jürgen. Bleiben: MENEIN in den Johanneischen Schriften. Tübingen: Mohr, 1967. Helderman, J. Die Anapausis im Evangelium Veritatis: Eine vergleichende Untersuchung des valentinianisch-gnostischen Heilsgutes der Ruhe im Evangelium Veritatis und in anderen Schriften der Nag Hammadi-Bibliothek. Nag Hammadi Studies 18. Leiden: Brill, 1984. ______. “‘In ihren Zelten…’ Bemerkungen bei Codex XIII Nag Hammadi p. 47:14–18, im Hinblick auf Joh i 14.” Pages 181–211 in Miscellanea Neotestamentica: Volumen Primum. Edited by T. Baarda et al. Novum Testamentum Supplements 47. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Helleman, Wendy E., ed. Hellenization Revisited: Shaping a Christian Response Within the Greco-Roman World. Lanham: University Press of America, 1994. Hengel, Martin. The Cross of the Son of God. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM, 1986. ______. “Erwägungen zum Sprachgebrauch von Χριστός bei Paulus und in der ‘vorpaulinischen’ Überlieferung.” Pages 135–59 in Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C. K. Barrett. Edited by M. D. Hooker et al. London: SPCK, 1982. ______. “Jesus, der Messias Israels: Zum Streit über das ‘messianische Selbstbewußtsein’ Jesu.” Pages 155–176 in Messiah and Christos: Studies in the Jewish Origins of Christianity Presented to David Flusser on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday. Edited by I. Gruenwald et al. Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum 32. Tübingen: Mohr, 1992. ______. Die johanneische Frage: Ein Lösungsversuch. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 67. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993. ______. The Johannine Question. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM, 1989. ______. “Sit at My Right Hand!” Pages 119–26 in Studies in Early Christology. Translated by John Bowden. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995. ______. “The Song about Christ in Earliest Worship.” Pages 227–92 in Studies in Early Christology. Translated by John Bowden. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995. ______. The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of JewishHellenistic Religion. Translated by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Henle, F. A. Der Evangelist Johannes und die Antichristen seiner Zeit. Munich, 1884. Héring, J. “Y-a-t-il des Aramaïsmes dans la Première Épître Johannique?” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 36 (1956): 113–21. Herkenrath, Josef. “Sünde zum Tode.” Pages 119–38 in Aus Theologie und Philosophie. Edited by T. Steinbüchel and T. Müncker. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1950. Hilgenfeld, A. Historisch-kritisch Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Leipzig: Fues, 1875. ______. Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums. Leipzig: Fues, 1884. Hill, Charles E. “Cerinthus: Gnostic or Chiliast? A New Solution to an Old Problem.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 8 (2000): 135–72.

388

Bibliography

______. “The Epistula Apostolorum: An Asian Tract from the Time of Polycarp.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 7 (1999): 1–53. ______. “The Fourth Gospel in the Second Century: the Myth of Orthodox Johannophobia.” Pages 135–69 in Challenging Perspectives on the Fourth Gospel. Edited by John Lierman. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.219. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. ______. The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. ______. Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Hill, David. New Testament Prophecy. Atlanta: Knox, 1979. Hill, Robert Allan. An Examination and Critique of the Understanding of the Relationship between Apocalypticism and Gnosticism in Johannine Studies. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 1997. Hillmer, Melvyn Raymond. “The Gospel of John in the Second Century.” Th.D. Diss., Harvard University Divinity School, 1966. Hills, Julian. “A Genre for 1 John.” Pages 367–77 in The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester. Edited by B. A. Pearson and A. T. Kraabel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. ______. “‘Little Children, Keep Yourselves from Idols’: 1 John 5.21 Reconsidered.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51 (1989): 285–310. ______. “Sin is Lawlessness (1 John 3:4).” Pages 286–99 in Common Life in the Early Church: Essays Honoring Graydon F. Snyder. Edited by J. V. Hills and R. B. Gardner. Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1998. ______. Tradition and Composition in the Epistula Apostolorum. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Hirschberg, Peter. “Jewish Believers in Asia Minor according to the Book of Revelation and the Gospel of John.” Pages 217–239 in Jewish Believers in Jewish Believers in Jesus. Edited by O. Skarsaune and R. Hvalvik. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2007. Hoffmann, Daniel L. “Ignatius and Early Anti-Docetic Realism in the Eucharist.” Fides et Historia 30 (1998): 74–88. Hoffmann, Matthias Reinhard. The Destroyer and the Lamb: The Relationship between Angelomorphic and Lamb Christology in the Book of Revelation. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 203. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Hoffmann, R. Joseph. Marcion: On the Restitution of Christianity. An Essay on the Development of Radical Paulinist Theology in the Second Century. American Academy of Religion Dissertation Series 46. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984. Hoffman, Thomas A. “1 John and the Qumran Scrolls.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 8 (1978): 117–25. Hofrichter, Peter L. Logoslied, Gnosis und Neues Testament. Theologische Texte und Studien 10. Hildesheim: Olms, 2003. ______. Nicht aus Blut sondern monogen aus Gott geboren: textkritische, dogmengeschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchung zu Joh 1,13–14. Würzburg: Echter, 1978.

Bibliography

389

Holmes, Michael W. “Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians and the Writings that Later Formed the New Testament.” Pages 187–228 in The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers. Edited by Andrew Gregory and C. M. Tuckett. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Holmstrand, Jonas. “Is there Paraenesis in 1 John?” Pages 405–30 in Early Christian Paraenesis in Context. Edited by J. Starr and T. Engberg-Pedersen. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 125. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. Holtzmann, H. J. Briefe und Offenbarung des Johannes. Handkommentar zum Neues Testament 4. Freiburg: Mohr, 1893. ______. “Das Problem des ersten johanneischen Briefes in seinem Verhältnis zum Evangelium.” Jahrbücher für protestantische Theologie 7 (1881): 690–712; 8 (1882): 128–52, 316–42, 460–85. ______. “Das Verhältnis des Johannes zu Ignatius und Polykarp.” Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie 20 (1877): 187–214. Hooker, Morna D. “John the Baptist and the Johannine Prologue.” New Testament Studies 16 (1970): 354–58. ______. “Were there False Teachers in Colossae?” Pages 315–31 in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament. Edited by B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Horbury, W. “Antichrist among Jews and Gentiles.” Pages 329–49 in Messianism among the Jews and Christians: Twelve Biblical and Historical Studies. London: T&T Clark, 2003. ______. “The Benediction of the Minim and Early Jewish-Christian Controversy.” Journal of Theological Studies 33 (1982): 19–61. ______. Jews and Christians in Contact and Controversy. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998. ______. Messianism among Jews and Christians. Twelve Biblical and Historical Studies. London: T&T Clark, 2003. ______. “Suffering and Messianism in Yose ben Yose.” Pages 289–327 in Messianism among Jews and Christians: Twelve Biblical and Historical Studies. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Hornschuh, Manfred. Studien zur Epistula Apostolorum. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1965. Horsley, G. H. R., and S. Llewelyn. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. North Ryde, N.S.W., 1981–. Hort, J. F. A. Judaistic Christianity. London: Macmillan, 1894. Horvath, Tibor. “3 Jn 11b: An Early Ecumenical Creed?” Expository Times 85 (1974): 339–40. Hoskins, Paul M. Jesus as the Fulfillment of the Temple in the Gospel of John. Paternoster Biblical Monographs. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006. Houlden, J. L. A Commentary on the Johannine Epistles. Harper’s New Testament Commentaries. New York: Harper and Row, 1973. ______. The Pastoral Epistles: I and II Timothy, Titus. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1976. Hovhanessian, Vahan. Third Corinthians: Reclaiming Paul for Christian Orthodoxy. Studies in Biblical Literature 18. New York: Lang, 2000.

390

Bibliography

Howard, W. F. “The Common Authorship of the Johannine Gospel and Epistles.” Journal of Theological Studies 48 (1947): 12–25. Hultgren, Arland J. “The Johannine Footwashing (13.1–11) as Symbol of Eschatological Hospitality.” New Testament Studies 28 (1982): 539–46. ______. Rise of Normative Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Hümpel, Johann Ludwig Ernst. “De errore christologico in Epistolis Ioannis impugnato eiusque auctore: Quaestio historicocritica.” Dissertation, Universität Erlangen, 1897. Humphrey, Edith. “’And I Shall Heal Them:” Repentance, Turning, and Penitence in the Johannine Writings.” Pages 105–126 in Repentance in Christian Theology. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Gordon T. Smith. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2006 Hunter, Archibald M. Paul and His Predecessors. 2nd ed. London: SCM, 1961. Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. Hvalvik, Reidar. The Struggle for Scripture and Covenant: the Purpose of the Epistle of Barnabas and Jewish-Christian Competition in the Second Century. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.82. Tübingen: Mohr, 1996. Ihenacho, David Asonye. The Community of Eternal Life: The Study of the Meaning of Life for the Johannine Community. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2001. Inman, V. K. “Distinctive Johannine Vocabulary and the Interpretation of 1 John 3:9.” Westminster Theological Journal 40 (1977): 136–44. Isenberg, Wesley W. “The Gospel of Philip (II, 3).” Pages 139–160 in The Nag Hammadi Library in English. Edited by James M. Robinson. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. Jackson, Bernard S. “Two or Three Witnesses.” Pages 153–71 in Essays in Jewish and Comparative Legal History. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 10. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Jackson-McCabe, Matt A., ed. Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts. Philadelphia: Fortress, 2007. Jaffé, Dan. “Les mouvements des dissidents aux Sages du Talmud et la rupture entre le judaïsme et le christianisme.” Foi et vie 104.5 (2005): 7–19. Jamieson, Robert, A. R. Fausset, David Brown. A Commentary: Critical, Practical and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments. New Testament, Vol. 2: Galatians–Revelation. Toledo: Names, 1884. Janssens, Yvonne. “The Trimorphic Protennoia and the Fourth Gospel.” Pages 229–44 in The New Testament and Gnosis. Edited by A. J. M. Logan et al. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1983. Jaubert, A. “O Espirito, e Agua e o Sangue (1 Jo 5,7–8).” Pages 616–20 in Actualidades Bíblicas. Edited by S. Voigt and F. Vier. Petrópolis, Brazil: Vozes, 1971. Jenks, G. C. The Origins and Early Development of the Antichrist Myth. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 59. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991.

Bibliography

391

Jervis, L. Ann. “Paul the Poet in First Timothy 1:11–17; 2:3b–7; 3:14–16.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61 (1999): 695–712. Jewett, Robert. “The Redaction and Use of an Early Christian Confession in Romans 1:3–4.” Pages 99–122 in The Living Text: Essays in Honor of Ernest W. Saunders. Edited by R. Jewett and D. E. Groh. Washington, D. C.: University Press of America, 1985. Jobes, Karen H. 1 Peter. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. Jochums, Heinrich. Im Kampf wider die Irrlehrer: Betrachtungen zum 1. Johannesbrief. Wuppertal-Elberfeld: Evangelischen Gesellschaft für Deutschland, 1968. John Chrysostom, Saint. Commentary on Saint John: The Apostle and Evangelist: Homilies 1–88. 2 vols. Edited and translated by Sister Thomas Aquinas Goggin. Washington, D. C.: Catholic University of America, 1957. Johns, Loren L., and Douglas B. Miller. “The Signs as Witnesses in the Fourth Gospel: Reexamining the Evidence.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 56 (1994): 519–35. Johnson, Luke Timothy. “On Finding Lukan Community: A Cautious Cautionary Essay.” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers (1979): 87– 100. ______. The Writings of the New Testament. London: SCM, 1986. Johnson, S. E. “Parallels Between the Letters of Ignatius and the Johannine Epistles.” Pages 327–38 in Perspectives on Language and Text: Essays and Poems in Honor of Francis I. Andersen’s Sixtieth Birthday. Edited by Edgar W. Conrad and Edward G. Newing. Winona Lake, Minn.: Eisenbrauns, 1987. Johnson, Thomas Floyd. 1, 2, and 3 John. New International Biblical Commentary 17. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993. ______. “The Antitheses of the Elder: A Study of the Dualistic Language of the Johannine Epistles.” Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1979. Johnston, George. The Spirit-Paraclete in the Gospel of John. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Joly, R. Le dossier d’Ignace d’Antioche. Université libre de Bruxelles. Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres 69. Brussels: Éditions de l`Université de Bruxelles, 1979. Jonas, Hans. The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity. Boston: Beacon, 1963. ______. “Response to Quispel’s ‘Gnosticism and the New Testament’.” Pages 279–93 in The Bible in Modern Scholarship. Edited by James Hyatt. London: Carey Kingsgate, 1966. Jones, Larry Paul. The Symbol of Water in the Gospel of John. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 145. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. Jones, Peter R. “A Structural Analysis of 1 John.” Review and Expositor 67 (1970): 433–44. ______. 1, 2 & 3 John. Smith & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, Ga.: Smith & Helwys, 2009. Jonge, Marinus de. De Brieven van Johannes. 3rd ed. Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1978.

392

Bibliography

______. “Christian Influence in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” Pages 193–246 in Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Edited by M. De Jonge. Leiden: Brill, 1975. ______. Christology in Context: The Earliest Christian Response to Jesus. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988. ______. “Christology, Controversy and Community in the Gospel of John.” Pages 209–30 in Christology, Controversy and Community: New Testament Essays in Honour of David R. Catchpole. Edited by David G. Horrell and Christopher M. Tuckett. Leiden: Brill, 2000. ______. “The Earliest Christian Use of Christos: Some Suggestions.” New Testament Studies 32 (1986): 321–43. ______. “The Gospel and the Epistles of John Read against the Background of the History of the Johannine Communities.” Pages 127–44 in What We Have Heard From the Beginning: The Past, Present and Future of Johannine Studies. Edited by Tom Thatcher. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007. ______. Jesus, Stranger from Heaven and Son of God: Jesus Christ and the Christians in Johannine Perspective. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977. ______. “The Use of the Word ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ in the Johannine Epistles.” Pages 66– 74 in Studies in John. Edited by W. C. Van Unnik. Leiden: Brill, 1970. ______. “The Word Anointed in the Time of Jesus.” Novum Testamentum 8 (1966): 132–42. Jonge, Marinus de, ed. L’evangile de Jean: sources, rédaction, théologie. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 44. Gembloux: Duculot, 1977. Joslin, Barry C. “Getting up to Speed: An Essential Introduction to 1 John.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 10 (2006): 4–26. Joubert, S. J. “A Bone of Contention in Recent Scholarship: The ‘Birkat HaMinim’ and the Separation of Church and Synagogue in the First Century AD.” Neotestamentica 27 (1993): 351–63. Jülicher, Adolf. An Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by Janet Penrose Ward. New York: Putnam, 1904. Junod, Eric. “Polymorphie du Dieu sauveur.” Pages 38–46 in Gnosticisme et monde hellénistique: Actes du Colloque de Louvain-la-Neuve (11–14 mars 1980). Edited by Julien Rieset al. Publications de l’Institut orientaliste de Louvain 27. Louvain-la-Neuve: Université catholique de Louvain, 1982. Junod, Eric, and J.-D. Kaestli. Acta Iohannis. 2 vols. Turnhout: Brepols, 1983. Kaestli, J.-D. “Remarques sur le rapport du quatriéme Êvangile avec la gnose et sa réception au IIe siècle.” Pages 351–56 in La communauté johannique et son histoire. Edited by J.-D. Kaestli, J.-M. Poffet, and J. Zumstein. Paris: Labor et Fides, 1990. ______. “L’exégèse valentinienne du quatrième èvangile.” Pages 323–50 in La communauté johannique et son histoire. Edited by J.-D. Kaestli, J.-M. Poffet, and J. Zumstein. Paris: Labor et Fides, 1990. ______. “Valentinisme italien et valentinisme oriental: leurs divergences à propos de la nature du corps de Jésus.” Pages 391–403 in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Volume One: The School of Valentinus. Edited by Bentley Layton. Studies in the History of Religions 41. Leiden: Brill, 1980.

Bibliography

393

Kalvesmaki, Joel. “Italian versus Eastern Valentinianism?” Vigiliae Christianae 62 (2008): 79–89. Kanagaraj, J. J. “Did the Word Not ‘Become’ Flesh? A Response to J. C. O’Neill.” Expository Times 110 (1999): 80–81. Karl, Wilhelm A. Johanneische Studien, Vol. 1: Der erste Johannesbrief. Freiburg: Mohr Siebeck, 1898. Karrer, Martin. Der Gesalbte. Die Grundlagen des Christustitels. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 151. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990. Käsemann, E. “The Disciples of John the Baptist in Ephesus.” Pages 136–48 in Essays on New Testament Themes. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. ______. “Ketzer und Zeuge.” Pages 168–87 in Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, Vol. 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1960. ______. “Structure and Purpose of the Prologue to John’s Gospel.” Pages 138– 67 in New Testament Questions of Today. Translated by W. J. Montague. London: SCM, 1969. ______. The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17. Translated by G. Krodel. London: SCM, 1968. Katz, Steven. “Issues in the Separation of Judaism and Christianity after 70 C.E.: A Reconsideration.” Journal of Biblical Literature 103 (1984): 43–76. Kazen, Thomas. “Sectarian Gospels for Some Christians? Intention and MirrorReading in the Light of Extra-Canonical Texts.” New Testament Studies 51 (2005): 561–78. Keefer, Kyle. The Branches of the Gospel of John: The Reception of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church. Library of New Testament Studies 332. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. 2 vols. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2003. Kelhoffer, James A. “Basilides’s Gospel and Exegetica (Treatises).” Vigiliae Christianae 59 (2005): 115–34. Kellum, L. Scott. “On the Semantic Structure of 1 John: A Modest Proposal.” Faith and Mission 23 (2005): 34–82. ______. The Unity of the Farewell Discourse: the Literary Integrity of John 13:31– 16:33. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 256. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Kelly, J. N. D. The Pastoral Epistles: Timothy I and II, Titus. Harper’s New Testament Commentaries. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1960. Kempthorne, R. “‘As God is my Witness!’ John 19, 34–35.” Studia Evangelica 6 (1973): 287–90. Kennedy, H. A. A. “The Covenant Conception in the First Epistle of John.” Expository Times 28 (1916–17): 23–26. Kenney, Garrett C. Leadership in John: An Analysis of the Situation and Strategy of the Gospel and Epistles of John. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2000. ______. The Relation of Christology to Ethics in the First Epistle of John. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2001. Keppler, P. W. “Geist, Wasser und Blut: Zur Erklärung von I. Joh 5,6–13 (ev. Joh. 19,34).” Theologische Quartalschrift 68 (1886): 3–25.

394

Bibliography

Keresztes, P. “The Jews, the Christians, and Emperor Domitian.” Vigiliae Christianae 27 (1973): 1–28. Kerr, Alan R. The Temple of Jesus’ Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 220. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. Kieffer, René. “Les premiers indices d’une reception de l’évangile de saint Jean.” Pages 2225–38 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Franz Neirynck. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 100. Leuven: Brill, 1992. Kierspel, Lars. Jews and the World in the Fourth Gospel: Parallelism, Function, and Context. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.220. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Kilgallen, John J. “Acts 13:4–12: The Role of the Magos.” Estudios Biblicos 55 (1997): 223–37. Kilpatrick, G. D. “Two Johannine Idioms in the Johannine Epistles.” Journal of Theological Studies 12 (1961): 272–73. Kim, Dongsu. An Exegesis of Apostasy Embedded in John’s Narratives of Peter and Judas Against the Synoptic Parallels. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 61. Lewiston, N. Y.: Mellen, 2004. Kim, Moon-Geoung. Zum Verhältnis des Johannesevangeliums zu den Johannesbriefen: Zur Verfasserschaft der ‘johanneischen’ Schriften in der Forschung. Frankfurt: Lang, 2003. Kim, Tae Hun. “The Anarthrous ΥΙΟΣ ΘΕΟΥ in Mark 15,39 and the Roman Imperial Cult.” Biblica 79 (1998): 222–41. Kimelman, Reuven. “Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an AntiChristian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity.” Pages 226–44 in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, Volume Two: Aspects of Judaism in the Graeco-Roman Period. Edited by E. P. Sanders et al. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. King, Karen L. What is Gnosticism? Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003. Kinlaw, Pamela E. The Christ is Jesus: Metamorphosis, Possession, and Johannine Christology. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Kittel, G., and G. Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964– 1976. Klauck, Hans-Josef. “Der Antichrist und das johanneischen Schisma.” Pages 237–48 in Christus Bezeugen: Festschrift für Wolfgang Trilling zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by W. Trilling et al. Leipzig: St. Benno-Verlag, 1989. ______. “Bekenntnis zu Jesus und Zeugnis Gottes. Die christologische Linienführung im ersten Johannesbrief.” Pages 239–306 in Anfange der Christologie: Festschrift für Ferdinand Hahn zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by C. Breytenbach and H. Paulsen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. ______. “Brudermord und Bruderliebe: Ethische Paradigmen in 1 Joh 3,11–17.” Pages 151–69 in Neues Testament und Ethik. Edited by H. Merklein. Freiburg: Herder, 1989. ______. “Community, History, and Text(s): A Response Robert Kysar.” Pages 82–90 in Life in Abundance: Studies of John’s Gospel in Tribute to Raymond E. Brown. Edited by John R. Donahue. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2005.

Bibliography

395

______. Der erste Johannesbrief. Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 23.1. Zürich: Benziger, 1991. ______. “Gegner von innen: Der Umgang mit den Sezessionisten im ersten Johannesbrief.” Concilium 24 (1988): 467–73. ______. “Gemeinde ohne Amt? Erfahrungen mit der Kirche in den johanneischen Schriften.” Biblische Zeitschrift 29 (1985): 193–220. ______. “Geschrieben, erfüllt, vollendet: die Schriftzitate in der Johannespassion.” Pages 140–57 in Israel und seine Heilstraditionen im Johannessevangelium: Festgabe für Johannes Beutler SJ zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by M. Labahn et al. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2004. ______. “Gespaltene Gemeinde. Der Umgang mit den Sezessionisten im ersten Johannesbrief.” Pages 59–68 in Gemeinde, Amt, Sakrament: Neutestamentliche Perspektiven. Würzburg: Echter, 1989. ______. “‘Größer als unser Herz…’: Geistliche Impulse aus dem ersten Johannesbrief.” Pages 96–112 in Vom Zauber des Anfangs: Biblische Besinnungen. Franziskanische Impulse 3. Werl: Dietrich-Coelde, 1999. ______. Hausgemeinde und Hauskirche im frühen Christentum. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 103. Stüttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1981. ______. “In the World—of the World (1 Jn 2:15–17).” Theology Digest 37 (1990): 209–14. ______. “Internal Opponents: The Treatment of the Secessionists in the First Epistle of John.” Pages 55–65 in Truth and Its Victims. Edited by W. Beuken, S. Freyne and A. Weiler. Concilium 200. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988. ______. Die Johannesbriefe: Erträge der Forschung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1991. ______. Magic and Paganism in Early Christianity: The World of the Acts of the Apostles. Continuum: T&T Clark, 2003. ______. “Zur rhetorischen Analyse der Johannesbriefe.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 81 (1990): 205–24. ______. Der zweite und dritte Johannesbrief. Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 23.2. Zürich: Benziger, 1992. Klein, Günter. “Das wahre Licht scheint schon: Beobachtungen zur Zeit- und Geschichtserfahrung einer urchristlichen Schule.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 68 (1971): 261–326. Kleist, James Aloysius. The Didache. Ancient Christian Writers. Mahwah, N. J.: Paulist, 1948. Klijn, A. F. J. “The Apocryphal Correspondence Between Paul and the Corinthians.” Vigiliae Christianae 17 (1963): 2–23. Klijn, A. F. J., and G. J. Reinink. Patristic Evidence for Jewish Christian Sects. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Klink, E. W., III. “Expulsion from the Syngague? Rethinking a Johannine Anachronism.” Tyndale Bulletin 59 (2008): 99–118. ______. “The Gospel Community Debate: State of the Question.” Currents in Biblical Research 3 (2004): 60–85. ______. “Over-Realized Expulsion? Historical Minimizations of a Johannine Anachronism.” Society of Biblical Literature Paper, 2006.

396

Bibliography

______. The Sheep of the Fold: The Audience and Origin of the Gospel of John. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 141. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Klöpper, A. “1 John 5.6–12.” Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie 43 (1900): 378–400. ______. “Zur Lehre von der Sünde im 1. Johannesbrief: Erläuterung von 5.16– fin.” Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie 43 (1900): 585–602. Klos, H. Die Sakramente im Johannesevangelium: Vorkommen und Bedeutung von Taufe, Eucharistie und Buße im vierten Evangelium. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 46. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1970. Knapp, Georg Christian. Scripta Varii Argumenti Maximam Partem Exegetici atque Historici. Halis Saxonum: Libraria Orphanotrophei, 1823. Knapp, Henry M. “Melito’s Use of Scripture in Peri Pascha: Second-Century Typology.” Vigiliae Christianae 54 (2000): 343–74. Knight, George W. The Faithful Sayings in the Pastoral Letters. Kampen: Kok, 1968. Knohl, Israel. “‘By Three Days, Live’: Messiahs, Resurrection, and the Ascent to Heaven in Hazon Gabriel.” Journal of Religion 88: (2008): 147–58. ______. The Messiah before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Knöppler, T. Die theologia crucis des Johannesevangeliums: Das Verständnis des Todes Jesu im Rahmen der johanneischen Inkarnations- und Erhöhungschristologie. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1994. Knox, John. Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History of the Canon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942. Koch, Dietrich-Alex. “Der Täufer als Zeuge des Offenbarers: Das Täuferbild von Joh 1,19–34 auf dem Hintergrund von Mk 1,2–11.” Pages 1963–84 in The Four Gospels 1992. Festschrift Frans Neirynck. Volume III. Edited by F. Van Segbroeck et al. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. Koester, Craig R. Symbolism in the Fourth Gospel: Meaning, Mystery, Community. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Koester, H. “History and Cult in the Gospel of John and in Ignatius of Antioch.” Journal of Theology and the Church 1 (1965): 111–23. ______. “The History of Religions School, Gnosis, and Gospel of John.” Studia Theologica 40 (1986): 115–36. ______. Introduction to the New Testament. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. ______. “The Story of the Johannine Tradition.” Sewanee Theological Review 36 (1992): 17–32. Kohler, Herbert. Kreuz und Menschwerdung im Johannesevangelium: Ein exegetisch-hermeneutischer Versuch zur johanneischen Kreuzestheologie. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 72. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987. Korting, G. “Besteht das Johannesevangelium aus einer Folge von drei Dramen? Applikation der Analyse von 1 Joh auf das Johannesevangelium” Deltion Biblikon Meleton, 26 (1997): 63–8. ______. “Der dynamische Aufbau des I. Johannesbriefes.” Deltion Biblikon Meleton 26 (1997): 39–62.

Bibliography

397

Koschorke, Klaus. Die Polemik der Gnostiker gegen das kirchliche Christentum: unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Nag-Hammadi-Traktate ‘Apokalypse des Petrus’ (NHC VII,3) und ‘Testimonium Veritatis’ (NHC IX,3). Nag Hammadi Studies 12. Leiden: Brill, 1978. Köstenberger, Andreas J. “1 and 2 Timothy, Titus.” In Ephesians–Philemon. Rev. ed. Expositor’s Bible Commentary 12. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006. ______. “The Destruction of the Second Temple and the Composition of the Fourth Gospel.” Trinity Journal 26 (2005): 208–14. ______. “Early Doubts of the Apostolic Authorship of the Fourth Gospel in the History of Modern Biblical Criticism.” Pages 17–47 in Studies on John and Gender: A Decade of Scholarship. Studies in Biblical Literature 38. New York: Lang, 2001. ______. “Jesus the Good Shepherd Who Will Also Bring Other Sheep (John 10:16): The Old Testament Background of a Familiar Metaphor.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 12 (2002): 67–96. ______. John. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004. ______. The Missions of Jesus and the Disciples According to the Fourth Gospel: With Implications for the Fourth Gospel’s Purpose and the Mission of the Contemporary Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. ______. Studies on John and Gender: A Decade of Scholarship. Studies in Biblical Literature 38. New York: Lang, 2001. ______. “The Use of Scripture in the Pastoral and General Epistles and the Book of Revelation.” Pages 230–54 in Hearing the Old Testament in the New. Edited by Stanley Porter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Kotzé, P. P. A. “The Meaning of 1 John 3.9 with Reference to 1 John 1.8 and 10.” Neotestamentica 13 (1979): 66–83. Kovacs, Judith L. 1 Corinthians: Interpreted by Early Christian Commentators. The Church’s Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Kramer, Werner. Christos, Kyrios, Gottessohn: Untersuchungen zu Gebrauch und Bedeutung die christologische Bezeichnungen bei Paulus und die vorpaulinischen Gemeinden. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neusten Testaments 44. Zürich: Zwingli, 1963. Kraus, Matthew. “New Jewish Directions in the Study of the Fourth Gospel.” Pages 141–66 in New Currents through John: A Global Perspective. Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study 54. Edited by T. Thatcher and F. Lozada. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Kruijf, T. C. de. “‘Nicht wie Kain (der) Bösen war…’ (1 Joh. 3:12).” Bijdragen: Tijdschrift voor Filosophie en Theologie 41 (1980): 47–63. Kruse, Colin G. The Gospel according to John: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004 ______. The Letters of John. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. ______. “Sin and Perfection in 1 John.” Australian Biblical Review 51 (2003): 60– 70. Kubo, Sakae. “1 John 3:9: Absolute or Habitual?” Andrews University Seminary Studies 7 (1969): 47–60.

398

Bibliography

Kügler, J. “Die Belehrung der Unbelehrbaren: zur Funktion des Traditionsarguments in 1 Joh.” Biblische Zeitschrift 32 (1988): 249–54. ______. “In Tat und Wahrheit: Zur Problemlage des ersten Johannesbriefes.” Biblische Notizen 48 (1989): 61–88. ______. “Johanneische Christologie im Kontext der frühchristlichen Glaubensentwicklung.” Bibel und Kirche 59 (2004): 157–62. Kümmel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by Paul Feine. Nashville: Abingdon, 1975. Kuntzmann, Raymond and Michèle Morgen. “Un exemple de reception de la tradition johannique: 1 Jn 1, 1–5 et Évangile de Vérité NHI, p. 30, 1631, 35.” Pages 265–76 in Origine et postérité de l’Évangile de Jean: XIIIe Congrès de l’ACFEB Toulouse (1989). Edited by Alain Marchadour. Paris: Cerf, 1990. Kysar, Robert. “Community and Gospel: Vectors in Fourth Gospel Criticism.” Interpretation 31 (1977): 355–66. ______. “The Expulsion from the Synagogue: The Tale of a Theory.” Pages 237– 46 in Voyages with John: Charting the Fourth Gospel. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2005. ______. The Fourth Evangelist and His Gospel: An Examination of Contemporary Scholarship. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1975. ______. “The Fourth Gospel: A Report on Recent Research.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt 25.3: 2389–480. ______. I, II, III John. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986. ______. John. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986. ______. John, the Maverick Gospel. 3rd ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007. ______. “The Whence and Whither of the Johannine Community.” Pages 65–81 in Life in Abundance: Studies of John’s Gospel in Tribute to Raymond E. Brown. Edited by John R. Donahue. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2005. Labahn, Michael, et al, eds. Israel und seine Heilstraditionen im Johannessevangelium: Festgabe für Johannes Beutler, SJ, zum 70. Geburtstag. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2004. Lagrange, Marie-Joseph. Évangile selon Saint Jean. 5th ed. Études bibliques. Paris: Librairie V. Lecoffre, 1936. Lake, K. The Apostolic Fathers. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1945. Lalleman, Pieter J. The Acts of John: A Two-Stage Initiation into Johannine Gnosticism. Leuven: Peeters, 1998. ______. “The Adversaries Envisaged in the Johannine Epistles.” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift (1999): 17–24. ______. “Polymorphy of Christ.” Pages 97–118 in The Apocryphal Acts of John. Edited by Jan N. Bremmer. Studies on the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles 1. Kampen: Kok, 1995. Lampe, G. W. H. “Church Discipline and the Interpretation of the Epistles to the Corinthians.” Pages 337–62 in Christian History and Interpretation:

Bibliography

399

Studies Presented to John Knox. Edited by W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule, R. R. Niebuhr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. ______. “‘Grievous Wolves’ (Acts 20.29).” Pages 253–68 in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament. Edited by B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Langbrandtner, Wolfgang. Weltferner Gott oder Gott der Liebe. Der Ketzerstreit in der johanneischen Kirche. Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung mit Berücksichtigung der koptisch-gnostischen Texte aus Nag-Hammadi. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1977. Lange, Samuel Gottlieb. “Die Judenchristen, Ebioniten und Nicolaiten der apostolische Zeit und das Verhältnis der Neutestamentlichen Schriften zu ihnen.” Pages 109–23 in Beyträge zur ältesten Kirchengeschichte so wie zur Einleitungswissenschaft in die Schriften des Neues Bundes 2. Leipzig: Barth, 1831. ______. Die Schriften des Johannes, III: Die Drei Breife des Johannes. Weimar: Industrie-Comptoirs, 1797. Langevin, P. E. “Une confession prépaulinienne de la ‘Seigneurie’ du Christ: Exégèse de Romains 1,3–4.” Pages 277–327 in Le Christ hier, aujord’hui et demain. Edited by R. Laflamme and M. Gervais. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 1976. Lapham, Fred. An Introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Larsen, Kasper Bro. “Narrative Docetism: Christology and Storytelling in the Gospel of John.” Pages 346–58 in The Gospel of John and Christian Theology. Edited by R. Bauckham and C. Mosser. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Lau, Andrew Y. Manifest in Flesh: The Epiphany Christology of the Pastoral Epistles. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.86. Tübingen: Mohr, 1996. Law, Robert. The Tests of Life: A Study of the First Epistle of John. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1909. Lawson, John. A Theological and Historical Introduction to the Apostolic Fathers. New York: Macmillan, 1961. Layton, Bentley. Gnostic Scriptures. Garden City, N. J.: Doubleday, 1987. ______. The Gnostic Treatise on Resurrection from Nag Hammadi. Harvard Dissertations in Religion 12. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979. ______. “Prolegomena to the Study of Ancient Gnosticism.” Pages 334–50 in The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A. Meeks. Edited by L. Michael White et al. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Léon-Dufour, Xavier. Lecture de l’Evangile selon Jean. 3 vols. Parole de Dieu. Paris: Seuil, 1988–1993. Leone, Cosimo. “The Death of Jesus and the Gift of the Spirit.” Th.D. thesis, Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1992. Leroy, Herbert. Rätsel und Missverständnis: Ein Beitrag zur Formgeschichte des Johannesevangeliums. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1968. Leutzsch, Martin. Die Bewährung der Wahrheit: Der dritte Johannesbrief als Dokument urchristlichen Alltags. Stätten und Formen der Kommunikation im Altertum II. Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 1994.

400

Bibliography

Levieils, Xavier. “Juifs et Grecs dans la communauté johannique.” Biblica 82 (2001) 51–78. Lichtenberger, H. “Taufergemeinden und frühchristliche Tauferpolemik im letzen Drittel des I. Jahrhunderts.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 84 (1987): 36–57. Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, H. S. Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised supplement. Oxford, 1996. Lieberman, S. Studies in Palestinian Talmudic Literature. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991. Lierman, John, ed. Challenging Perspectives on the Fourth Gospel. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.219. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Lieu, Judith. “Accusations of Jewish Persecution in Early Christian Sources, with Particular Reference to Justin Martyr and the Martyrdom of Polycarp.” Pages 279–95 in Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity. Edited by Graham N. Stanton and Guy G. Stroumsa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. ______. “‘Authority to Become Children of God’: A Study of I John.” Novum Testamentum 23 (1981): 210–28. ______. Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. ______. “Gnosticism and the Gospel of John.” Expository Times 90 (1979): 233– 37. ______. Image and Reality: The Jews in the World of the Christians in the Second Century. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. ______. “‘Impregnable Ramparts and Walls of Iron’: Boundary and Identity in Early ‘Judaism’ and ‘Christianity.’” New Testament Studies 48 (2002): 297– 313. ______. “Die Johannesbriefe by Georg Strecker.” Biblica 74 (1993): 132–35. ______. “Messiah and Resistance in the Gospel and Epistles of John.” Pages 97– 108 in Redemption and Resistance: The Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity. Edited by M. Bockmuehl and J. C. Paget. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2007. ______. Neither Jew nor Greek? Constructing Early Christianity. London: T&T Clark, 2005. ______. The Second and Third Epistles of John: History and Background. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986. ______. “The Synagogue and the Separation of the Christians.” Pages 189–207 in The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins until 200 CE. Edited by Birger Olsson and Magnus Zetterholm. Coniectanea biblica New Testament Series 39. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2003. ______. “Temple and Synagogue in John.” New Testament Studies 45 (1999): 51– 69. ______. The Theology of the Johannine Epistles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. ______. “What Was From the Beginning: Scripture and Tradition in the Johannine Epistles.” New Testament Studies 39 (1993): 458–77. Lightfoot, J. B. The Apostolic Fathers. 3 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1889.

Bibliography

401

Lightfoot, Robert Henry. St. John’s Gospel: A Commentary. Edited by C. F. Evans. Oxford: Clarendon, 1956. Lincoln, Andrew T. Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in the Fourth Gospel. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2000. Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John. New Century Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981. ______. “The Persecution of Christians in Jn 15.18–16.4a.” Pages 48–69 in Suffering and Martyrdom in the New Testament. Edited by W. Horbury and B. McNeil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Lindemann, Andreas. “Gemeinde und Welt im Johannesevangelium.” Pages 133–61 in Kirche: Festschrift für Günther Bornkamm zum 75. Geburtstag. Edited by Dieter Lührmann et al. Tübingen: Mohr, 1980. Ling, Timothy J. M. The Judaean Poor and the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Lingad, Celestino G. The Problems of Jewish Christians in the Johannine Community. Tesi Gregoriana 73. Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2001. Loader, William R. G. The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Structure and Issues. Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie, 23. New York: Lang, 1989. _____. The Johannine Epistles. Epworth Commentaries. London: Epworth, 1992. Lock, Walter. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1924. Loewenich, Walther von. Das Johannesverständnis im zweiten Jahrhundert. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 13. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1932. Löffler, Josias Friedrich Christian. Dissertatio Historico-Exegetica Ioannis Epistola Prima Gnosticos Imprimis Impugnari Negans. Frankfurt, 1784. Logan, A. H. B. “John and the Gnostics.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 43 (1991): 41–69. Logan, A. H. B., and A. J. M. Wedderburn, eds. The New Testament and Gnosis: Essays in Honour of Robert McL. Wilson. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1983. Löhr, Winrich Alfried. Basilides und seine Schule. Eine Studie zur Theologie- und Kirchengeschichte des zweiten Jahrhunderts. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 83. Tübingen: Mohr, 1996. Loisy, Alfred. Le quatrième évangile: les épitres dites de Jean. Paris: Nourry, 1903. Longacre, Robert E. “Towards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Text.” Pages 271–86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation. Edited by David Alan Black. Nashville: Broadman, 1992. Longenecker, Richard N. The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity. Studies in Biblical Theology 17. London: SCM, 1970. ______. New Wine into Fresh Wineskins: Contextualizing the Early Christian Confessions. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999. Lorein, Geert Wouter. The Antichrist Theme in the Intertestamental Period. Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha. Supplement Series 44. London: T&T Clark, 2003. Lücke, Friedrich. Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. Translated by T. Gudmundson. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1837.

402

Bibliography

Lupieri, E. F. “John the Baptist in New Testament Traditions and History.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt 26.1 (1992): 430–61. Lupo, Angela Maria. La sete, l’acqua, lo spirito: studio esegetico e teologico sulla connessione dei termini negli scritti giovannei. Analecta Gregoriana 289. Roma: Pontificia Universita Gregoriana, 2003. Lütgert, W. Amt und Geist im Kampf: Studien zur Geschichte des Urchristentums. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1911. ______. Die johanneische Christologie. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1916. Luttikheizen, Gerard. “The Apocryphal Correspondence with the Corinthians and the Acts of Paul.” Pages 75–91 in The Apocryphal Acts of Paul and Theckla. Edited by Jan Bremmer. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996. Luzagarra, Jesús. “Eternal Life in the Johannine Writings.” Communio 18 (1991): 24–34. Lyons, G. Pauline Autobiography: Toward a New Understanding. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Maccini, Robert Gordon. Her Testimony is True: Women as Witnesses According to John. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 125. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. MacKay, Thomas W. “Content and Style in Two Pseudo-Pauline Epistles (3 Corinthians and the Epistle to the Laodiceans).” Pages 215–40 in Apocryphal Writings and the Latter-Day Saints. Edited by C. Wilfred Griggs. Salt Lake City: Brigham Young University, 1986. MacKnight, James. A New Literal Translation from the Original Greek of All the Apostolical Epistles. Philadelphia: Wardle, 1841. MacLennan, R.S. Early Christian Texts on Jews and Judaism. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990. MacRae, G. W. “Gnosticism and the Church of John’s Gospel.” Pages 89–96 in Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity. Edited by Charles W. Hedrick and Robert Hodgson, Jr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1986. ______. “Why the Church Rejected Gnosticism.” Pages 251–62 in Studies in the New Testament and Gnosticism. Good News Studies 26. Edited by George W. MacRae, Daniel J. Harrington, and Stanley B. Marrow. Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, 1987. Maguire, Alban A. Blood and Water: The Wounded Side of Christ in Early Christian Literature. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1958. Maier, Gerhard. Johannes-Evangelium. Neuhausen: Hänssler, 1984. Malatesta, Edward. “Blood and Water from the Pierced Side of Christ (Jn 19:34).” Pages 165–81 in Segni e sacramenti nel Vangelo di Giovanni. Rome: Editrice Anselmiana, 1977. ______. Interiority and Covenant: A Study of εἰναι ἐν and μένειν ἐν in the First Letter of Saint John. Analecta biblica 69. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978. Malherbe, A. J. “The Inhospitality of Diotrephes.” Pages 222–32 in God’s Christ and His People. Edited by J. Jervell and W. Meeks. Oslo: Universitetsforl, 1977. ______. Social Aspects of Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.

Bibliography

403

Malina, Bruce J. “The Received View and What It Cannot Do: III John and Hospitality.” Semeia 35 (1986): 171–94. Malina, Bruce J., and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Malinine, Michel et al, eds. De resurrectione (Epistula ad Rheginum). Zürich: Rascher, 1963. Manning, G. T. Echoes of a Prophet: The Use of Ezekiel in the Gospel of John and in Literature of the Second Temple Period. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 270. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Manns, Frédéric. “The Christology of the First Letter of John.”Pages 51–84 in Liber Scripturae: miscellanea in onore del Prof. P. Francesco Tudda. Edited by Vincenzo Lopasso, and Serafino Parisi. Soveria Mannelli (Catanzaro): Rubbettino, 2002. ______. “Elements de christologie johannique.” Bibbia e oriente 40 (1998): 169–92. ______. “‘Le Péché, c’est Bélial’: 1 Jn 3.4 à la lumière du Judaïsme.” Revue des Sciences Religieuses 62 (1988): 1–9. ______. “Le Shema Israel, clé de lecture de quelques textes johanniques.” Pages 107–17 in Atti del V Simposio di Efeso su S. Giovanni Apostolo. Edited by Luigi Padovese. Turchia: la Chiesa e la sua storia 8. Roma: Istituto Francescano di Spiritualitá, 1995. ______. Le symbole eau-Esprit dans le judaisme ancien. Studium biblicum franciscanum 19. Jerusalem: Franciscan, 1983. ______. “Traces de liturgie juive dans la première lettre de Jean.” Pages 117–25 in Atti del VII Simposio di Efeso su S. Giovanni Apostolo. Edited by Luigi Padovese. Turchia: la Chiesa e la sua storia 13. Roma: Istituto Francescano di Spiritualitá, 1999. Manson, T. W. “Entry into Membership of the Early Church.” Journal of Theological Studies 48 (1947): 25–33. Manueliguens, Manuel. “Sin, Prayer, Life in 1 Jn 5:16.” Pages 64–82 in Studia hierosolymitana in onore del p Bellarmino Bagatti 2. Edited by E. Testa, I. Mancini and M. Piccirillo. Jerusalem: Franciscan, 1976. Marcus, Joel. “Rivers of Living Water from Jesus’ Belly (John 7:38).” Journal of Biblical Literature 117 (1998): 328–30. Markschies, Christoph. “Kerinth: Wer war er und was lehrte er?” Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 41 (1998): 48–76. ______. Valentinus Gnosticus? Untersuchungen zur valentinianischen Gnosis mit einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten Valentins. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 65. Tübingen: Mohr, 1992. Mariev, Sergei. “Neues zur ‘johanneische Frage’?” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 99 (2006): 535–49. Marjanen, Antti, and Petri Luomanen, eds. A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics”. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 76. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Marshall, I. Howard. The Epistles of John. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. ______. The Pastoral Epistles. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999.

404

Bibliography

Marshall, John. “John’s Jewish (Christian?) Apocalypse.” Pages 233–56 in Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts. Edited by Matt Jackson-McCabe. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. ______. “The Objects of Ignatius’ Wrath and Angelic Mediators.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 56 (2005): 1–23. ______. Parables of War: Reading John’s Jewish Apocalypse. Studies in Christianity and Judaism 10. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2001. Martin, R. P. Carmen Christi: Philippians ii. 5–11 in Recent Interpretation and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Martin, M. W. “Judas the Secessionist: Reading Johannine Syncrisis in its Mediterranean Mileiu.” Ph.D. diss., Baylor University, 2005. Martin, Vincent. A House Divided: The Parting of the Ways between Synagogue and Church. Studies in Judaism and Christianity. New York: Paulist Press, 1995. Martini, C. “Il discernimento degli spiriti in un testo antico del deserto di Giuda.” La civiltà cattolica 107 (1956): 395–410. Martyn, J. Louis. “Glimpses into the History of the Johannine Community.” Pages 150–75 in L’ Évangile de Jean: Sources, redaction, théologie. Edited by M. de Jonge. Leuven: Duculot, 1977. ______. The Gospel of John in Christian History. New York: Paulist, 1978. ______. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. 3rd ed. New Testament Library. Louisville: Westminster, 2003. ______. “The Johannine Community among Jewish and Other Early Christian Communities.” Pages 183–190 in What We Have Heard From the Beginning: The Past, Present and Future of Johannine Studies. Edited by Tom Thatcher. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007. Matera, F. J. “‘On Behalf of Others,’ ‘Cleansing,’ and ‘Return’: Johannine Images for Jesus’ Death.” Louvain Studies 13 (1988): 161–78. Mattill, A. J. “Johannine Communities behind the Fourth Gospel: Georg Richter’s Analysis.” Theological Studies 38 (1977): 294–315. Maurer, C. Ignatius von Antiochen und das Johannesevangelium. Zurich: 1949. Mayo, Philip L. “The Role of the Birkath Haminim in Early Jewish-Christian Relations: A Reexamination of the Evidence.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 16 (2006): 325–44. ______. “Those Who Call Themselves Jews”: The Church and Judaism in the Apocalypse of John. Princeton Theological Monograph Series. Eugene: Pickwick, 2006. McCant, Jerry W. “The Gospel of Peter: Docetism Reconsidered.” New Testament Studies 30 (1984): 258–73. McClintock, John, and James Strong, eds. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. Vol IV. New York: Harper, 1883. McGaughy, L. C. Towards a Descriptive Analysis of ΕΙΝΑΙ as a Linking Verb in New Testament Greek. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 6. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1972. McGrath, James F. John’s Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. ______. “Johannine Christianity—Jewish Christianity?” Koinonia 8 (1996): 1–20.

Bibliography

405

McHugh, John. “‘In Him Was Life’: John’s Gospel and the Parting of the Ways.” Pages 123–58 in Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways AD 70 to 135. Edited by J. D. G. Dunn. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 66. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. McKnight, Scot. Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2005. Meehan, Sister Thomas More. “John 19:32–35 and I John 5:6–8: A Study in the History of Interpretation.” Ph.D. diss., Drew University, 1985. Meeks, Wayne A. “Breaking Away: Three New Testament Pictures of Christianity’s Separation from the Jewish Communities.” Pages 93–116 in To See Ourselves as Others See Us: Christians, Jews, “Others” in Late Antiquity. Edited by J. Neusner and E. S. Frerichs. Chico, Calif.: 1985. ______. “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism.” Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972): 44–72. ______. The Moral World of the First Christians. Library of Early Christianity 6. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. ______. The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. Leiden: Brill, 1967. ______. “Simon Magus in Recent Research.” Religious Studies Review 3.3 (July 1977): 137–42. Meeks, Wayne, and Robert Wilken. Jews and Christians in Antioch in the First Four Centuries of the Common Era. Sources for Biblical Study. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1978. Meinhold, Peter. Studien zu Ignatius von Antiochien. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1979. Menken, Maarten J. J. “Envoys of God’s Envoy: On the Johannine Communities.” Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 23 (2000): 45–60. ______. “Die Feste im Johannesevangelium.” Pages 269–86 in Israel und seine Heilstraditionen im Johannesevangelium: Festgabe für Johannes Beutler SJ zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by M. Labahn, K. Scholtissek, and A. Strotmann. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2004. ______. “John 6,51c–58: Eucharist or Christology?” Pages 183–204 in Critical Readings of John 6. Edited by R. Alan Culpepper. Leiden: Brill, 1993. ______. “The Old Testament Quotation in John 19,36. Sources, Redaction, Background.” Pages 2101–18 in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, Volume III. Edited by Van Segbroeck, F. et al. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 100. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. ______. “The Opponents in the Johannine Epistles: Fact or Fiction?” Pages 191– 209 in Empsychoi Logoi: Religious Innovations in Antiquity. AJEC 73. Edited by A. Houtman, et al. Leiden: Brill, 2008. ______. “The Origin of the Old Testament Quotation in John 7:38.” Novum Testamentum 38 (1996): 160–75. ______. “‘Rivers of Living Water Shall Flow From His Inside’ (John 7:38).” Pages 187–203 in Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 15. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996. ______. “The Textual Form and the Meaning of the Quotation from Zechariah 12:10 in John 19:37.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (1993): 494–511.

406

Bibliography

Merwe, D. G. van der. “Eschatology in the First Epistle of John: ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΑ in the Familia Dei.” Verbum et Ecclesia 27.3 (2006): 1045–76. ______. “‘Having Fellowship with God’ According to 1 John: Dealing with the Intermediation and Environment Through Which and In Which It is Constituted.” Pages 165–92 in The Spirit That Moves: Orientation and Issues in Spirituality. Edited by P. G. R. de Villiers et al. Acta Theologica Supplementum 8. Bloemfontein: UFS, 2006. ______. “The Identification and Examination of the Elements that Caused a Schism in the Johannine Community at the End of the First Century CE.” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 63 (2007): 1149–69. ______. “‘A Matter of Having Fellowship’: Ethics in the Johannine Epistles.” Pages 535–63 in Identity, Ethics, and Ethos in the New Testament. Edited by Jan Gabriël Van der Watt. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 141. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. ______. “Salvation in the Johannine Epistles.” Pages 437–64 in Salvation in the New Testament: Perspectives on Soteriology. Edited by J. G. Van der Watt. Novum Testamentum Supplements 121. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Meshorer, Ya’akov. Ancient Jewish Coinage. 2 vols. Dix Hills, N. Y.: Amphora, 1982. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Metzger, Wolfgang. Der Christushymnus 1. Timotheus 3, 16: Fragment einer Homologie der paulinischen Gemeinden. Arbeiten zur Theologie 62. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1979. Metzner, Rainer. Das Verständnis von Sünde im Johannesevangelium. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 122. Tübingen: Mohr, 2000. Michaelis, J. D. Einleitung in die göttlichen Schriften des Neuen Bundes. 2 vols. 4th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1788. ______. Introduction to the New Testament. 4 vols. 2nd ed. Translated by H. Marsh. London: Rivington, 1802. Michaels, J. Ramsey. 1 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary 49. Waco: Word, 1988. ______. “Atonement in John’s Gospel and Epistles.” Pages 106–118 in The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Theological, and Practical Perspectives. Edited by Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James III. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2006. ______. “By Water and Blood: Sin and Purification in John and First John.” Pages 149–62 in Dimensions of Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 234. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. ______. “The Catholic Christologies in the Catholic Epistles.” Pages 268–91 in Contours of Christology in the New Testament. McMaster New Testament Studies. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. ______. “The Centurion’s Confession and the Spear Thrust.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 29 (1967): 102–9.

Bibliography

407

______. “Finding Yourself an Intercessor: New Testament Prayer from Hebrews to Jude.” Pages 228–51 in Into God’s Presence: Prayer in the New Testament. Edited by Richard Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. ______. John. New International Biblical Commentary 4. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1989. Michel, Otto. Der Brief an die Römer. 14th ed. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1978. Michl, Johann. “Der Geist als Garant des rechten Glaubens.” Pages 142–51 in Vom Wort des Lebens: Festschrift für Max Meinertz. Edited by Nikolaus Adler. Münster: Aschendorf, 1951. ______. Die katholischen Briefe. Regensburger Neues Testament 8. Regensburg: Pustet, 1968. Mielgo, G. Sánchez. “Perspectivas Eclesiológicas en la Primera Carta de Juan.” Escritos del Vedat 4 (1974): 9–64. Miguens, M. “‘Salió sangre y agua’ (Jn. 19,34).” Studii Biblici Franciscani Liber Annuus 14 (1963–64): 5–31. ______. “Tres testigos: Espíritu, agua, sangre.” Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Liber Annuus 22 (1972): 74–94. Mills, Donald W. “The Eschatology of 1 John.” Pages 97–111 in Looking into the Future: Evangelical Studies in Eschatology. Evangelical Theological Society Studies. Edited by David W. Baker. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001. ______. “The Holy Spirit in 1 John.” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 4.2 (1999): 33–50. Minde, Hans-Jürgen van der. Schrift und Tradition bei Paulus: ihre Bedeutung und Funktion im Römerbrief. Paderborner theologische Studien 3. Munich: Schöningh, 1976. Minear, Paul S. “Diversity and Unity: A Johannine Case-Study.” Pages 162–75 in Die Mitte des Neuen Testaments: Einheit und Vielfalt neutestamentlicher Theologie. Edited by Ulrich Luz et al. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. ______. “Idea of Incarnation in First John.” Interpretation 24 (1970): 291–302. Miranda, José Porfirio. Being and the Messiah: The Message of St. John. Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis, 1977. Mitchell, Margaret M. “‘Diotrephes Does Not Receive Us’: The Lexicographical and Social Context of 3 John 9–10.” Journal of Biblical Literature (1998): 299– 320. ______. “Patristic Counter-Evidence to the Claim that ‘The Gospels Were Written for All Christians.’” New Testament Studies 51 (2005): 36–79. Moberly, R. W. L. Prophecy and Discernment. Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. ______. “‘Test the Spirits’: God, Love, and Critical Discernment in 1 John 4.” Pages 296–307 in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins. Edited by G. N. Stanton et al. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Moffatt, James. “An Approach to Ignatius.” Harvard Theological Review 29 (1936): 1–38. ______. The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. Moffatt New Testament Commentary. New York: Harper, 1938.

408

Bibliography

______. The Historical New Testament: Being the Literature of the New Testament Arranged in the Order of its Literary Growth and According to the Dates of the Documents. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901. ______. An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament. New York: Scribners, 1911. Molland, Einar. “The Heretics Combatted by Ignatius of Antioch.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 5 (1954): 1–6. Moloney, Francis J. Belief in the Word: Reading John 1–4. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. ______. Glory not Dishonor: Reading John 13–20 (21). Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. ______. The Gospel of John. Sacra Pagina, 4. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 1998. ______. “The Johannine Paraclete and Jesus.” Pages 213–28 in Dummodo Christus annuntietur: Studi in onore del prof. Jozef Heriban. Edited by Andrzej Strus et al. Biblioteca di scienze religiose 146. Roma: Libreria Ateneo Salesiano, 1998. ______. Signs and Shadows: Reading John 5–12. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996 Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Moody, Dale. “Theology of the Johannine Letters.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 13 (1970): 7–22. Morgan-Wynne, John E. “References to Baptism in the Fourth Gospel.” Pages 116–35 in Baptism, the New Testament and the Church: Historical and Contemporary Studies in Honour of R.E.O. White. Edited by Stanley E. Porter et al. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 171. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Morgen, Michèle. Les épîtres de Jean. Commentaire Biblique: Nouveau Testament 19. Paris: Cerf, 2005. ______. “L’Évangile interprété par l’épître: Jean et I Jean.” Foi et Vie 86 (1987): 59–70. ______. “La figure du frère dans 1 Jn 3,12 : l’audace de la typologie et ses clins d’oeil au lecteur.” Pages 203–21 in Typologie biblique: De quelques figures vives. Edited by R. Kuntzmann. Lectio divina. Paris: Cerf, 2002. ______. “La mort expiatoire de Jésus d’après 1 Jean.” Pages 485–501 in The Catholic Epistles and tradition. Edited by Jacques Schlosser. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 176. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. ______. “Le prologue de la première épître de Jean : sa structure et sa visée.” Revue des Sciences Religieuses 79 (2005): 55–75. Morland, K. A. “Om a avslore og avsondre vranglaerere: En eksegese av 1 Joh 4,1–6 pa grunnlag av tekstintern analyse og en droftelse av lignende kristologiske brytninger i den tidlige kirke.” Tidsskrift for Teologi og Kirke 63 (1992): 95–112. Morris, Leon. “The Atonement in John’s Gospel.” Criswell Theological Review 3 (1988): 49–64. ______. The Gospel according to John: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes. Rev. ed. New International Commentary on the NT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. ______. Jesus is the Christ: Studies in the Theology of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

Bibliography

409

Motyer, Stephen. “The Fourth Gospel and the Salvation of Israel: An Appeal for a New Start.” Pages 83–100 in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel. Edited by R. Bieringer, D. Pollefeyt, and F. Vandecasteele-Vanneeuville. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. ______. Your Father the Devil? A New Approach to John and ‘the Jews’. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959. ______. “A Neglected Factor in the Interpretation of Johannine Eschatology.” Pages 155–60 in Studies in John Presented to Professor Dr. J. N. Sevenster. Novum Testamentum Supplements 24. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Mounce, William D. Pastoral Epistles. Word Biblical Commentary 46. Nashville: Nelson, 2000. Müller, U. B. “Die Bedeutung des Kreuzestodes Jesus im Johannesevangelium.” Kerygma und Dogma (1975): 49–71. ______. Die Geschichte der Christologie in der johanneischen Gemeinde. Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 77. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1975. ______. Die Menschwerdung des Gottessohnes. SBS 140. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1990. ______. “Zwischen Johannes und Ignatius. Theologischer Widerstreit in den Gemeinden der Asia.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 98 (2007): 49–67. Muñoz León, Domingo. “El derás sobre Caín y Abel en 1 Jn y la situación de la comunidad joánica.” Estudios bíblicos 53 (1995): 213–38. Mursurillo, Herbert. “Ignatius of Antioch: Gnostic or Essene?” Theological Studies 22 (1961): 103–10. Mutschler, Bernhard. Das Corpus Johanneum bei Irenäus von Lyon: Studien und Kommentar zum dritten Buch von Adversus Haereses. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Myllykoski, Matti. “Cerinthus.” Pages 213–46 in A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics”. Edited by Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 76. Leiden: Brill, 2005. ______. “Wild Beasts and Rabid Dogs: The Riddle of the Heretics in the Letters of Ignatius.” Pages 341–77 in The Formation of the Early Church. Edited by Jostein Ådna. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 183. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Nagel, Titus. “Zur Gnostisierung der johanneischen Tradition: Das ‘Geheime Evangelium nach Johannes’ (Apokryphon Johannis) als gnostische Zusatzoffenbarung zum vierten Evangelium.” Pages 675–93 in Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Das vierte Evangelium in religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive. Edited by J. Frey and U. Schnelle. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 175. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. ______. Die Rezeption des Johannesevangeliums im 2. Jahrhundert: Studien zur vorirenäischen Auslegung des vierten Evangeliums in christlicher und christlichgnostischer Literatur. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 2. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2000.

410

Bibliography

Navarro, L. Sánchez. “Estructura testimonial del Evangelio de Juan.” Biblica 86 (2005): 511–28. Nauck, Wolfgang. Die Tradition und der Charakter des ersten Johannesbriefes. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 3. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1957. Neander, Augustus. The First Epistle of John Practically Explained. Translated by H. C. Conant. New York: Colby, 1852. Neller, Kenneth V. “Water into Wine (John 2:1–11): Foreshadow of the Atonement.” Pages 196–211 in Transmission and Reception: New Testament Text-Critical and Exegetical Studies. Edited by J. W. Childers and D. C. Parker. Piscataway, N. J.: Gorgias, 2006. Neufeld, D. “‘And when that one comes’: Aspects of Johannine Messianism.” Pages 120–40 in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Craig A. Evans and Peter W. Flint. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature 1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. ______. Reconceiving Texts as Speech Acts: An Analysis of I John. Biblical Interpretation Series 7. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Neufeld, Vernon H. The Earliest Christian Confessions. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Neyrey, Jerome H. An Ideology of Revolt: John’s Christology in Social-Science Perspective. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. ______. “Jesus the Judge: Forensic Process in John 8,21–59.” Biblica 68 (1987): 509–42. Neyrey, Jerome H., and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. “‘He Must Increase, I Must Decrease” (John 3:30): A Cultural and Social Interpretation.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63 (2001): 464–83. Ng, Wai-Yee. Water Symbolism in John: An Eschatological Interpretation. Studies in Biblical Literature 15. New York: Lang, 2001. Nicklas, Tobias. “Was es heißt, ‘Kinder Gottes zu werden’ (Joh 1,12b): Der 1. Johannesbrief für Leser des Johannesevangeliums.” Bibel und Liturgie 79 (2006): 58–61. ______. “Was macht die Johannesbriefe eigentlich zu ‘katholischen Briefen?’” Bibel und Liturgie 79 (2006): 129–132. ______. “‘Die letzte Stunde’ (1 Joh 2,18): Johannesbriefe und Apokalypse.” Bibel und Liturgie 79 (2006): 189–92. Niederwimmer, Kurt. “Zur Eschatologie im Corpus Johanneum.” Novum Testamentum 39 (1997): 105–116. Nitzan, Bilha. “The Pesher and Other Methods of Instruction.” Pages 209–11 in The Teacher of Righteousness: Literary Studies. Edited by Zdzisl1aw J. Kapera. Qumranica Mogilanensia 3. Kraków: Engima Press, 1991. Norden, Eduard. Agnostos Theos: Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiöser Rede. Leipzig: Teubner, 1912. Norris, Frederick. “Ignatius, Polycarp, and I Clement: Walter Bauer Reconsidered.” Vigiliae Christianae 30 (1976): 23–44. North, Wendy Elizabeth Sproston. The Lazarus Story within the Johannine Tradition. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.

Bibliography

411

Oberlinner, Lorenz. Die Pastoralbriefe: Kommentar zum ersten Timotheusbrief erste Folge. Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 11.2. Freiburg: Herder, 1994. Oegema, Gerbern S. “‘The Coming of the Righteous One’ in 1 Enoch, Qumran, and the New Testament.” Pages 381–95 in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Volume 3: The Scrolls and Christian Origins. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006. Okure, Teresa. The Johannine Approach to Mission: A Contextual Study of John 4:1– 32. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.31. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988. Olsson, Birger. “‘All My Teaching Was Done in Synagogues…’ (John 18,20).” Pages 203–24 in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by the Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminary. Edited by G. Van Belle, J. G. van der Watt, and P. Maritz. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 184. Leuven: Peeters, 2005. ______. “First John: Discourse analyses and interpretations.” Pages 369–91 in Discourse analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T.Reed. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 170. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. ______. “The History of the Johannine Movement.” Pages 27–42 in Aspects of the Johannine Literature. Edited by L. Hartman and B. Olsson. Uppsala: Almquist, 1987. ______. De johanneiska breven. Kommentar till Nya Testamentet 19. Stockholm: EFS-förlaget, forthcoming. ______. “Kulturbundna tolkningar av Johannesbreven.” Tro och Liv 63.3–4 (2004): 4–12. ______. Structure and Meaning in the Fourth Gospel: A Text-Linguistic Analysis of John 2:1–11 and 4:1–42. Coniectanea biblica 6. Lund: Gleerup, 1974. O’Neill, J. C. The Puzzle of 1 John: A New Examination of Origins. London: SPCK, 1966. Onuki, Takashi. Gemeinde und Welt im Johannesevangelium: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach de theologischen und pragmatischen Funktion des johanneischen “Dualismus.” Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984. Orchard, Helen C. Courting Betrayal. Jesus as Victim in the Gospel of John. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 161. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1998. Origen. Commentary on the Gospel according to John. 2 vols. Edited and translated by Ronald E. Heine. The Fathers of the Church 80, 89. Washington, D. C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1989–93. ______. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Books 1–5. The Fathers of the Church 103. Edited and translated by Thomas P. Scheck. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2001. ______. Homilies on Genesis and Exodus. The Fathers of the Church 71. Edited and translated by Ronald E. Heine. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1982.

412

Bibliography

______. Homilies on Leviticus 1–16. The Fathers of the Church 83. Edited and translated by Gary Wayne Barkley. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1990. Osborn, Eric Francis. Justin Martyr. Beiträge zur historischen Theologie, 47. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1973. Pagels, Elaine H. “Gnostic and Orthodox Views of Christ’s Passion: Paradigms for the Christian’s Response to Persecution?” Pages 262–88 in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Volume One: The School of Valentinus. Edited by Bentley Layton. Studies in the History of Religions 41. Leiden: Brill, 1980. ______. The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis: Heracleon’s Commentary on John. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 17. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973. Pagels, Elaine H., and Charles W. Hedrick. Nag Hammadi Codices XI, XII, XIII. Nag Hammadi Studies 28. Leiden: Brill, 1990. Paget, James Carleton. The Epistle of Barnabas: Outlook and Background. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.64. Tübingen: Mohr, 1994. Painter, John. 1, 2, and 3 John. Sacra Pagina 18. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2002. ______. “Christology and the History of the Johannine Community in the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel.” New Testament Studies 30 (1984): 460–74. ______. “The Farewell Discourse and the History of Johannine Christianity.” New Testament Studies 27 (1980–81): 525–43. ______. John: Witness and Theologian. London: SPCK, 1975. ______. “Monotheism and Dualism: John and Qumran.” Pages 225–43 in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by the Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar. Edited by Gilbert van Belle, J. G. Van der Watt, and P. Maritz. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 184. Leuven: Peeters, 2005. ______. “The ‘Opponents’ in 1 John.” New Testament Studies 32 (1986): 48–71. ______. “The Point of John’s Christology: Christology, Conflict and Community in John.” Pages 231–52 in Christology, Controversy and Community: New Testament Essays in Honour of David R. Catchpole. Edited by David G. Horrell and Christopher M. Tuckett. Leiden: Brill, 2000. ______. The Quest for the Messiah: The History, Literature and Theology of the Johannine Community. 2nd ed. Nashville: Abingdon, 1993. ______. “Sacrifice and Atonement in the Gospel of John.” Pages 287–313 in Israel und seine Heilstraditionen im Johannesevangelium: Festgabe für Johannes Beutler SJ zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by M. Labahn, K. Scholtissek, and A. Strotmann. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2004. Pamment, M. “John 3:5: ‘Unless One Is Born of Water and the Spirit, He Cannot Enter the Kingdom of God.’” Novum Testamentum 25 (1983): 189–90. Panackel, Charles. ΙΔΟΥ Ο ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΣ (Jn 19,5b): An Exegetico-Theological Study of the Text in the Light of the Use of the Term ΑΝΘΡΩΠΟΣ Designating Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1988.

Bibliography

413

Pancaro, Severino. “The Law in the Fourth Gospel: The Torah and the Gospel, Moses and Jesus, Judaism and Christianity according to John.” New Testament Studies 22 (1975): 488–533. ______. Law in the Fourth Gospel: The Torah and the Gospel, Moses and Jesus, Judaism and Christianity according to John. Novum Testamentum Supplements 42. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Parker, Pierson. “Two Editions of John.” Journal of Biblical Literature 75 (1956): 303–14. Pasquier, Anne. “The Interpretation of the Prologue to John’s Gospel in some Gnostic and Patristic Writings: A Common Tradition.” Pages 484–98 in The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration. Edited by J. D. Turner and A. McGuire. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Pastorelli, David. Le Paraclet dans le corpus johannique. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 142. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Paulsen, H. Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiocha und der Polykarpbrief. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 18.2. Tübingen: Mohr, 1985. ______. Studien zur Theologie des Ignatius von Antiochen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,1978. ______. Überlieferung und Auslegung in Römer 8. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 43. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1974. Pearson, Birger. Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions and Literature. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. ______. “Basilides the Gnostic.” Pages 1–31 in A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics”. Edited by Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 76. Leiden: Brill, 2005. ______. Gnosticism and Christianity in Roman and Coptic Egypt. New York: T&T Clark, 2004. ______. Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Peel, Michael L. The Epistle to Rheginos: A Valentinian Letter on the Resurrection. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969. ______. “Gnostic Eschatology and the New Testament.” Novum Testamentum 12 (1970): 141–65. Peerbolte, L. J. Lietaert. The Antecedents of Antichrist: A Traditio-Historical Study of the Earliest Christian Views on Eschatological Opponents. Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement 49. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Perkins, Pheme. “Gnostic Christologies and the New Testament.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981) 590–606. ______. The Gnostic Dialogue: The Early Church and the Crisis of Gnosticism. New York: Paulist, 1980. ______. “Gnostic Revelation and Johannine Sectarianism: Reading 1 John from the Perspective of Nag Hammadi.” Pages 245–76 in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by the Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminary. Edited by G. Van Belle, J. G. van der Watt, and P. Maritz.

414

Bibliography

Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 184. Leuven: Peeters, 2005. ______. Gnosticism and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. ______. “Irenaeus and the Gnostics.” Vigiliae Christianae 30 (1976): 193–200. ______. The Johannine Epistles. New Testament Message 21. Wilmington, Del: Glazier, 1979. ______. “Johannine Traditions in the Apocalypse of James.” Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982): 404–14. ______. “Koinōnia in 1 John 1:3–7: The Social Context of Division in the Johannine Letters.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45 (1983): 631–41. ______. “Logos Christologies in the Nag Hammadi Codices.” Vigiliae Christianae 35 (1981): 379–96. ______. “New Testament Christologies in Gnostic Transformation.” Pages 433– 41 in The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester. Edited by Birger Pearson. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1984. Perrin, Norman. Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Pervo, Richard I. “Johannine Trajectories in the Acts of John.” Apocrypha 3 (1992): 47–68. Peterson, Dwight N. The Origins of Mark: The Markan Community in Current Debate. Biblical Interpretation Studies 48. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Pétremont, Simone. A Separate God: the Origin and Teachings of Gnosticism. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1990. Pfleiderer, Otto. Primitive Christianity: Its Writings and Teachings in their Historical Connections. Translated by W. Montgomery. 4 vols. New York: Putnam, 1911. Pickup, M. “The Emergence of the Suffering Messiah in Rabbinic Literature.” Pages 143–62 in Approaches to Ancient Judaism. Edited by J. Neusner. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Pilgrim, Walter E. Uneasy Neighbors: Church and State in the New Testament. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999. Piper, O. A. “1 John and the Didache of the Primitive Church.” Journal of Biblical Literature 66 (1947): 437–51. Plattig, Michael. “Spiritualität und kritische Reflexion: ‘Traut nicht jedem Geist, sondern prüft die Geister, ob sie aus Gott sind!’ (1 Joh 4,1).” Pages 85–96 in “Jesus von Nazareth” kontrovers: Rückfragen an Joseph Ratzinger. Münster: Lit, 2007. Plummer, Alfred. The Epistles of St. John. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1894. ______. The Gospel according to St. John. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1887. Poirier, Paul-Hubert. “The Writings ascribed to Thomas and the Thomas Tradition.” Pages 295–307 in The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration. Edited by John D. Turner and Anne McGuire. Nag Hammadi Studies 44. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Bibliography

415

Polhill, John. “First, Second, and Third John.” Pages 1311–18 in Mercer Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by W. E. Mills et al. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 2003. ______. “The Setting of 2 John and 3 John.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 10 (2006): 28–39. Pollard, T. E. Johannine Christology and the Early Church. London: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Popkes, Enno Edzard. Die Theologie der Liebe Gottes in den johanneischen Schriften: Studien zur Semantik der Liebe und zum Motivkreis des Dualismus. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 197. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. ______. “Von Antichristen und Weltenherrschen: zur Funktion der eschatologischen Gegenspieler Jesu in den johanneischen Schriften.” Pages 231–44 in Alles in allem: eschatologische Anstöße J. Christine Janowski zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by Ruth Heß Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2005. Porsch, Felix. “‘…daß sie alle nicht zu uns gehörten’ (1 Joh 2,19). Der Umgang mit Dissidenten im 1 Joh.” Bibel und Kirche 53 (1998): 190–94. ______. Pneuma und Wort. Frankfurter Theologische Studien 16. Frankfurt: Knecht, 1974. Porter, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. Poschmann, B. Paenitentia secunda: Die kirchliche Buße im ältesten Christentum bis Cyprian und Origenes: Eine dogmengeschichtliche Untersuchung. Beiträge zur Religions- und Kirchengeschichte des Altertums 1. Bonn: Hanstein, 1940. Potterie, Ignace de la. “Anointing of the Christian by Faith.” Pages 79–143 in The Christian Lives by the Spirit. Edited by I. De la Potterie and Stanislaus Lynonnet. New York: Alba House, 1971. ______.“The Impeccability of the Christian According to 1 Jn 3.6–9.” Pages 175– 96 in The Christian Lives by the Spirit. Edited by I. de la Potterie and Stanislaus Lynonnet. New York: Alba House, 1971. ______. “La notion de témoignage dans saint Jean.” Pages 193–208 in Sacra Pagina: Miscellanea Biblica Congressus Internationalis Catholici de Re Biblica, Vol. 2. Edited by Joseph Coppens et al. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 13. Paris: Gabalda, 1959. ______. “L’onction du chrétien par la foi.” Biblica 40 (1959): 12–69. ______. “‘Sin is Iniquity’ (1 Jn 3.4).” Pages 33–55 in The Christian Lives by the Spirit. Edited by I. De la Potterie and Stanislaus Lynonnet. New York: Alba House, 1971. ______. “Le symbolisme du sang et de l’eau en Jean 19, 34.” Didaskalia 14 (1984): 201–30. ______. “La tunique ‘non divisee’ de Jesus, symbole de l’unite messianique.” Pages 127–38 in The New Testament Age: Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke, vol 1. Edited by William C. Weinrich. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1984. ______. “La tunique sans couture, symbole du Christ grand prêtre?” Biblica 60 (1979): 255–69. ______. La vérité dans Saint Jean. 2 vols. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977. Preiss, T. Le témoignage intérieur du Saint-Esprit. Neuchâtel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1946.

416

Bibliography

Prete, B. “Anticristo ed anticristi in 1 Giov. 2,18.” Pages 439–52 in Testimonium Christi: Scritti in onore di J. Dupont. Brescia: Paideia, 1985. ______. “L’unzione χρῖσμα ricevuta dai credenti (1 Giov 2,20–27).” Pages 199– 234 in Fede e sacramenti negli scritti Giovannei. Edited by Puis-Ramon Tragan. Rome: Abbazia S. Paulo, 1985. Prigent, Pierre. “L’Hérésie Asiate et l’église confessante de l’Apocalypse à Ignace.” Vigiliae Christianae 31 (1977): 1–22. ______. Justin et l’Ancien testament; l’argumentation scripturaire du traité de Justin contre toutes les hérésies comme source principale du Dialogue avec Tryphon et de la première Apologie. Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1964. ______. Les Testimonia dans la christianisme primitif: L’Épître de Barnabé 1–16 et ses sources. Paris: Gabalda, 1961. Prince, Deborah Thompson. “The ‘Ghost’ of Jesus: Luke 24 in Light of Ancient Narratives of Post-Mortem Apparitions.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29 (2007): 287–301. Pryor, John W. John, Evangelist of the Covenant People: The Narrative and Themes of the Fourth Gospel. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1992. Purvis, J. D. “Fourth Gospel and the Samaritans.” Novum Testamentum 17 (1975): 161–98. Quast, Kevin B. Peter and the Beloved Disciple: Figures for a Community in Crisis. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 32. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. Quinn, Jerome D., and William C. Wacker. The First and Second Letters to Timothy. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Rackl, Michael. Die Christologie des Heiligen Ignatius von Antiochien. Berlin: Herder, 1914. Rahner, Hugo. Ignatius the Theologian. New York: Herder & Herder, 1968. Rainbow, Paul. “Melchizedek as a Messiah at Qumran.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 7 (1997): 179–94. Räisänen, Heikki. “Marcion.” Pages 100–124 in A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics”. Edited by Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 76. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Rand, Jan A. “A Discourse Analysis of 1 John.” Neotestamentica 13 (1979): 1–42. Rebell, Walter. Gemeinde als Gegenwelt: zur soziologischen und didaktischen Funktion des Johannesevangeliums. Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie 20. Frankfurt: Lang, 1987. Reed, David. “Rethinking John’s Social Setting.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 36 (2003): 93–106. Reim, G. “Zur Lokalisierung der johanneischen Gemeinde.” Biblische Zeitschrift 32 (1988): 72–86. Reinhartz, Adele. “The Johannine Community and Its Jewish Neighbors: A Reappraisal.” Pages 111–38 in “What Is John?” Vol. 2, Literary and Social Readings of the Fourth Gospel. Edited by F. F. Segovia. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998.

Bibliography

417

______. “John and Judaism: A Response to Burton Visotzky.” Pages 108–16 in Life in Abundance: Studies of John’s Gospel in Tribute to Raymond E. Brown. Edited by John R. Donahue. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2005. Remaud, M. “Jean et les traditions juives anciennes sur l’Exode: dépendances et oppositions.” Nouveau Revue Théologique 127 (2005): 557–70. Rensberger, David K. 1 John, 2 John, 3 John. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 1997. ______. “Conflict and Community in the Johannine Letters.” Interpretation 60 (2006): 278–91. ______. Johannine Faith and Liberating Community. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988. ______. “The Messiah who has Come into the World. The Message of the Gospel of John.” Pages 15–23 in Jesus in Johannine Tradition. Edited by Robert T. Fortna and Tom Thatcher. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. ______. “Sectarianism and Theological Interpretation in John.” Pages 139–56 in “What is John?” Volume II: Literary and Social Readings of the Fourth Gospel. Edited by Fernando F. Segovia. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 7. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Reymond, Robert L. John, Beloved Disciple: A Survey of His Theology. Fearn: Mentor, 2001. Reynolds, S.M. “The Sin unto Death and Prayers for the Dead.” Reformation Review 20 (1973): 130–39. Rhodes, James N. The Epistle of Barnabas and the Deuteronomic Tradition: Polemics, Paraenesis, and the Legacy of the Golden-Calf Incident. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.188. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Richards, W. Larry. The Classification of the Greek Manuscripts of the Johannine Epistles. Missoula, Mont: Scholars Press, 1977. Richardson, C. The Christianity of Ignatius of Antioch. New York: Columbia University, 1935. Richter, G. “Blut und Wasser aus der durchbohrten Seite Jesu (Joh 19,34b).” Pages 120–42 in Studien zum Johannesevangelium. Edited by Josef Hainz. Biblische Untersuchungen 13. Regensburg: Pustet, 1977. ______. “Die Deutung des Kreuzestodes Jesu in der Leidensgeschichte des Johannesevangeliums (Joh 13–19).” Pages 58–73 in Studien zum Johannesevangelium. Edited by Josef Hainz. Biblische Untersuchungen 13. Regensburg: Pustet, 1977. ______. “Die Fleischwerdung des Logos im Johannesevangelium.” Pages 149– 98 in Studien zum Johannesevangelium. Edited by Josef Hainz. Biblische Untersuchungen 13. Regensburg: Pustet, 1977. ______. “Präsentische und futurische Eschatologie im 4. Evangelium.” Pages 117–52 in Gegenwart und kommendes Reich: Schülergabe Anton Vögtle zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by P. Fielder and D. Zeller. Stuttgart: 1975. Ridderbos, Herman N. The Gospel according to John: A Theological Exegesis. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Rigaux, B. L’antéchrist et l’opposition aux royaume messianique dans l’Ancien et le Nouveau Testament. Gembloux: Duculot, 1932.

418

Bibliography

Riley, Gregory J. I Was Thought to Be What I am Not: Docetic Jesus and the Johannine Tradition. Occasional Papers for the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity 31. Claremont: Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, 1994. Rinke, Johannes. Kerygma und Autopsie: Der christologische Disput als Spiegel johanneischer Gemeindegeschichte. Herders biblische Studien 12. Freiburg: Herder, 1997. Rist, M. “Pseudepigraphic Refutations of Marcion.” Journal of Religion 22 (1942): 39–62. Roberts, Alexander, and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 1885– 1887. 10 vols. Repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994. Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman, 1934. Robertson, A. T., and A. Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. New York: Harper, 1911. Robinson, Gesine. “The Trimorphic Protennoia and the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel.” Pages 37–50 in Gnosticism and the Early Christian World. Edited by James E. Goehring et al. Sonoma: Polebridge, 1990. Robinson, James M. “On Bridging the Gulf from Q to The Gospel of Thomas (or vice versa).” Pages 203–58 in The Sayings Gospel Q. Edited by J. M. Robinson et al. Leuven: Peeters, 2005. ______. “Sethians and Johannine Thought: The Trimorphic Protennoia and the Prologue of the Gospel of John.” Pages 643–61 in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Volume 2: Sethian Gnosticism. Edited by Bentley Layton. Studies in the History of Religions 41. Leiden: Brill, 1981. ______. Trajectories through Early Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Robinson, James M., ed. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. Robinson, John A. T. “The Destination and Purpose of the Johannine Epistles.” Pages 126–38 in Twelve New Testament Studies. London: SCM, 1962. ______. “The New Look on the Fourth Gospel.” Pages 94–106 in Twelve New Testament Studies. London: SCM, 1962. Rohde, Joachim. “Häresie und Schism im Ersten Clemensbrief und in den Ignatius-Briefen.” Novum Testamentum 10 (1968): 217–33. Röhl, Wolfgang G. Die Rezeption des Johannesevangeliums in christlich-gnostischen Schriften aus Nag Hammadi. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1991. Ronning, John L. “The Targum of Isaiah and the Johannine Literature.” Westminster Theological Journal 69 (2007): 247–78. Rordorf, W. “Héresie et Orthodoxie selon la correspondance apocryphe entre les Corinthiens et l’Apôtre Paul.” Pages 389–431 in Lex orandi, lex credendi. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag, 1993. Rosenberg, Roy A. “The Slain Messiah in the Old Testament.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 99 (1987): 259–61. Ross, Alexander. The Epistles of James and John. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954. Roukema, Reimer and John Bowden. Gnosis and Faith in Early Christianity: An Introduction to Gnosticism. Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1999.

Bibliography

419

Ruckstuhl, Eugen. Jakobusbrief, 1.–3. Johannesbrief. Würzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1988. ______. “Das Johannesevangelium und die Gnosis.” Pages 143–56 in Neues Testament und Geschichte. Edited by H. Baltensweiler and B. Reicke. Tübingen, 1972 Rudolph, Kurt. Gnosis. Edited by R. McL. Wilson. Translated by P. W. Coxon and K. H. Kuhn. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983. ______. Die Mandäer. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960. ______. “Simon—Magus oder Gnosticus? Zum Stand der Debatte.” Theologische Rundschau 42 (1977): 279–359. Ruiz, Miguel Rodríguez. Der Missionsgedanke des Johannesevangeliums: ein Beitrag zur johanneischen Soteriologie und Ekklesiologie. Forschung zur Bibel 55. Würzburg: Echter, 1987. Runia, David T. Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey. Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Rusam, Dietrich. Die Gemeinschaft der Kinder Gottes: Das Motiv der Gotteskindschaft und die Gemeinden der johanneischen Briefe. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1993. ______. “Das ‘Lamm Gottes’ (Joh 1,29.36) und die Deutung des Todes Jesu im Johannesevangelium.” Biblische Zeitschrift 49 (2005): 60–80. Russell, Norman. Cyril of Alexandria: The Early Church Fathers. New York: Routledge, 2000. Saliba, I. A. “The Bishop of Antioch and the Heretics: A Study of a Primitive Christology.” Evangelical Quarterly 54 (1982): 65–75. Salom, A. P. “Some Aspects of the Grammatical Style of I John.” Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (1955): 96–102. Sanders, J. N. A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John. Edited and completed by B. A. Mastin. Harper’s New Testament Commentaries. New York: Harper & Row, 1968. ______. The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church: Its Origin and Influence on Christian Theology Up to Irenaeus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943. Sanders, J. T. The New Testament Christological Hymns: Their Historical Religious Background. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. ______. Schismatics, Sectarians, Dissidents, Deviants: The First One Hundred Years of Jewish-Christian Relations. London: SCM, 1993. Sandmel, Samuel. “Parallelomania.” Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962): 1–13. Sawyer, Deborah F. “Water and Blood: Birthing Images in John’s Gospel.” Pages 300–309 in Words Remembered, Texts Renewed. Festschrift for Prof. John F. A. Sawyer. Edited by G. Harvey, Jon Davies and Wilfred Watson. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements 195. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. Scarano, Angelo. Storia dell’interpretazione e esegesi di 1 Gv 3,18–22. Analecta biblica 157. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2005. Schäfer, Peter. “Die soganannte Synode von Jabne.” Judaica 31 (1975): 54–64, 116–24.

420

Bibliography

Schäferdiek, Knut. “The Acts of John.” Pages 152–209 in New Testament Apocrypha, Volume Two: Writings Related to the Apostles; Apocalypses and Related Subjects. Rev. ed. Edited by Wilhelm Schneemelcher. Translated and edited by R. McL. Wilson. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003. ______. “Herkunft und Interesse der alten Johannesakten.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 74 (1983): 247–67. Schenke, Hans-Martin. “Determination und Ethik im 1. Johannesbrief.” Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 60 (1963): 203–15. ______. “Das sethianische System nach Nag-Hammadi-Handschriften.” Pages 165–73 in Studia Coptica. Edited by Peter Nagel. Berliner Byzantinische Arbeiten 45. Berlin: Akademie, 1974. Schenke, Ludger. “The Johannine Schism and the ‘Twelve.’” Pages 205–19 in Critical Readings of John 6. Edited by R. Alan Culpepper. Biblical Interpretation Series 22. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ______. Die Urgemeinde: geschichtliche und theologische Entwicklung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1990. Schlatter, Adolf. Die Briefe und die Offenbarung des Johannes. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1950. ______. Der Evangelist Johannes, wie er spricht, denkt und glaubt: Ein Kommentar zum vierten Evangelium. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1960. Schlund, Christine. Kein Knochen soll gebrochen werden: Studien zu Bedeutung und Funktion des Pesachfests in Texten des frühen Judentums und im Johannesevangelium. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 107. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2005. Schmeller, Thomas. Schulen im Neuen Testament? Zur Stellung des Urchristentums in der Bildungswelt seiner Zeit. Mit einem Beitrag zur johanneischen Schule von Christian Cebulj. Herders biblische Studien 30. Freiburg: Herder, 2001. Schmid, Hansjörg. Gegner im 1. Johannesbrief? Zu Konstruktion und Selbstreferenz im johanneischen Sinnsystem. Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 159. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2002. ______. “Gegner werden gemacht: Neutestamentliche, religionsgeschichtliche und aktuelle Perspektiven.” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 124 (2002): 385–96. ______. “How to Read the First Epistle of John Non-Polemically.” Biblica 85 (2004): 24–41. ______. “Tradition als Strategie: zur Pragmatik des Traditionsarguments im 1. Johannesbrief.” Pages 503–17 in The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition. Edited by J. Schlosser. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 176. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. Schmid, Ulrich. Marcion und sein Apostolos: Rekonstruktion und historische Einordnung der marcionitischen Paulusbriefausgabe. Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung 25. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995. Schmidt, A. “Erwägungen zur Eschatologie des 2 Thessalonicher und 2 Johannes.” New Testament Studies 38 (1992): 477–80. Schmiedel, P. W. The Johannine Writings. Trans. M. Canney. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1908.

Bibliography

421

Schmithals, Walter. “Die gnostischen Elemente im Neuen Testament als hermeneutisches Problem.” Pages 359–81 in Gnosis und Neues Testament. Edited by Karl-Wolfgang Tröger. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1973. ______. Johannesevangelium und Johannesbriefe: Forschungsgeschichte und Analyse. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1992. ______. Das Neue Testament und Gnosis. Erträge der Forschung 208. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1984. ______. The Theology of the First Christians. Translated by O. C. Dean. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel according to St. John. Translated by K. Smyth. 3 vols. New York: Crossroad, 1982. ______. “Die Johanneische Gemeinde und ihre Geisterfahrung,” Pages 277–306 in Die Kirche Des Anfangs. Edited by R. Schnackenburg, J. Ernst, and J. Wanke. Freiburg: Herder, 1978. ______. The Johannine Epistles: Introduction and Commentary. Translated by Reginald Fuller and Ilse Fuller. New York: Crossroad, 1992. ______. “Die Messiasfrage im Johannesevangelium.” Pages 240–64 in Neutestamentliche Aufsätze. Edited by J. Blinzler, O. Kuss, F. Mussner. Regensburg: Pustet, 1963. Schneemelcher, Wilhelm. “Acts of Paul.” Pages 213–270 in New Testament Apocrypha, Vol. 2. Rev. Ed. Edited by W. Schneemelcher. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1989, Schneider, Johannes. Die Briefe des Jakobus, Petrus, Judas und Johannes. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967. Schneider, Paul G. “The Gnostic Transformation of a Christian Community.” Pages 241–269 in Hellenization Revisited: Shaping a Christian Response within the Greco-Roman World. Edited by W. Helleman. Lanham: University Press of America, 1994. ______. The Mystery of the Acts of John: An Interpretation of the Hymn and the Dance in Light of the Acts’ Theology. San Francisco: Mellen, 1991. Schnelle, Udo. Antidocetic Christology in the Gospel of John: An Investigation of the Place of the Fourth Gospel in the Johannine School. Translated by Linad M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. ______. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 4. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2004. ______. “Johanneische Ekklesiologie.” NTS 37 (1991): 37–50. ______. “Die johanneische Schule.” Pages 198–217 in Bilanz und Perspektiven gegenwärtiger Auslegung des Neuen Testaments. Edited by Friedrich Wilhelm Horn. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 75. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1995. Schoedel, William R. “Ignatius and the Archives.” Harvard Theological Review 71 (1978): 97–106. ______. Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1990. ______. “Polycarp of Smyrna and Ignatius of Antioch.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt 2.27.1 (1993): 272–358.

422

Bibliography

______. “Theological Norms and Social Perspectives in Ignatius of Antioch.” Pages 30–56 in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, Vol. 1. Edited by E. P. Sanders. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Schoeps, H. J. “Ebionite Christianity.” Journal of Theological Studies 16 (1955): 219–24. Scholer, David M. “Sins Within and Sins Without: An Interpretation of 1 John 5.16–17.” Pages 230–46 in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation. Edited by G. F. Hawthorne. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975. Scholer, David M., ed. Gnosticism in Early Christianity. Studies in Early Christianity 5. New York: Garland, 1993. Scholtissek, Klaus. In ihm sein und bleiben: Die Sprache der Immanenz in den johanneischen Schriften. Herders Biblische Studien 21. Freiburg: Herder, 2000. ______. “Johannes auslegen II: Methodische, hermeneutische und einleitungswissenschaftliche Reflexionen.” Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt. Serie A 25 (2000): 98–140. ______. “Johannes auslegen III: Ein Forschungsbericht.” Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt. Serie A 27 (2002): 117–53. ______. “Johannes auslegen IV: Ein Forschungsbericht.” Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt 29 (2004): 67–118. ______. “Johannine Studies: A Survey of Recent Research with Special Regard to German Contributions.” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 6 (1998): 227–59. ______. “Die relecture des Johannesevangeliums im ersten Johannesbrief.” Bibel und Kirche 59 (2004): 152–56. ______. “Eine Renaissance des Evangeliums nach Johannes: Aktuelle Perspektiven der exegetischen Forschung.” Theologische Revue 97 (2001): 267–87. Schoonenberg, P. “A Sapiential Reading of John’s Prologue: Some Reflections on Views of Reginald Fuller and James Dunn.” Theology Digest 33 (1986): 403–21. Schottroff, Luise. Der Glaubende und die feindliche Welt: Beobachtungen zum gnostischen Dualismus und seiner Bedeutung für Paulus und das Johannesevangelium. Neukirchener Verlagsgesellschaft: Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1970. Schreiner, Thomas R. 1, 2 Peter, Jude. New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003. Schuchard, Bruce G. Scripture within Scripture: The Interrelationship of Form and Function in the Explicit Old Testament Citations in the Gospel of John. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992. Schunack, Gerd. Die Briefe des Johannes. Zürcher Bibelkommentare zum Neuen Testament 17. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1982. Schwankl, Otto. “Aspekte der johanneischen Christologie.” Pages 347–75 in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by the Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminar. Edited by G. van Belle, J. G. Van der Watt, and P. Maritz. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 184. Leuven: Peeters, 2005.

Bibliography

423

______. Licht und Finsternis: ein metaphorische Paradigma in den johanneischen Schriften. Herders Biblische Studien 4. Freiburg: Herder, 1995. Schwartz, Eduard. “Johannes und Kerinthos.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 16 (1914): 210–19. Schweizer, E. “The Concept of the Church in the Gospel and Epistles of St. John.” Pages 230–45 in New Testament Essays. Edited by A. J. B. Higgins. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959. ______. “Das johanneische Zeugnis von Herrenmahl.” Evangelische Theologie 12 (1953): 341–63. ______. “Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund der ‘Sendungsformel’: Gal 4:4f., Rm 8:3f., Joh 3:16f., 1 Joh 4:9.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 57 (1966): 199–210. ______. “Röm. 1,3f, und der Gegensatz von Fleisch und Geist vor und bei Paulus.” Pages 180–89 in Neotestamentica. Zürich: Zwingli, 1963. ______. “Two New Testament Creeds Compared: I Corinthians 15.3–5 and I Timothy 3.16.” Pages 166–77 in Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Otto A. Piper. Edited by W. Klassen and G. F. Snyder. London: SCM, 1962. Scobie, C. H. J. John the Baptist. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964. Scroggs, Robin. “The Earliest Christian Communities as Sectarian Movement.” Pages 69–91 in Social-Scientific Approaches to New Testament Interpretation. Edited by David G. Horrell. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999. Seesemann, L. “Die Nikolaiten: Ein Beitrag zur ältesten Häresiologie.” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 66 (1893): 47–82. Segovia, Fernando F. “The Love and Hatred of Jesus and Johannine Sectarianism.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): 258–72. ______. Love Relationships in the Johannine Tradition: ‘Agape/agapan’ in I John and the Fourth Gospel. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982. ______. “Recent Research in the Johannine Letters.” Religious Studies Review 13 (1987): 132–39. ______. “The Significance of Social Location in Reading John’s Story.” Interpretation 49 (1995): 370–78. Selwyn, Edward Gordon. The First Epistle of St. Peter. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981. Semler, J. Paraphrasis in Primam Ioannis Epistolam cum Prolegomenis et Animadversionibus. Rigae: Hartknochius, 1792. Sevenster, G. “Remarks on the Humanity of Jesus in the Gospel and Letters of John.” Pages 185–93 in Studies in John. Edited by W. C. Van Unnik. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Sevrin, J.-M. “Le quatrième évangile et le gnosticisme: questions de méthode.” Pages 215–68 in La communauté johannique et son histoire. Edited by J.-D. Kaestli, J.-M. Poffet, and J. Zumstein. Paris: Labor et Fides, 1990. Sherman, G. E., and J. C. Tuggy. A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine Epistles. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1994. Shibata, Yoshiie. “Non-docetic Character of Evangelium Veritatis.” Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute 1 (1975): 127–34. Shim, Ezra S. “The Holy Spirit in 1 John in the Light of Structural Analysis.” Chongshin Review 2 (1997): 109–26.

424

Bibliography

Siegert, Folker. Der Erstentwurf des Johannes: das ursprüngliche, judenchristliche Johannesevangelium in deutscher Übersetzung vorgestellt: Nebst Nachrichten über den Verfasser und zwei Briefen von ihm (2.3 Joh.). Münsteraner judaistische Studien. Münster: Lit, 2004. Siker, Jeffrey S. “Gnostic Views on Jews and Christians in the Gospel of Philip.” Novum Testamentum 31 (1989): 275–88. Sim, D. C. “The Gospels for All Christians? A Response to Richard Bauckham.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 84 (2001): 3–27. Ska, J. L. “‘Petits enfants, prenez garde aux idoles’: 1 Jn 5.21.” La nouvelle revue théologique 101 (1979): 860–74. Škrinjar, A. “Errores in epistola I Jo impugnati.” Verbum Domini 41 (1963): 60– 72. ______. “Prima Epistola Johannis in theologia aetatis suae.” Verbum Domini 46 (1968): 148–68. ______. “Theologia Epistolae I Jo comparator cum philonismo et hermetismo.” Verbum Domini 46 (1968): 224–34. Sloyan, Gerard Stephen. “The Gnostic Adoption of John’s Gospel and Its Canonization by the Church Catholic.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 26 (1996): 125–32. ______. John. Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox, 1988. ______. Walking in the Truth: Perseverers and Deserters: The First, Second, and Third Letters of John. New Testament in Context. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995. Slusser, Michael. “Docetism: A Historical Definition.” Second Century 1 (1981): 163–72. Smalley, Stephen S. 1, 2, 3 John. Rev. ed. Word Biblical Commentary 51. Waco: Word, 2007. ______. “Diversity and Development in John.” New Testament Studies 17 (1970– 71): 276–92. ______. “The Johannine Community and the Letters of John.” In Vision for the Church, 95–104. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. ______. “The Johannine Literature: A Sample of Recent Studies in English.” Theology 103 (2000): 13–28. ______. John: Evangelist and Interpreter. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984. ______. “What About 1 John?” Studia Biblica 3 (1978): 337–43. Smit, Peter-Ben. “A note on the relationship between II and III John.” Biblische Notizen 123 (2005): 93–101. Smith, Carl B. No Longer Jews: The Search for Gnostic Origins. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004. Smith, D. Moody. “The Contribution of J. Louis Martyn to the Understanding of the Gospel of John.” Pages 275–94 in The Conversation Continues: Studies in Paul and John in Honor of J. Louis Martyn. Edited by R. T. Fortna and B. R. Gaventa. Nashville: Abingdon, 1990. ______. “The Epistles of John: What’s New Since Brooke’s ICC in 1912?” Expository Times 120 (2009): 373–84. ______. First, Second, and Third John. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: John Knox, 1991.

Bibliography

425

______. “The Historical Figure of Jesus in 1 John.” Pages 310–24 in The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays. Edited by J. Ross Wagner, C. Kavin Rowe, and A. Katherine Grieb. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. ______. Johannine Christianity: Essays on its Setting, Sources, and Theology. Columbia, S. C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1984. ______. “Johannine Christianity: Some Reflections on its Character and Delineation.” New Testament Studies 21 (1976): 222–48. ______. John. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999. ______. “John.” Pages 96–111 in Early Christian Thought in its Jewish Context. Edited by John M. G. Barclay. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. ______. “John’s Quest for Jesus.” Pages 233–53 in Neotestamentica et Philonica: Studies in Honor of Peder Borgen. Edited by David E. Aune, Torrey Seland, and Jarl Henning Ulrichsen. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 106. Leiden: Brill, 2003. ______. The Theology of the Gospel of John. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Smith, Morton. “The History of the Term Gnostikos.” Pages 796–807 in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, Volume 2: Sethian Gnosticism. Edited by Bentley Layton. Studies in the History of Religions 41. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Smyth, Herbert Weir. A Greek Grammar for Colleges. New York: American Book Company, 1920. Snyder, Graydon. “The Historical Jesus in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch.” Biblical Research 8 (1963): 3–12. Söding, Thomas. “Mysterium fidei: Zur Auseinandersetzung mit der ‘Gnosis’ in den Pastoralbriefen.” Internationale katholische Zeitschrift 26 (1997): 502– 524. Sommer, Michael. “A Better Class of Enemy: Opposition and Dependence in the Johannine Writings.” Pages 266–83 in The Intertextuality of the Epistles: Explorations of Theory and Practice. Edited by Thomas L. Brodie et al. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2007. Songer, Harold S. “The Life Situation of the Johannine Epistles.” Review and Expositor 67 (1970): 399–409. Spriggs, D. G. “Meaning of ‘Water’ in John 3.5.” Expository Times 85 (1974): 149– 50. Sproston, Wendy E. “Satan in the Fourth Gospel.” Pages 307–31 in Studia Biblica 1978. Vol 2: Papers on the Gospels. Edited by E. A. Livingstone. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1980. ______. “Witnesses to What Was ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς: 1 John’s Contribution to our Knowledge of Tradition in the Fourth Gospel.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 48 (1992): 43–65. Stagg, Frank. “Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy in the Johannine Epistles.” Review and Expositor 67 (1970): 423–32. Stählin, G. “Zum Problem der johanneischen Eschatologie.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 32 (1934): 225–59.

426

Bibliography

Stamps, Dennis L. “The Johannine Writings.” Pages 609–32 in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 B.C.–A.D. 400. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Stanley, David Michael. Christ’s Resurrection in Pauline Soteriology. Analecta biblica 13. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1961. Stanton, Graham. A Gospel for a New People. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992. Stauffer, E. New Testament Theology. Translated by J. Marsh. New York: Macmillan, 1955. Stegemann, Ekkehard. “‘Kindlein, hütet euch vor den Götterbildern!’ Erwägungen zum Schluss des 1. Johannesbriefes.” Theologische Zeitschrift 41 (1985): 284–94. Stemberger, G. Juden und Christen im spätantiken Palästina. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007. ______. “Die sogennante ‘Synode von Jabne’ und das frühe Christentum.” Kairos 19 (1977): 14–21. Stenger, Werner. “Der Christushymnus in 1 Tim. 3,16. Aufbau-Christologie-Sitz im Leben.” Trierer Theologische Zeitschrift 78 (1969): 33–48. ______. Der Christushymnus 1 Tim 3,16: eine strukturanalytische Untersuchung. Regensburger Studien zur Theologie 6. Frankfurt/Main: Lang, 1977. Stettler, Hanna. Die Christologie der Pastoralbriefe. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 105. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. Stevens, George B. The Johannine Theology. New York: Scribners, 1895. Stibbe, Mark W. G. John. Readings: A New Biblical Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Stol, Marten. Birth in Babylonia and the Bible. Cuneiform Monographs 14. Groningen: Styx, 2000. Storr, Gottlob Christian. Über den Zweck der evangelischen Geschichte und der Briefe Johannis. Tübingen: Heerbrandt, 1786. Story, Cullen I. K. “The Christology of Ignatius of Antioch.” Evangelical Quarterly 56 (1984): 173–82. ______. The Nature of Truth in the Gospel of Truth and in the Writings of Justin Martyr: A Study of the Pattern of Orthodoxy. Novum Testamentum Supplements 25. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Stott, John R. W. The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary. 2nd ed. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 19. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Stowasser, Martin. Johannes der Täufer im Vierten Evangelium. Klosterneuburg: Östereichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1992. Stowers, Stanley Kent. The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 57. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981. Strecker, Georg. “Die Anfänge der johanneischen Schule.” New Testament Studies 32 (1986): 31–47. ______. “Der Antichrist: Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund von 1 Joh 2,18.22; 4,3 und 2 Joh 7.” Pages 247–54 in Text and Testimony: Essays on NT and Apocryphal literature in honour of A.F. J. Klijn. Edited by T. Baarda et al. Kampen: Kok, 1988. ______. “Chiliasm and Docetism in the Johannine School.” Australian Biblical Review 38 (1990): 45–61.

Bibliography

427

______. The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Strelan, Rick. “Who was Bar-Jesus (Acts 13,6–12)?” Biblica 85 (2004): 65–81. Stroud, W. Treatise on the Physical Cause of the Death of Christ and Its Relation to the Principles and Practice of Christianity. London: Hamilton & Adams, 1847. Stroumsa, Gedaliahu A. “Christ’s Laughter: Docetic Origins Reconsidered.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 12 (2004): 267–88. ______. “Le couple de l’Ange et de l’Esprit: Traditions juives et chrétiennes.” Revue biblique 88 (1981): 42–61. ______. “Polymorphie divine et transformations d’un mythologème: L’ ‘Apocryphon de Jean’ et ses sources.” Vigiliae Christianae 35 (1981): 412–34. Stuckwisch, D. R. “Saint Polycarp of Smyrna: Johannine or Pauline Figure?” Concordia Theological Quarterly 61 (1997): 113–25. Stuhlmacher, Peter. “Isaiah 53 in the Gospels and Acts.” Pages 147–62 in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources. Edited by B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Suggit, J. N. “1 John 5.21: ‘τεκνία, φυλάξατε ἑαυτὰ ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων.’” Journal of Theological Studies 36 (1985): 386–90. Sumney, Jerry L. Identifying Paul’s Opponents: The Question of Method in 2 Corinthians. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 40. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. ______. ‘Servants of Satan,’ ‘False Brothers’ and Other Opponents of Paul. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 188. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. ______. “Those Who ‘Ignorantly Deny Him’: The Opponents of Ignatius of Antioch.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 1 (1993): 345–65. Sun, Poling Joe. “Menein in the Johannine Traditions: An Integrated Approach to the Motif of Abiding in the Fourth Gospel, I and II John.” Ph.D. Diss, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1993. Swadling, Harry C. “Sin and Sinlessness in 1 John.” Scottish Journal of Theology 35 (1982): 205–11. Sweeney, James P. “Modern and Ancient Controversies over the Virgin Birth of Jesus.” Bibliotheca Sacra 160 (2003): 142–58. Swetnam, James. “Bestowal of the Spirit in the Fourth Gospel.” Biblica 74 (1993): 556–76. ______. “The Meaning of πεπιστευκότας in John 8:31.” Biblica 61 (1980): 106– 109. Sznol, S., “Compounds with ‘Anti’ in Hellenistic Jewish Sources.” Filologia Neotestamentaria 3 (1990): 109–14. Taeger, J. W. Johannesapokalypse und johanneischer Kreis: Versuch einer traditionsgeschichtlichen Ortsbestimmung am Paradigma der LebenswasserThematik. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 51. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. Tabét, M. A. “El testimonio ‘del Espíritu, y del agua y la sangre’ (1 Jn 5,8).” Pages 79–90 in El Espíritu Santo y la Iglesia: XIX Simposio Internacional de Teología de la Universidad de Navarra. Edited by Pedro Rodríguez. Pamplona: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra, 1999.

428

Bibliography

______. “Lo Spirito Santo, Testimone di Gesù.” Annales Theologici 12 (1998): 3– 34. Talbert, Charles H. “‘And the Word Became Flesh’: When?” Pages 43–52 in Future of Christology: Essays in Honor of Leander E. Keck. Edited by Abraham J. Malherbe and Wayne A. Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. ______. Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles. New York: Crossroad, 1992. ______. Romans. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary 24. Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2002. Tan, Randall K. J. “A Linguistic Overview of 1 John.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 10 (2006): 68–81. ______. “Should We Pray for Straying Brethren? John’s Confidence in 1 John 5:16–17.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45 (2002): 599–609. Tan, Yak-hwee. “The Johannine Community: Caught Between ‘Two Worlds.’” Pages 167–82 in New Currents through John: A Global Perspective. Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study 54. Edited by T. Thatcher and F. Lozada. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Taylor, Joan E. The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. ______. “The Phenomenon of Early Jewish-Christianity: Reality or Scholarly Invention?” Vigiliae Christianae 44 (1990): 313–34. Tenney, M. C. “The Meaning of ‘Witness’ in John.” Bibliotheca Sacra 132 (1975): 229–41. Teppler, Yaakov Y. Birkat HaMinim: Jews and Christians in Conflict in the Ancient World. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Testuz, Michel. “La correspondance apocryphe de saint Paul et des Corinthiens.” Pages 217–23 in Littérature et Théologie Pauliniennes. Recherches bibliques V. Louvain: Desclée de Brouwer, 1960. ______. Papyrus Bodmer X–XII. Geneva: Bibliotheque Bodmer, 1959. Thatcher, Tom. “Remembering Jesus: John’s Negative Christology.” Pages 165– 89 in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments. Edited by S. E. Porter. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. ______. “‘Water and Blood’ in Antichrist Christianity (1 John 5:6).” StoneCampbell Journal 4 (2001): 235–48. ______. Why John Wrote a Gospel: Jesus—Memory—History. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2005. Thatcher, Tom, ed. What We Have Heard From the Beginning: The Past, Present and Future of Johannine Studies. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007. Theissen, Gerd. Fortress Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by John Bowden. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. ______. “Simon Magus—die Entwicklung seines Bildes vom Charismatiker zum gnostischen Erlöser: Ein Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte der Gnosis.” Pages 407–32 in Religionsgeschichte des Neuen Testaments: Festschrift für Klaus Berger zum 60. Geburtstag. Edited by Axel von Dobbeler et al. Tübingen: Francke, 2000. Theobald, Michael. Die Fleischwerdung des Logos: Studien zum Verhältnis des Johannesprologs zum Corpus des Evangeliums und zu 1 Joh. Münster: Aschendorff, 1988.

Bibliography

429

______. “Geist- und Inkarnationschristologie.” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 112 (1990): 129–49. ______. “Das Johannesevangelium—Zeugnis eines synagogalen ‘Judenchristentums?’” Pages 107–58 in Paulus und Johannes: Exegetische Studien zur paulinischen und johanneischen Theologie und Literatur. Edited by D. Sänger, and U. Mell. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 198. Tübingen: Mohr, 2006. ______. “Der Streit um Jesus als Testfall des Glaubens: Christologie im ersten Johannesbrief.” Bibel und Kirche 53 (1998): 183–89. Theodore of Mopsuestia. Commentarius in Evangelium Iohannis Apostoli. Edited by Jacques Marie Vosté. Paris: Typographeo Reipublicae, 1940. Thomas, J. C. Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine Community. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 61. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1991. ______. “The Literary Structure of 1 John.” Novum Testamentum 40 (1998): 369– 81. ______. “The Order of the Composition of the Johannine Epistles.” Novum Testamentum 37 (1995): 68–75. ______. The Pentecostal Commentary on 1 John, 2 John, 3 John. Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2004. Thomassen, Einar. “How Valentinian is the Gospel of Philip?” Pages 251–79 in The Nag Hammadi Library After Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration. Edited by John D. Turner and Anne McGuire. Nag Hammadi Studies 44. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ______. The Spiritual Seed: The Church of the “Valentinians”. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Thompson, Marianne Meye. 1–3 John. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1992. ______. The Humanity of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. ______. “Intercession in the Johannine Community: 1 John 5.16 in the Context of the Gospel and Epistles of John.” Pages 225–45 in Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church. Edited by M. J. Wilkins and Terence Page. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 87. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992. Thüsing, Wilhelm. Die Erhohung und Verherrlichung Jesu im Johannesevangelium. 2nd ed. Münster: Aschendorff, 1970. ______. The Three Epistles of St. John. Translated by Alois Stöger. London: Sheed & Ward, 1971. Thyen, Hartwig. “‘…denn wir lieben die Brüder’ (1 Joh 3,14).” Pages 527–42 in Rechtfertigung. Edited by Johannes Friedrich. Tübingen, Göttingen: Mohr, 1976. ______. “Entwicklungen innerhalb der johanneischen Theologie und Kirche im Spiegel von Joh 21 und der Lieblingsjüngertexte des Evangeliums.” Pages 259–99 in L’Evangile de Jean: Sources, Rédaction, Théologie. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 44. Edited by M. de Jonge. Gembloux: Duculot, 1977. ______. “Johannesbriefe.” Theologische Realenzyklopädie 17:186–200. ______. Das Johannesevangelium. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 6. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.

430

Bibliography

Tittmann, Karl Christian. Tractatus de Vestigiis Gnosticorum in Novo Testamento Frustra Quaesitis. Lipsiae: Lipsiae, 1773. Tollefson, Kenneth D. “Certainty within the Fellowship: Dialectical Discourse in 1 John.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 29 (1999): 79–89. Toribio, Fernando. The Coming of God in the Book of Revelation: The Exegetical and Theological Use of the Verb Erchesthai in the Johannine Literature. Th.D. Diss., Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1993. Towner, Philip H. “Christology in the Letters to Timothy and Titus.” Pages 219–44 in Contours of Christology in the New Testament. McMaster New Testament Studies. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. ______. The Letters to Timothy and Titus. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Townsend, John T. “The Gospel of John and the Jews: The Story of a Religious Divorce.” Pages 72–97 in Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity. Edited by Alan T. Davies. New York: Paulist, 1979. Tragan, P. R. “Las fórmulas de fe en las Cartas de S. Juan.” Pages 79–106 in Mysterium Christi Symbolgegenwart und theologische Bedeutung: Festschrift für Basil Studer. Edited by Basil Studer, Magnus Löhrer, and Elmar Salmann. Studia Anselmiana 116. Rome: Pontificio Ateneo S. Anselmo, 1995. Trebilco, Paul. “Christian Communities in Western Asia Minor into the Early Second Century: Ignatius and Others as Witnesses against Bauer.”‘ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49 (2006): 17–44. ______. The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 166. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. ______. Jewish Communities in Asia Minor. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Trevett, C. “The Other Letters to the Churches of Asia: Apocalypse and Ignatius of Antioch.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 37 (1989): 117–35. ______. “Prophecy and Anti-Episcopal Activity: A Third Error Combatted by Ignatius,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 34 (1983): 1–18. ______. A Study of Ignatius of Antioch in Syria and Asia. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1992. Trilling, Wolfgang. “Gegner Jesu—Widersacher der Gemeinde— Repräsentanten der ‘Welt’: Das Johannesevangelium und die Juden.” Pages 209–31 in Studien zur Jesusüberlieferung. Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbände 1. Stuttgart: Katholische Bibelwerk, 1988. Trites, A. A. The New Testament Concept of Witness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Tröger, K. W. “Doketistische Christologie in Nag-Hammadi-Texten. Ein Beitrag zum Doketismus in frühchristlicher Zeit.” Kairos 19 (1977): 45–52. Trudinger, P. “Concerning Sins, Mortal and Otherwise: A Note on 1 John 5.16– 17.” Biblica 52 (1971): 541–42. Tuñí, O. “Motivacions ètiques de la 1Jn: La 1Jn I el Jesús historìc.” Revista Catalana de Teologia 4 (1979): 285–308.

Bibliography

431

Turner, John D. “Sethian Gnosticism and Johannine Christianity.” Pages 399– 434 in Theology and Christology in the Fourth Gospel: Essays by the Members of the SNTS Johannine Writings Seminary. Edited by G. Van Belle, J. G. van der Watt, and P. Maritz. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 184. Leuven: Peeters, 2005. Turner, Max. “Atonement and the Death of Jesus in John: Some Questions to Bultmann and Forestell.” Evangelical Quarterly 62 (1990): 99–122. ______. “The Churches of the Johannine Letters as Communities of ‘Trinitarian’ Koinonia.” Pages 53–61 in The Spirit and Spirituality Essays in Honour of Russell P. Spittler. Edited by Wonsuk Ma, Robert P. Menzies, and Russell P. Spittler. Journal of Pentecostal Theology 24. London: T&T Clark, 2004. ______. “The Spirit of Christ and ‘Divine’ Christology.” Pages 413–36 in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ. Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology. Edited by Joel B. Green and Max Turner. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Uebele, Wolfram. Viele Verführer sind in die Welt ausgegangen: Die Gegner in den Briefen des Ignatius von Antiochien und in den Johannesbriefen. Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament 151. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001. Uhrig, Christian. ”Und das Wort ist Fleisch geworden”: zur Rezeption von Joh 1,14a und zur Theologie der Fleischwerdung in der griechischen vornizänischen Patristik. Münster: Aschendorff, 2004. Van Belle, G. “Bloed en Water in Joh 19,34.” Pages 89–112 in ‘Volk van God en gemeenschap van de gelovigen’: Pleidooien voor een zorgzame kerkopbouw. Edited by J. Haers, T. Merrigan, P. De Mey. Averbode: Altiora, 1999. Van der Horst, Pieter W. ‘The Birkat ha-minim in Recent Research.” Expository Times 105 (1993): 363–68. ______. “Sarah’s Seminal Emission: Hebrews 11:11 in the Light of Ancient Embryology.” Pages 287–302 in Greeks, Romans and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Edited by David L. Balch et al. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Van Eck, E. “A Sitz for the Gospel of Mark? A Critical Reaction to Bauckham’s Theory on the Universality of the Gospels.” Hervormde teologiese studies 56 (2000): 973–1008. Van Tilborg, Sjef. Reading John in Ephesus. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “Body-Piercing, the Natural Sense, and the Task of Theological Interpretation: A Hermeneutical Homily on John 19:34.” Ex Auditu 16 (2000): 1–29. Vanhoye, A. “Témoignage et vie en Dieu selon le 4e Évangile.” Christus 6 (1955): 154–55. Vellanickal, Matthew. The Divine Sonship of Christians in the Johannine Writings. Analecta biblica 72. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1977. Venetz, Hermann-Josef. “Der erste Johannesbrief im Dialog mit befreiungstheologischen Grundanliegen.” Pages 171–85 in Blutende Hoffnung. Edited by M. Delgado. Luzern: Edition Exodus, 2000.

432

Bibliography

______. “‘Durch Wasser und Blut gekommen’: exegetische Überlegungen zu 1 Joh 5,6.” Pages 345–61 in Mitte des Neuen Testaments. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1983. ______. “Zeuge des Erhöhten. Ein exegetischer Beitrag zu Joh 19,31–37.” Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 23 (1976): 81–111. Vielhauer, Philipp. Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975. Visotzky, Burton L. “Methodological Considerations in the Study of John’s Interaction with the First-Century Judaism.” Pages 91–107 in Life in Abundance: Studies of John’s Gospel in Tribute to Raymond E. Brown. Edited by John R. Donahue. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2005. Vitrano, S. P. “The Doctrine of Sin in I John.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 25 (1987) 123–31. Vliet, H. van. No Single Testimony: A Study on the Adoption of the Law of Deuteronomy 19:15 par. into the New Testament. Utrecht: Drukkerij, 1958. Vogler, Werner. Die Briefe des Johannes. Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 17. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1993. Vogt, Hermann J. “Sind die Ignatius-Briefe antimarkionitisch beeinflußt?” Theologische Quartalschrift 181 (2001): 1–19. Von Dobschütz. “Johanneischen Studien I.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 8 (1907): 1–8. Von Wahlde, Urban C. “Community in Conflict: The History and Social Context of the Johannine Community.” Interpretation 49 (1995): 379–89. ______. The Johannine Commandments: 1 John and the Struggle for the Johannine Tradition. New York: Paulist, 1990. ______. “Judas, the Son of Perdition, and the Fulfillment of Scripture in John 17:12.” Pages 167–182 in The New Testament and Early Christian Literature in Greco-Roman Context: Studies in Honor of David E. Aune. Edited by John Fotopoulos. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 122. Leiden: Brill, 2006. ______. “Literary Structure and Theological Argument in Three Discourses with the Jews in the Fourth Gospel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 103 (1984) 575–84. ______. “The Road Ahead: Three Aspects of Johannine Scholarship.” Pages 343–54 in What We Have Heard From the Beginning: The Past, Present and Future of Johannine Studies. Edited by Tom Thatcher. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007. ______. “The Theological Foundations of the Presbyter’s Argument in 2 John (2 Jn 4–6).” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 76 (1985): 209–10. ______. “The Witnesses to Jesus in John 5:31–40 and Belief in the Fourth Gospel.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): 385–404. Vorster, W. S. “Heterodoxy in 1 John.” Neotestamentica 9 (1975): 87–97. Vouga, François. Die Johannesbriefe. Tübingen: Mohr, 1990. ______. “The Johannine School: A Gnostic Tradition in Primitive Christianity?” Biblica 69 (1988): 371–85. ______. “La réception de la théologie johannique dans les épîtres.” Pages 283– 302 in La communauté johannique et son histoire. Edited by J.-D. Kaestli, J.-M. Poffet, and J. Zumstein. Paris: Labor et Fides, 1990.

Bibliography

433

Waetjen, Herman C. The Gospel of the Beloved Disciple: A Work in Two Editions. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2005. Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Wallraff, M. “Das Zeugnis des Kirchenhistorikers Sokrates zur Textkritik von 1 Joh 4,3.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 88 (1997): 145–48. Ward, T. “Sin ‘Not unto Death’ and Sin ‘unto Death’ in 1 John 5:16.” Churchman 109 (1995): 226–37. Watson, Duane F. “1 John 2.12–14 as Distributio, Conduplicatio, and Expolitio: A Rhetorical Understanding.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 35 (1989): 97–110. ______. “Amplification Techniques in 1 John: The Interaction of Rhetorical Style and Invention.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 51 (1993): 99–123. ______. “An Epideictic Strategy for Increasing Adherence to Community Values: 1 John 1:1–2:27.” Proceedings of the Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies 11 (1991): 144–52. ______. “‘Keep Yourselves From Idols’: A Socio-Rhetorical Analysis of the Exordium and Peroratio of 1 John.” Pages 281–302 in Fabrics of Discourse: Essays in Honor of Vernon K. Robbins. Edited by D. B. Gowler, L. Gregory Bloomquist, and Duane F. Watson. New York: Trinity Press International, 2003. ______. “A Rhetorical Analysis of 2 John according to Greco-Roman Convention.” New Testament Studies 35 (1989): 104–30. ______. “A Rhetorical Analysis of 3 John: A Study in Epistolary Rhetoric.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51 (1989): 479–501. Watson, Francis. “Is John’s Christology Adoptionist?” Pages 113–24 in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology. Edited by L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987. Watt, J. G. van der. “Ethics in First John: A Literary and Socioscientific Perspective.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61 (1999): 491–511. ______. Family of the King: Dynamics of Metaphor in the Gospel according to John. Biblical Interpretation Series 47. Leiden: Brill, 2000. ______. An Introduction to the Johannine Gospel and Letters. T&T Clark Approaches to Biblical Studies. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Webb, Robert. John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 62. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1991. Webster, Jane S. Ingesting Jesus: Eating and Drinking in the Gospel of John. Society of Biblical Literature Academia Biblica 6. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Wehr, Lothar. Arznei der Unsterblichkeit: die Eucharistie bei Ignatius von Antiochien und im Johannesevangelium. Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen 18. Münster: Aschendorff, 1987. ______. “‘Er wird euch alles lehren und euch an alles erinnern, was ich euch gesagt habe’ (Joh 14,26): Die hermeneutische Funktion des Geist-Parakleten und die Kriterien der Traditionsbildung im Johannesevangelium.” Pages 325–59 in Pneuma und Gemeinde: Christsein in der Tradition des Paulus und

434

Bibliography

Johannes. Festschrift für Josef Hainz zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Jost Eckert et al. Düsseldorf: Patmos, 2001. Weidemann, Hans-Ulrich. “‘Das habe ich euch geschrieben…’: Neuere deutschsprachige Kommentare zum ersten Johannesbrief.” Bibel und Kirche 53 (1998): 209–12. ______. Der Tod Jesu im Johannesevangelium: Die erste Abschiedsrede als Schlüsseltext für den Passions- und Osterbericht. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche, 122. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. Weidmann, Frederick W. Polycarp & John: The Harris Fragments and Their Challenge to the Literary Traditions. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999. Weigandt, Peter. “Der Doketismus im Urchristentum und in der theologischen Entwicklung des zweiten Jahrhunderts.” 2 vols. D.Theol. diss., Heidelburg, 1961. Weijenborg, Reinoud. Les lettres d’Ignace d’Antioche: Étude de critique littéraire et de théologie. Leiden: Brill, 1969. Weiss, B. Die drei Briefe des Apostel Johannes. 6th ed. Meyer Kommentar 14. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1899. Weiss, K. “Die ‘Gnosis’ im Hintergrund und im Spiegel der Johannesbriefe.” Pages 341–56 in Gnosis und Neues Testament. Edited by K. W. Tröger. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1973. ______. “Orthodoxie und Heterodoxie im I. Johannesbriefe.” Zeitschrift für Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 58 (1967): 247–55. Weizsäcker, Carl Heinrich von. The Apostolic Age of the Christian Church. Translated by J. Millar. 2 vols. 2nd ed. New York: Putnam, 1895. Wendland, E. R. “‘Dear Children’ Versus the ‘Antichrists’: The Rhetoric of Reassurance in First John.” Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics 11 (1998): 40–84. ______. “What is Truth? Semantic Density and the Language of the Johannine Epistles (with Special Reference to 2 John).” Neotestamentica 24 (1990): 301– 33. Wendt, Hans H. “Der ‘Anfang’ am Beginne des I Johannesbriefes.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 21 (1922): 38–42. ______. “Die Beziehung unseres I Johannesbriefes auf den zweiten.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 21 (1922): 140–46. ______. “Zum ersten Johannesbrief.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 22 (1923): 57–79. ______. Die Johannesbriefe und das johanneische Christentum. Halle: Buchhandlung des Waiserhauses, 1925. ______. “Zum zweiten und dritten Johannesbriefe.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 23 (1924): 18–27. Wengst, Klaus. Bedrängte Gemeinde und verherrlichter Christus: der historische Ort des Johannesevangeliums als Schlüssel zu seiner Interpretation. Biblischtheologische Studien 5. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1981. ______. Christologische Formeln und Lieder des Urchristentums. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1972.

Bibliography

435

______. “Die Darstellung ‘der Juden’ im Johannes-Evangelium als Reflex jüdisch-judenchristlicher Kontroverse.” Pages 22–38 in Teufelskinder oder Heilsbringer - die Juden im Johannes-Evangelium. Edited by Dietrich Neuhaus. Arnoldshainer Texte 64. Frankfurt am Main: Haag & Herchen, 1993. ______. Der erste, zweite und dritte Brief des Johannes. Ökumenischer Taschenbuchkommentar zum Neuen Testament 16. Würzburg: Echter, 1978. ______. Häresie und Orthodoxie im Spiegel des ersten Johannesbriefes. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1976. ______. Das Johannesevangelium. 2 vols. Theologischer Kommentar zum NT 4. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000–2001. ______. “Probleme der Johannesbriefe.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt 25.5 (1988): 3753–72. Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistles of St. John: The Greek Text with Notes. London: Macmillan, 1902. ______. The Gospel according to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes. 2 vols. London: John Murray, 1908. Wette, Wilhelm Martin de. Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die Bibel Alten und Neuen Testamentes. Edited by Eberhard Schrader. 2 vols. 8th ed. Berlin: Reimer, 1869. Whitacre, Rodney. Johannine Polemic: The Role of Tradition and Theology. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1982. ______. John. IVP New Testament Commentary 4. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1999. Wikenhauser, Alfred. New Testament Introduction. Translated by Joseph Cunningham. New York: Herder, 1958. Wilckens, Ulrich. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. 2nd ed. Das Neue Testament Deutsch 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. ______. “Die Gegner im 1. und 2. Johannesbrief, ‘die Juden’ im Johannesevangelium und die Gegner in den Ignatiusbriefen und den Sendschreiben der Apokalypse.” Pages 89–125 in Der Sohn Gottes und seine Gemeinde: Studien zur Theologie der Johanneischen Schriften. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 200. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. ______. “Zum Kirchenverständnis der johanneischen Schriften.” Pages 225–54 in Kirche und Volk Gottes: Festschrift für Jürgen Roloff zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by Martin Karrer, Wolfgang Kraus, and Otto Merk. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2000. ______. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Band 1: Geschichte der urchristlichen Theologie, Teilband 4, Die Evangelien, die Apostelgeschichte, die Johannesbriefe, die Offenbarung und die Entstehung des Kanons. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2005. Wilder, Amos N. Early Christian Rhetoric: The Language of the Gospel. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971. Wiles, Maurice F. The Spiritual Gospel: The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.

436

Bibliography

Wilkinson, John. “The Incident of the Blood and Water in John 19.34.” Scottish Journal of Theology 28 (1975): 149–72. Williams, Daniel H. “Harnack, Marcion and the Argument of Antiquity.” Pages 223–40 in Hellenization Revisited: Shaping a Christian Response within the Greco-Roman World. Edited by W. E. Helleman. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1994. Williams, David Salter. “Reconsidering Marcion’s Gospel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989): 477–96. Williams, Jacqueline A. Biblical Interpretation in the Gnostic Gospel of Truth from Nag Hammadi. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 79. Decatur: Scholars Press, 1988. ______. “The Gospel of Truth: Witness to Second-Century Exegetical Traditions.” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 23 (1984): 1–10. Williams, J. T. “Cultic Elements in the Fourth Gospel.” Pages 339–50 in Studia Biblica 1978. Edited by Elizabeth Anne Livingstone. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 2. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980. Williams, Michael Allen. Rethinking ‘Gnosticism’: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. ______. “Sethianism.” Pages 32–63 in A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics”. Edited by Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 76. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Williams, R. R. The Letters of John and James. Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Wilson, Jeffrey. “The Integrity of John 3:22–36.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 10 (1981): 34–41. Wilson, Robert McL. Gnosis and the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968. ______. “Gnosis at Corinth.” Pages 102–19 in Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honor of C. K. Barrett. Edited by M. D. Hooker and S. G. Wilson. London: SPCK, 1982. ______. “The New Testament in the Nag Hammadi Gospel of Philip.” New Testament Studies 9 (1962–63): 291–94. Wilson, W. G. “An Examination of the Linguistic Evidence Adduced against the Unity of Authorship of the First Epistle of John and the Fourth Gospel.” Journal of Theological Studies 49 (1948): 147–56. Windisch, Hans and Herbert Preisker. “Zur Christologie der Pastoralbriefe.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 34 (1935): 213–38. ______. Die katholischen Briefe. 3rd ed. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 15. Tübingen: Mohr, 1951. Winterbotham, R. “The Spirit and the Water and the Blood.” Expositor 8.2 (1911): 62–71. Wisse, Frederik. “The Epistle of Jude in the History of Heresiology.” Pages 133– 43 in Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts in Honour of Alexander Böhlig. Edited by Martin Krause. Nag Hammadi Studies 3. Leiden: Brill, 1972.

Bibliography

437

______. “Historical Method and the Johannine Community.” Arc 20: 35–42. ______. “The Opponents in the New Testament in Light of the Nag Hammadi Writings.” Pages 99–122 in Colloque international les textes de Nag Hammadi. Edited by Bernard Barc. Québec: L’Université Laval, 1981. ______. “Prolegomena to the Study of the New Testament and Gnosis.” Pages 138–45 in The New Testament and Gnosis. Edited by A. Logan and A. Wedderburn. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1983. ______. “The Use of Early Christian Literature as Evidence for Inner Diversity and Conflict.” Pages 177–92 in Nag Hammadi, Gnosticism, and Early Christianity. Edited by Charles W. Hedrick and Robert Hodgson, Jr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1986. Witetschek, S. “Pappkameraden? Die Auseinandersetzung mit den ‘Gegnern’ im 1. Johannesbrief und die Darstellung des Judas im Johannesevangelium.” Pages 519–30 in The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition. Edited by J. Schlosser. Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium 176. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. Witherington, Ben. John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995. ______. Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Vol 1: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1–2 Timothy and 1–3 John. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2006. ______. Troubled Waters: The Real New Testament Theology of Baptism. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2007. ______. “The Waters of Birth: John 3:5 and 1 John 5:6–8.” New Testament Studies 35 (1989): 155–60. Wittichen, C. Der geschichtliche Charakter des Evangeliums Johannis in Verbindung mit der Frage nach seinem Ursprunge. Elberfeld: Friderich, 1868. Wolfson, Eliot R. “Inscribed in the Book of the Living: The Gospel of Truth and Jewish Christology.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 38 (2007): 234–71. Woll, D. Bruce. Johannine Christianity in Conflict: Authority, Rank, and Succession in the First Farewell Discourse. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1981. Wolter, Michael. “Die anonymen Schriften des Neues Testaments: Annäherungsversuch an ein literarisches Phänomen.” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 79 (1988): 1–16. ______. “Apollos und die ephesinischen Johannes-jünger (Act 18:24–19:7).” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 78 (1987): 49–73. ______. “Die Gegner als endzeitliche Widersacher: die Darstellung des Feindes in der jüdischen und christlichen Apokalyptik.” Pages 23–40 in Feindbilder: die Darstellung des Gegners in der politischen Publizistik des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit. Edited by Franz Bosbach. Bayreuther historische Kolloquien 6. Köln: Böhlau, 1992.

438

Bibliography

Wright, Benjamin G. “Cerinthus apud Hippolytus: An Inquiry into the Traditions about Cerinthus’s Provenance.” Second Century: A Journal of Early Christian Studies 4 (1984): 103–15. Wright, N. T. “Χριστός as ‘Messiah’ in Paul: Philemon 6.” Pages 41–55 in The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991. Wucherpfenning, Ansgar. Heracleon Philologus: Gnostische Johannesexegese im zweiten Jahrhundert. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 142. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Wunder, K. F. Utrum Prima Ioannis Epistola coetui e Iudaeis et Iudaeo-Christianis mixto scripta sit. Vitebergae: Literis Christiani Philippi Meltzeri Academiae Typographi, 1799. Wurm, Alois. “Cerinth—ein Gnostiker oder Judaist?” Theologische Quartalschrift 87 (1904): 20–38. ______. Die Irrlehrer im ersten Johannesbrief. Freiburg: Herder, 1903. Yamauchi, Edwin. “The Crucifixion and Docetic Christology.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 46 (1982): 1–20. ______. “Gnosticism and Early Christianity.” Pages 29–61 in Hellenization Revisited: Shaping a Christian Response within the Greco-Roman World. Edited by W. Helleman. Lanham: University Press of America, 1994. ______. “The Issue of Pre-Christian Gnosticism Reviewed in the Light of the Nag Hammadi Texts.” Pages 72–88 in The Nag Hammadi Library after Fifty Years: Proceedings of the 1995 Society of Biblical Literature Commemoration. Edited by J. D. Turner and A. McGuire. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ______. Jewish Gnosticism? The Prologue of John, Mandaean Parallels, and the Trimorphic Protennoia. Leiden: Brill, 1981. ______. “Pre-Christian Gnosticism in the Nag Hammadi Texts?” Church History 48.2 (1979): 129–41. ______. “Pre-Christian Gnosticism, the New Testament and Nag Hammadi in Recent Debate.” Themelios 10 (1984): 22–27. ______. Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidences. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983. Yarbrough, Robert W. 1–3 John. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008. Yarid, John R. “Reflections of the Upper Room Discourse in 1 John.” Bibliotheca Sacra 160 (2003): 65–76. Yee, Gale A. Jewish Feasts and the Gospel of John. Zacchaeus Studies. Wilmington, Del.: Glazier, 1989. Young, Frances. The Theology of the Pastoral Letters. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Zahn, Theodor. Ignatius von Antiochien. Gotha: Perthes, 1873. ______. Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by J. M. Trout et al. 3 vols. New York: Scribner’s, 1909.

Bibliography

439

Zeigler, W. S. C. “Der erste Brief des Johannes, ein Sendschreiben an eine bestimmte Gemeinde, um keine allegemeine Abhandlung oder Buch.” Magazin für Religionsphilosophie, Exegese und Kirchengeschichte 6 (1796): 254– 76. Zimmerli, Walther, and Joachim Jeremias. The Servant of God. Translated by Harold Knight et al. Studies in Biblical Theology 20. Napierville: Allenson, 1957. Zumstein, Jean. “La communauté johannique et son histoire.” Pages 359–74 in La communauté johannique et son histoire. Edited by J.-D. Kaestli, J.-M. Poffet, and J. Zumstein. Paris: Labor et Fides, 1990. ______. “Zur Geschichte des johanneischen Christentums.” Theologische Literaturzeitung 122 (1997): 417–28. ______. “Der Prozess der Relecture in der johanneischen Literatur.” New Testament Studies 42 (1996): 394–411.

Index Subjects 1 John Authorship, 1 Opponents, designations for, 1 Opponents, Judaizing, 8, 43, 60, 61, 63, 65, 140 Opponents, more than one group, 6 Opponents, progressive, 4, 8, 10, 18, 19, 81, 115, 116, 339, 350 Opponents, ultra-Johannine, 8–11, 16, 18, 78, 86, 127, 128, 197, 220, 277, 286, 350 Abel, 108 Acts of John, 9, 10, 17, 44, 45, 52, 260, 262, 263, 264 Acts of Paul, 188 Acts of Peter, 26, 45, 272, 275 Acts of Thomas, 151 Adoptionist Christology, 67, 73, 74, 276, 278, 279, 283 Alogoi, 67 Anointing, 22, 25, 44, 84, 113–20, 127, 138, 150–55, 165–72, 239, 273, 278, 282, 309, 312 Antichrist, 53, 77, 83–84, 91, 111, 144–50, 155–58, 186, 231–34, 256, 289, 341–42 Antinomianism, 7, 19 Antitheses, 21, 79, 83, 92, 104, 115, 124, 125, 289 Apocryphon of John, 10, 287 Assurance, 169–71 Atonement, 3, 7, 21–22, 38, 77–78, 84, 86, 102, 126, 222–24, 274, 285–98, 314–26 Baptism, 219, 223, 285–93, 294–99, 311–14 Basilides, 47, 49, 57, 58, 71 Beginning in Johannine theology, 10, 168–69 Belial, 149 Birkhat Ha-Minim, 14

Birth, 258–68 Blood, 181, 226, 262, 267, 271, 274, 275, 292, 314 Cain, 29, 108, 372 Carpocrates, 30, 57, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 69, 75 Cerdo, 67, 68, 137 Cerinthus, x, xv, 7, 11, 19, 21, 53–76, 81, 101, 133–34, 176–82, 194–95, 254, 257, 276–284, 305 Christology 7, 8, 19, 24, 35, 53, 61, 62, 64, 66, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 133, 163, 180 Charismatic activity, 22, 43, 83, 113, 118, 122, 124, 221, 223, 251, 252, 254, 329 Chiliasm, 63–68, 344 Clement of Alexandria, 20, 25, 34, 35, 39, 46, 47, 75, 76, 178, 192, 265, 272, 305, 350 Confessions, 198–218, 238–50 Covenant, 108, 109, 150, 154, 170, 270, 318, 353, 357 Cyprian, 271, 272, 275 Death of Jesus, See Atonement Devil, 110, 127, 147, 165, 168, 169, 225, 230, 235, 236, 237, 238, 252, 254 Didache, 122, 169, 179, 214, 230, 232, 238, 347, 356 Didascalia Apostolorum, 151 Dionysius bar Salibi, 60 Diotrephes, 98, 120, 352 Docetism, 35–52, 136–37, 182–217, 258–68 Dualism, 9, 20, 31, 67, 74, 127, 200, 235, 240, 251, 253, 281 Ebionites, 6, 8, 44, 60, 61, 64, 71, 75, 101, 140–41, 159, 178, 191, 195 Epiphanius, 19, 20, 25, 39, 63, 64, 65, 67, 69, 71, 140, 192, 217, 247, 272, 305 Epistle of Barnabas, 214, 313, 344

442

Index

Epistula Apostolorum, 56, 67, 70, 72, 194 Eschatology, 14, 22, 62, 78, 79, 82, 85, 89, 143, 146, 209, 344 Εternal life, 169 Ehtics, 119–26 Eucharist, 41, 42, 151, 176, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 312, 314 Eusebius of Caesarea, 35, 39, 45, 46, 62, 63, 64, 140, 186, 192 Excerpta ex Theodoto, 75, 199 Feasts, Jewish, 318 Flesh, 37, 41, 173–77, 180–89, 192, 197–98, 202–17, 222–26, 234, 238, 246–50, 275, 291 Fourth Gospel redaction of, 12, 14, 89, 222, 312 Gaius of Rome, 60, 63, 65, 66, 68, 71, 98 Gnosticism, 8, 10, 15, 19–38, 43, 49–50, 65– 68, 71, 74, 76–78, 90, 93, 128, 132, 154, 183, 199–201, 209, 247, 287, 349 Gospel of Philip, 24, 25, 200 Gospel of Thomas, 17, 34, 202, 216 Gospel of Truth (I,3), 24, 199, 203, 216 Heracleon, 18, 199, 265 Hippolytus, 20, 25, 35, 39, 46, 49, 59–60, 68, 74, 140, 283, 305 Idolatry, 118 Ignatius of Antioch, 9, 15, 17, 40–45, 51–54, 80, 128, 183, 186, 195, 197, 206, 244, 245, 261, 262, 268, 271, 275, 327 Incarnation, 21, 36, 38, 48, 49, 55, 80, 81, 86, 88, 136, 174–78, 180–84, 189–92, 198– 202, 209–10, 216–227, 248, 258, 261, 268, 271, 273, 278, 280, 284–85, 326, 344–46 Irenaeus, 19, 20, 25–27, 34, 39, 40, 42, 46, 47, 50, 51, 57– 75, 133, 140, 154, 176, 178– 180, 186, 195, 206, 260–61, 272, 283, 305, 345 Jerome, 62, 186, 207 Johannine Community, 9–17, 22, 44, 77, 79, 83, 89, 94, 105, 114, 121, 154, 160, 174, 235, 238, 239, 249, 252, 254, 277, 285– 86, 295, 297, 320–21, 330 John the Baptist, 1, 13–14, 80, 95, 101–102, 163–64, 193, 219, 278, 288, 294–99, 307– 308, 313, 316, 322, 331, 333–36, 346 Josephus, 252, 317, 320

Judaizers, 8, 43, 103, 363 Judas Iscariot, 102, 119, 165, 166, 172, 182, 254, 312 Justin Martyr, 26, 35, 36, 98, 105, 140, 158, 161, 199, 245, 252 Libertinism, 6, 7, 31, 124, 126 Marcion, 6, 19, 20, 26, 35, 38, 39, 40, 45, 46, 51, 57, 58, 64, 67, 68, 71, 137, 183, 186, 187, 188, 195, 199, 210, 272 Melito of Sardis, 158 Merinthians, 63 Mirror-reading Methodology, 2, 5, 16, 17, 24, 35, 52, 69, 89, 96, 98, 112–18, 123– 29, 209, 257, 273, 298–99, 301, 305, 358– 59 Monophysitism, 40, 51 Montanism, 15 Nicolaitans, 6, 63, 69, 70, 71, 101 Origen, 18, 39, 45, 76, 140, 165, 175, 178, 196, 265, 266, 305, 319 Paraclete, 13, 78, 85, 113, 153, 155, 168, 170, 175, 229, 238, 243l 251, 308, 330–34 Parousia of Christ, 115 Parting of the ways, 99, 100, 105, 356–57 Passover, 265, 314, 316–17, 319, 322–25 Perfect tense, 37, 176–77, 181–82, 338, 343, 347 Perfectionism, 7, 21, 81, 82, 117, 125, 126 Persecution, 90, 97, 143, 161–63, 269, 327 Philo of Alexandria, 16, 34, 144, 259, 317 Polycarp of Smyrna, 17, 37, 40, 51, 56, 58, 67, 70–71, 163, 179, 185–86, 192, 194– 95, 225, 345 Polymorphic Christology, 39, 45, 47 Pre-existence, 7, 10, 53, 61, 64, 76–77, 79, 80, 86–88, 101, 105, 138, 140–41, 177, 189– 92, 201, 219–20, 225, 227–28, 308 Prophets, 231–32, 236, 253 Qumran, 12, 16, 29, 94, 95, 96, 145, 149, 155, 159, 160, 238, 242, 324 Sacraments, 13, 14, 175–76, 268–75, 300, 307, 312 Saturninus, 19, 39– 42, 49–51, 57, 137, 188 Sethian Gnosticism, 15, 22, 23, 27, 28, 31, 32, 76, 77, 78, 201, 287 Shepherd of Hermas, 230

Modern Authors Son of God, 41, 48, 53, 55, 73, 75, 78, 80, 86, 89, 92, 100, 110, 113, 120, 126, 138, 140, 141, 157, 159, 168, 175–78, 190, 204, 214, 217, 219–24, 233, 236, 237, 239, 240, 242, 250, 252, 264, 265, 268, 273, 277, 282, 298, 306–14, 322, 323, 326, 329–33, 336, 355 Spirit/s, 120, 152, 178, 181, 186, 192, 205, 207, 231–38, 273, 328–32, 341 Synagogue, 2, 10–14, 79, 90–94, 97– 99, 102–06, 160–66, 172, 183, 243, 252, 327, 356, 358 Targum Isaiah, 109, 321, 324–25, 374, 418 Tertullian, 6, 19–20, 25, 37, 39, 40, 46–47, 51, 60–63, 75, 101, 140, 144, 151, 158, 178, 187, 192, 195, 197, 199, 206, 260, 263, 269, 304, 305, 311, 327, 345 Testament of Benjamin, 215 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 95 Testimony of Truth (IX,3), 278 Theodotus of Byzantium, 76 Third Corinthians, 51, 188, 189, 192, 195, 196, 353

443

Treatise on the Resurrection, 201 Trimorphic Protennoia (XIII,1), 22, 23, 76, 201, 287 Tripartite Tractate, 200 Truth, 104, 141, 150, 156 Use of the Old Testament, 107–110 Valentinianism, 15, 25, 27, 46, 50, 65, 67, 73, 203, 260 Valentinus, 22, 35, 46, 47, 50, 57, 58, 61, 199, 263 Victorinus of Pettau, 61, 62 Virgin birth, 56, 57, 58, 60, 63, 65, 66, 72, 73, 74 Water, 37, 219, 267, 281, 288–96, 300–304, 313, 327–30 Witnesses, 3, 80, 92, 109, 194, 256, 263–73, 279, 282, 283, 288, 291, 292, 297–311, 329, 332–36, 360 Yavneh, Council of, 99

Modern Authors Akin, D., 33, 53, 133, 176, 276 Anderson, Paul N., 7, 17, 101, 161, 183, 208 Ashton, J., 11, 94, 159, 315 Attridge, H., 10, 15, 18, 48, 49, 50, 318 Bakken, Norman K., 9 Barclay, John M. G., 127, 128 Bardy, G., 60, 65, 69, 70, 71, 72 Barrett, C. K., 22, 23, 43, 83, 104, 165, 209, 312, 347 Bartsch, H. W., 43, 44 Bauckham, R., 12, 16, 17, 97, 182, 184 Bennema, C., 83, 330 Berding, K., 186, 194 Berger, K., 26, 119, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 198, 218, 222, 223, 225, 253, 285 Besser, W. F. A., 7 Beutler, J., 20, 53, 77, 83, 308, 316, 317, 324 Bianchi, U., 23, 28, 33 Blank, J., 10, 20, 36, 49, 53, 176, 276 Bogart, J., 9, 19, 20, 21, 116, 117, 124, 133, 154, 176, 276, 285

Boismard, M.-E., 95, 109, 211 Bonnard, Pierre, 9, 77, 83, 118, 122, 133, 152, 179, 183, 190, 218, 223, 241, 248, 249, 263, 285, 329, 348, 349, 352, 355 Bonsirven, J., 269, 333 Brooke, A. E., 6, 36, 52, 53, 118, 124, 143, 146, 155, 176, 179, 190, 235, 237, 241, 243, 247, 256, 267, 274, 303, 306, 311, 322, 327, 340, 345, 346, 350, 351, 354 Brown, Raymond, 1, 7–9, 11, 13–16, 18, 23, 34, 37, 43, 51, 53, 56, 64, 66–67, 69–70, 74–75, 77, 79–82, 84, 86–89, 94–96, 98, 103–105, 107, 114–15, 119–21, 128, 138– 39, 142–44, 146–56, 159–63, 166–67, 169–70, 173, 179, 182, 190–92, 197, 218, 220–21, 225, 228, 231–32, 234, 236–38, 241, 243, 247, 251, 253–54, 256–58, 263, 266–67, 272–75, 277, 280–81, 285–88, 292–98, 300–10, 312, 317–18, 322, 324, 326, 330, 333–34, 339, 341, 345–46, 348, 350–51, 354, 356 Brown, T., 77–78

444

Index

Brox, N., 24, 38, 48, 49, 70, 209 Bultmann, R., 9, 11, 15, 20, 21, 36, 53, 95, 103, 116, 117, 123, 130, 133, 146, 148, 179, 182, 211, 212, 234, 237, 269, 276, 295, 311, 315, 317, 328, 345, 346, 349, 351, 354, 355 Burge, G., 77, 82, 83, 103, 161, 221, 252, 254, 285, 286, 321, 328, 330, 345, 349 Callahan, A. D., 174, 175 Carson, D. A., 17, 33, 53, 74, 107, 108, 109, 110, 157, 158, 176, 267, 273, 276, 277, 280, 281, 282, 292, 301, 312, 327, 336 Carter, Warren, 163 Casey, P. M., 32, 99, 106, 164, 265 Clemen, C., 101, 134, 140, 191, 217, 256 Conway, C. M., 16 Conzelmann, H., 9, 208, 210 Corwin, V., 43 Cullmann, O., 15, 45, 211, 244, 269, 280, 295, 323, 324 Culpepper, R. Alan, 7, 9, 10, 14, 36, 49, 78, 101, 116, 123, 165, 183, 314, 317 Dahl, N. A., 186 de Boer, M., 12, 40, 51, 52, 77, 116, 127, 139, 163, 190, 191, 197, 205, 222, 223, 224, 241, 256, 288, 289, 290, 291, 293, 294, 298, 310 de Jonge, M. J., 14, 36, 40, 95, 105, 107, 158, 159, 160, 183, 205, 215, 222, 223, 224, 241, 345 de la Potterie, I, 151, 152, 320, 328 de Wette, Wilhelm, 6 Dodd, C. H., 20, 33, 49, 52, 103, 107, 133, 146, 152, 154, 160, 162, 182, 183, 232, 233, 244, 251, 254, 269, 276, 329, 336, 345, 350 Dunn, James D. G., 99, 159, 205, 206, 207, 277, 312, 314 Ebrard, J. A., 133, 275, 298 Edwards, M., 163 Edwards, R., 51, 71, 103, 108, 119, 123, 124, 256, 284, 339, 349 Ehrman, B., 36, 37, 54, 178, 179, 180, 182, 227, 281 Erlemann, K., 100, 106, 123, 159, 163, 164, 191, 241, 247, 253 Frey, J., 10, 144, 145, 146, 344, 345 Freyne, Seán, 7, 9 Fuller, R. H., 7, 277, 280

Goetchius, E., 157, 158 Goulder, M., 44, 53, 65, 75, 101, 176, 178, 181, 276 Grayston, K., 69–70, 77, 83–87, 105, 113–15, 138–39, 143–44, 151, 154–55, 158, 161, 165, 186, 197, 218, 221, 228, 251, 256, 287–91, 303, 306, 309, 311, 313, 329, 351 Griffith, T., 51, 97, 98, 106, 111, 121, 122, 124, 125, 126, 134, 144, 158, 159, 164, 165, 181, 182, 191, 196, 226, 234, 241, 247, 250, 267, 301, 311, 327, 343, 345 Haenchen, E., 23, 26, 163, 183, 186 Häring, Theodor, 329 Harnack, Adolf von, 39, 179 Harris, W. Hall, 138, 241, 243, 286, 334, 339, 340 Hartin, P. J., 9, 14, 77, 277, 285 Hartog, Paul A., 179, 186, 194, 195 Heckel, T. K., 9, 85, 184 Hengel, M., 16, 17, 48, 49, 53, 94, 176, 185, 213, 276, 325 Hilgenfeld, A., 19, 36, 67, 94 Hill, Charles E., 18, 53, 56, 57, 62, 64, 67, 68, 71, 74, 76, 194, 254, 276, 315 Hills, Julian V., 1, 16, 56 Holtzmann, H. J., 19 Horbury, W., 91, 111, 144, 145, 158, 325 Houlden, J. L., 8, 9, 10, 49, 122, 133, 137, 152, 165, 198, 209, 218, 223, 241, 256, 269, 273, 339, 348 Hurtado, Larry W., 203, 210, 320, 368 Jones, Peter R., 36, 345 Jülicher, A., 19, 21, 36, 352 Käsemann, Ε., 184, 185, 202, 295, 298, 299, 315 Kellum, L. Scott, vii, 121 Kim, D., 102 Kinlaw, P. E., 11, 38, 53, 67, 75, 76, 133, 134, 176, 177, 181, 182, 276, 278, 279, 280, 284, 345, 352, 354 Klauck, H.-J., 9, 15, 24, 49, 77–78, 82, 85, 116, 123, 142, 143, 148–49, 153, 159–60, 163–66, 182–83, 190, 218, 238, 252–56, 284–86, 288–89, 303, 311, 313, 335, 345– 46 Klink, E. W., 16, 17 Klos, H., 289 Koester, H., 1, 9, 10, 16, 20, 36, 133, 263, 318 Koschorke, K., 76 Köstenberger, A., vii, 17, 312, 323, 324

Modern Authors

445

Kruse, C., 33, 36, 41, 91, 108, 112, 116, 121, 123, 137, 145, 150, 154, 182, 232, 288, 345, 349, 350, 354 Kügler, J., 137, 164 Kysar, R., 11, 12, 16, 17, 267, 280

O’Neill, J. C., 94–96, 103, 146–47, 155, 241, 247 Okure, T., 90, 111, 122–24, 158, 164, 190–91 Olsson, B., 10, 12, 14, 98, 99, 100, 156, 166, 218, 339

Lalleman, P. J., 10, 17, 36, 45, 136, 258, 262, 263 Lange, S. G., 93, 101 Law, Robert, 7, 8, 20 Lieu, J., 24–25, 51–52, 88, 99, 107–09, 119– 29, 144, 159, 162, 166, 181, 189, 191, 193, 202, 222, 224, 241, 247, 254, 267, 268, 274, 281, 284, 301, 339, 343, 345, 350–53, 356 Loader, W., 137, 241, 256, 261–62, 315, 345, 350, 354 Lücke, F., 36, 121, 136, 140, 159, 301

Pagels, E., 18 Painter, John, 1, 6–7, 9, 14–15, 53, 55, 77, 83, 94, 105, 107, 112, 116, 118, 121, 133, 138–39, 144, 148, 150–52, 154, 156, 159, 169, 191, 218, 220, 235–38, 244, 250–51, 256, 274–77, 303, 316, 327, 336, 339, 340, 345–47, 349–50,354 Pearson, Birger A., 1, 16, 23, 27, 65, 76 Perkins, Pheme, 22, 76, 77, 78, 119, 123, 124, 129, 164 Pervo, R. I., 9, 10, 44, 45, 49 Pfleiderer, O., 19, 21, 23, 94, 214, 215, 414 Piper, O. A., 179, 180, 190, 208, 220, 227, 241, 248, 249, 347 Plummer, A., 19, 21, 36, 120, 133, 136, 143, 144, 145, 244, 254, 267, 288, 352, 414, 418 Polhill, J., 33, 36, 339, 351 Porsch, F., 123

MacKnight, James, 6 MacRae, G. W., 21, 36, 37, 182, 183, 184, 187 Malatesta, E., 109, 150, 156, 237, 269 Marshall, I. H., 112, 133, 154, 155, 176, 177, 193, 232, 274, 276, 311, 327, 339, 345, 349, 354 Martyn, J. L., 11, 13, 14, 94, 98, 104, 127, 160 McGaughy, L. C., 157, 158 Meeks, W., 11, 12, 26, 27, 94, 127, 149, 169, 278, 317 Menken, M. J. J., 314, 317, 319, 321 Michaelis, J. D., 19, 21, 22, 53, 94, 106, 257, 276, 294 Michaels, J. Ramsay, 222, 225, 267, 285, 286, 315, 327 Miguens, M., 317, 327 Mills, D. W., 33, 83, 143, 150, 328 Minear, P., 174, 175, 266 Moberly, R. W. L., 217, 230, 250, 328 Morgen, M., 9 Müller, U. B., 77, 78, 183, 315 Myllykoski, M., 42, 43, 44, 56, 60, 65, 67, 71, 72 Nagel, T., 10, 264, 265, 318 Nauck, W., 95, 273 Neander, Augustus, 6, 37, 53, 101, 183, 276, 331 Neufeld, D., 51, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 125, 129, 145, 155, 164, 173, 196, 203, 241, 247, 301 Neufeld, V., 159, 161, 163, 204, 208, 244, 248, 310

Quast, K. B., 13 Reinhartz, A., 16 Rensberger, David K., 38, 41, 53, 66, 74, 77, 82, 83, 85, 133, 145, 153, 161, 163, 164, 176, 178, 179, 233, 241, 254, 267, 274, 279, 283, 310, 327, 330, 334, 335, 344, 345, 349, 350 Richter, Georg, 7, 14, 36, 140, 183, 185, 256, 258, 260, 262, 263 Ronning, J., 109 Rusam, D., 96, 97, 111, 145, 150, 158, 160, 161, 237, 269, 327 Sawyer, D. F., 263, 265 Schenke, L., 101, 102, 103, 191, 192, 247 Schmid, H., 116, 120, 121, 122, 129, 130, 144, 148, 164, 169, 229, 234, 237, 301, 310 Schmithals, W., 20 Schnackenburg, Rudolf, 7, 33, 36, 41, 51, 71–74, 91, 102–03, 143, 146, 159, 160, 179, 190, 220, 222–23, 237, 243, 253–54, 256, 271, 285, 310, 320, 327, 328, 332, 342, 345, 346, 348–49, 354 Schnelle, U., 10, 14, 36, 135, 138, 182, 185, 262, 273, 339

446

Index

Schoedel, W. R., 40, 42, 43, 245 Scholer, D. M., 108 Schwankl, Otto, 8, 77 Semler, J., 101 Sloyan, G., 77, 163, 222–23, 256, 285, 350 Smalley, Stephen, 6, 9, 15, 33, 37–38, 71, 74, 101, 108, 111, 121, 126, 140, 144, 146– 48, 150, 152, 155, 158, 162, 167, 182, 231, 236–37, 251, 254, 267, 274, 280–81, 301, 303, 326–27, 329–30, 339–40, 342, 344, 346, 349–50, 354 Smith, D. M., 32, 33, 36, 83, 108, 158, 182, 254, 354 Sommer, M., 99, 100, 106 Stegemann, E., 111, 161, 163, 250 Storr, G. C., 102, 294 Stott, John, 53, 112, 125, 133, 176–77, 180– 82, 237, 241, 276, 345, 349, 354 Strecker, Georg, 1, 36, 38, 40, 54, 103, 119– 20, 122–23, 133, 145–46, 152, 154, 159, 163, 165, 179, 182–83, 186, 232, 234, 236, 249, 251, 253, 256, 270–71, 336, 339, 342, 344, 350, 354 Stroumsa, G., 48, 50 Sumney, J., 42, 43, 127, 128 Swadling, H. C., 21 Talbert, C. H., 11, 15, 205, 233, 278, 280, 286, 333, 339 Thatcher, T., 17, 77, 83, 84, 256, 289 Theobald, Michael, 9, 53, 176, 185, 276 Thomassen, E., 46, 199 Thompson, Μ. Μ., 185, 267 Thyen, H., 7, 71, 96, 106, 119, 121, 123, 158, 161–64, 191, 247, 254, 301, 351, 354 Trebilco, Paul, 9, 41, 51, 77, 107, 121, 125, 138, 218, 220, 251 Trevett, C., 42–44 Trites, A., 269, 303, 308, 336 Tröger, K. W., 20, 38, 47 Uebele, W., 15, 36, 41–43, 136, 163, 183, 254, 256, 258, 261, 262, Venetz, H.-J., 289

Vielhauer, Philipp, 8, 77, 83 von Weizsäcker, Carl Heinrich, 8, 19, 21, 23 Vouga, F., 24, 105, 123, 175, 176, 191, 202, 232, 281, 342, 345 Wahlde, Urban C. von, 8, 77, 82–86, 89, 96, 138–39, 153, 165, 179, 218, 220–23, 226, 228, 288, 293–94, 301, 308, 335, 340, 350 Watson, D., 95, 119, 121, 125, 263, 301, 302 Watson, F., 278, 280 Weigandt, P., 37, 38, 39, 48, 54 Weiss, K., 21, 22, 24, 254, 263, 311, 329 Wendt, H., 36, 52, 352 Wengst, Klaus, 8, 10, 36, 53, 66, 74, 116, 154, 163, 176, 179, 182, 205, 249, 263, 276, 279, 280, 303 Westcott, B. F., 22, 37, 52, 53, 54, 55, 133, 134, 173, 176, 177, 179, 191, 232, 241, 256, 269, 274, 276, 285, 301, 303, 311, 312, 326, 327, 336, 339, 345, 350, 354 Whitacre, R., 15, 77, 103, 107, 125, 139, 158, 161, 197, 217, 222, 285, 435 Wilckens, U., 52, 102, 152, 155, 160, 435 Windisch, H., 19, 20, 101, 209, 211, 269, 345, 347, 349, 436 Wisse, F., 48, 128, 129, 137, 166, 382, 436 Witetschek, S., 119, 129, 164, 165, 437 Witherington, B., 49, 51, 100, 101, 102, 106, 120, 121, 123, 125, 151, 156, 161, 164, 173, 183, 192, 210, 217, 229, 233, 235, 241, 252, 260, 261, 267, 300, 301, 330, 336, 342, 350, 354 Woll, D. B., 77, 83, 221 Wolter, Μ., 158, 295 Wurm, A., 24, 65, 93, 96, 102, 103, 111, 134, 160, 162, 165, 217, 222, 280, 281, 295, 311, 313, 329 Yamauchi, E., 23, 44, 45, 49 Yarbrough, R. W., 53, 176, 256, 311, 345, 347 Zahn, Theodor, 43, 53, 133, 146, 147, 176, 179, 276, 295 Zumstein, J., 9, 10, 14, 18, 105

447

Ancient Sources

Ancient Sources Hebrew Bible/Septuagint Genesis 2:21 LXX 2:22−23 3:15 18 33:1 49:10

263 265 110 40 347 346

Exodus 12:10 12:21 12:22 12:27 12:46 13:11−16 20:3 24:5−8 28:32 29:4 29:21 34:6−7 39:23

317 316 317 316 317 316 157 318 320 318, 320 318 109 320

Leviticus 14 15:25 16:4

270, 318 321 320

Numbers 9:12 15:22−31 18:20 19 19:1−10 20:11 25:6

317 108 157 270 318 321 347

Deuteronomy 4:39 12:12 12:16 12:24 13 13:1 13:2–6 13:6−8 13:7 13:9

233 157 317 317 110, 145–49, 233 342 149 109 233 150, 233

13:13 13:14 13:16−17 13:16−19 LXX 15:9 15:23 16:1−5 17:6 18 18:15 18:15−18 18:15−22 18:20 18:20−22 19:15 29:17

149, 342 146 356 233 149 317 316 109, 302 148, 149 233, 250 149, 250 110 233 149 109, 302 233

2 Samuel 2:23 7:14 15:32 22:5

347 159 347 149

1 Kings 2:4 3:6

340 240

2 Kings 20:3

240

1 Chronicles 2:55 12:1

347 347

2 Chronicles 20:12 30:25

347 347

Ezra 8:35

347

Esther 1:16 LXX 8:24 LXX

302 302

Psalms 2:4 2:7

50 159–60

448

Index

2:12 15 LXX 16 LXX 17:5 22 22:14–18 26:2 LXX 26:3 33:21 LXX 37:4 LXX 65:12 LXX 69 71:22 78:20 80:15 86:11 89:26−27 96:13 101:6 LXX 105:16 LXX 117:26 LXX 118:22 118:26

159–60 213 213 149 215, 326 324 214 340 317 214 327 326 152 321 159 340 159 219 213 323 219, 346 321 219, 346

31 31:31−34 38:34 LXX

154 109, 150, 170 170

Ezekiel 17:15 LXX 18:24 28:2 34−37 36:25−26 47:1−9

353 108 145 324 312, 319 319

Daniel 3:1 3:5 4:34 7:13 8:17−19 LXX 8:25 9:26 7−12 11:23 11:35 12:10

244 244 244 347 143 156 323 145 156 148 148, 150

Proverbs 5:15−18

260

Hosea 6:7 LXX 14:9

353 150

Habakkuk 2:3 LXX 2:4 3:3

219, 346 242 152

Zechariah 9:9 12:10 13:1 13:6−7 13:7 14:8

242 324–25 319 215 324 319

Malachi 3:1 3:1−2 3:19

346 219 219

Judith 11:7

302

1 Maccabees 6:25 11:42

302 302

Song of Solomon 4:12−15 260 Isaiah 1:4 8:14 11:4 28:16 14:14 38:3 43:2 LXX 43:8−10 50:8−9 52:13−53:12 53 53:5 53:7 53:11 LXX 53:11−12 53:12 54:13 Jeremiah 7:16 11:14 14:11

109 152 321 145 321 145 340 327 109 215 242 323–26 324 316 242 323 242, 316, 324 150

109 109 109

449

Ancient Sources 3:23

2 Maccabees 6:31 7:24 10:27

302 302 353

3 Maccabees 2:26 3:1

302 302

302

Wisdom of Solomon 2:12−13 324 2:17−20 324 3:1−2 50 7:1−2 259

New Testament Matthew 3:11 5:19 7:15 7:15−23 10:5 10:8−10 10:12−14 10:25 10:32−33 11:2−16 11:3 11:9 13:21 16:12 16:16 16:19 16:23 16:29 18:7 18:16 21:21 23:8 24:4−5 24:5 24:9−11 24:11 24:11−12 24:12 24:14 24:23−36 24:24 24:30 24:24 26:28

219 179, 220 253, 342 230 106 106 356 64 163 295, 297 219, 326, 347 313 314 354 159 179 314 220 148 302 302 154 231, 341 146, 253 148 146, 253, 341–42 230 341 253 231 341 324 234, 253 270

26:31 27:49 27:54

314 267 322

Mark 1:7−8 1:8 1:10–11 1:24 1:25 1:38 2:21 8:27−33 8:29 8:34 8:38 9:12 9:30−33 9:41 10:32−34 10:45 11:30−32 13:5 13:6 13:9 13:11 13:23 13:33 14:24 14:56–59 14:61 15:24 15:39 16:15

67 313 296 313 152 323 327 350 326 323 314 163 326 326 349 326 326 313 348 169 348 143 348 348 270, 314, 326 303 159 324 326 191

450 Luke 1:17 1:35 1:76 4:16 4:18 4:34 5:32 7:18−23 7:19 7:19−23 7:20 7:34 9:26 12:2−3 12:8−9 12:49 13:35 19:10 19:38 22:20 23:2 23:47 24:46 John 1 1:1−2 1:1−3 1:1−18 1:6 1:6-8 1:7−8 1:9 1:10 1:10−12 1:11 1:13 1:14

1:15 1:16 1:18 1:19 1:19−20 1:19−24 1:20 1:25 1:25−26 1:26 1:27

Index 1:29 313 323 313 356 152, 313 152 326 297 346–47 295 326 327 163 148 163 327 327 327 327 270 244 242 326

322 168 97 14 335 80 308, 313 178, 258, 295, 297 58 86 258 197, 252, 258 58, 80–81, 86, 88, 135, 140, 184–85, 192, 195, 197–98, 201–02, 222, 226, 250, 278 295, 297, 308, 313, 346 86 86 313 280, 308 295, 297 163, 193, 313 288, 297, 312 289 270, 288, 296, 311 346

1:30 1:31 1:31−33 1:32 1:32−34 1:33 1:34 1:36 1:37 1:41 1:42 1:46 1:49 1:50 1:52 2:1−11 2:21 3 3:1−8 3:5 3:6 3:14−15 3:15 3:16 3:17 3:18 3:19 3:22−26 3:22−36 3:22−30 3:23 3:26−33 3:28 3:29–30 3:31 3:31−32 3:32 3:33 3:34 3:35−36 3:36 4:2 4:6−7 4:10 4:10−14 4:10−15 4:14

86– 87, 293–94, 296, 313, 316, 322 295, 297 148, 219, 270, 288, 296, 311, 313 155, 294, 331 66, 278, 308 313 83, 270, 288, 296, 311, 312, 331 307–308, 322 313, 316, 322 322 141, 158, 244, 280, 307, 313, 322 160 160 141, 159, 307 160 160 315 319 331 289 261, 270, 312, 319 197, 261 315 293 86, 87 206 307 86, 87, 178 295, 297 334 297 270, 311 308 295, 313, 334 295 178, 237, 258, 346 334 237 157 152, 331 313 165, 307 294, 312 184 270 289 312 270, 319

Ancient Sources 4:18 4:23 4:23−34 4:25 4:25−26 4:29 4:39 4:42 5 5:1−18 5:18 5:19 5:23 5:29 5:31−39 5:31−40 5:32−36 5:33 5:33−39 5:34 5:36 5:37−38 5:39−47 5:43 6 6:4 6:6 6:14 6:27 6:29 6:39–40 6:44 6:45 6:51 6:51−58 6:51−59 6:52 6:52−59 6:52−71 6:53 6:53−56 6:54 6:55–56 6:59 6:60−66 6:60 6:61 6:63 6:63 6:64 6:66 6:67 6:69

87 319 331 158, 160, 219, 250 160, 346 141, 160 160, 308 160, 240 335 87 97, 141, 302 80, 87 165 88 308 302, 335 313 335 297 295, 297, 335 335 236–37 165 229, 258 101, 322 314 160 191, 219, 250, 258 157 165 143, 165 143 150, 237 197, 222, 293, 314 14, 176, 202, 222, 226, 316 184 197 270 273 197, 314 314 143, 197, 314 197 354 95 101, 237 314 83, 197, 331 165 148, 165 101, 165 165 101, 152, 323

6:70 7:7 7:14−17 7:19 7:27 7:28 7:31 7:35 7:37 7:37−39 7:41−42 8 8:2 8:12 8:13 8:14 8:15 8:16−18 8:18 8:19 8:20 8:21 8:23 8:24 8:25 8:26 8:28 8:30−31 8:31−59 8:31 8:32 8:33−34 8:34 8:37−47 8:38 8:39−40 8:42 8:43 8:44 8:47 8:51 8:55 8:58 9 9:22 9:26–27 9:31 9:34 9:35 9:39 9:41–42 10:1

451 165, 166 87, 237 165, 354 87 219, 346 219, 354 141, 219 354 143 83, 226, 270, 286–87, 294, 312, 319, 321, 331 141, 219, 346 169, 303 354 86, 304 303 178, 304 197 302, 304, 336 308 165 354 86 237, 254 86 168 80, 87 80, 87, 354 169 105 95, 97, 165, 182, 354 151 126 87–88 95 80, 87 87 219, 237 237, 254 87, 168, 236, 237, 254 237, 254 169 165 141, 190 13 14, 141, 160–61, 163, 243, 307 160 160 354 160 86, 87 160 87

452 10:3−5 10:8 10:10 10:11 10:12 10:14−18 10:15 10:17 10:17−18 10:24 10:24−25 10:30 10:33 10:36 10:40−41 10:41 11:24 11:27 11:33 11:35 11:38 11:49−52 11:51−52 12:6 12:9 12:13 12:13−16 12:17 12:19 12:23 12:25−26 12:27 12:31 12:34 12:38 12:41 12:42−43 12:42 12:44 12:46 12:48 13 13−17 13:1 13:10 13:14 13:18 13:21 13:27 13:30−31 13:34 13:37−38

Index 237 87 86, 87 163 87 315 87, 163, 324 163, 293 324 141, 159 308 97, 141 141 159, 320, 323 313 295, 297 143 141, 159–60, 191, 219, 250, 308, 346 184 184 184 315 87, 293, 301, 302 87 302 219, 346 160 308 308 144, 325 87 87, 144, 184, 325 235, 236 223 323 165 105 14, 163, 343 165 86 143 270 331 144 81, 270 87 165 166 254 166 87, 340 163

13:38 14:6–7 14:12−17 14:16 14:17 14:20 14:23 14:26 14:30 15–17 15:7 15:13 15:18−19 15:24 15:26 15:26−27 16:2 16:3 16:4 16:7 16:7−11 16:8 16:11 16:12−15 16:13 16:21 16:28 16:33 17 17:1 17:2 17:2−3 17:3 17:5 17:6 17:11–12 17:14 17:17 17:18 17:19 17:20 17:21 17:24 17:26 18:19−20 18:25 18:37 19 19:5 19:7 19:12 19:14 19:21

193 165 331 153 83, 155, 229, 238, 331 165 165 153, 155, 331, 354 236 14 236 293, 315 237, 254 157 153, 155, 238 109, 331 14, 144, 163 165 144, 168 153 331 229 236 331 83, 153, 155, 229, 238 144, 191 219, 258 235, 311 320 144 197 165 161, 166, 237, 308 190 229, 320 166, 229, 320 254 320 254 320 302 191 190 86, 320 354 193 191, 219, 258 316, 317, 319 185 159 159 317 159

453

Ancient Sources 19:23 19:24 19:29−36 19:30

21

320 324 265, 317 66, 262, 279, 281, 286, 293, 318, 331 317 80, 82, 262–63, 265, 270, 274, 286–87, 289, 311–12, 318– 319, 321 14, 261, 263, 267, 293, 314 308, 322, 325 265, 317, 324 185, 293 293, 331 84, 223, 226 320 80, 185 97, 141 330 54, 59, 72, 134, 157–58, 161, 183, 193, 224, 228–29, 239, 242–43, 250, 308, 309, 355 14

Acts 1:5 1:8 1:21−22 2:16 2:17 2:25−28 2:26 2:27 2:33 2:42 3:14 3:18 3:20 4:27 5:32 5:42 6:5 7:52 9:20−22 10:37 10:38 11:16 13:6−12 13:12 13:15 13:16−41 13:24 13:27−28

296 332 312 156 143, 332 213 214 323 153, 332 354 152, 242, 323 326 244 152, 313 332 163 69 242, 324 159, 163 312 152, 313 296 252 354 356 327 312, 327 327

19:33 19:34

19:34−36 19:35−36 19:36 20:17 20:22 20:22−23 20:23 20:27 20:28 20:29 20:30–31

13:35 14:3 15 15:8 17:3 18:5 18:25 19 19:1−7 20:28 20:28−30 21:28 22:14 26:23 28

323 332 64 332 163, 244, 326 163 296, 299 298, 299 95, 295 314 146, 148, 342 64 242 326 163

Romans 1:3 1:3−4 1:4 3:25 3:8 4:1 4:25 5:3 5:9 5:11 6:4 8:3 8:16 8:32−34 9:3 9:4−5 9:5 9:33 10:9 15:14−15 16:25

179, 195, 207 204–06, 210–12, 248–49, 310 207 314 116 206 248 302 314 302 274 40, 52, 199, 206, 216 332 242 207 207 206, 207 314, 321 244 151 182

1 Corinthians 1:5 1:6 1:23 4:16 5:7 6:9 8:6 10:1−22 10:4 10:11 11:19 12:1−3 12:2

151 332 182, 314 348 316 126 195 148 321 143 148 220, 221 106

454

Index

12:3 12:10 12:13 14:24 14:29 15 15:3−5 15:45 15:50

178, 195, 231, 244 122, 230 289 229 122, 230 64 209 181 40, 181

2 Corinthians 1:21 4:10−11 5:17 6:15 10:10 13:1 13:4

152–53 175 350 149 116 302 248

Galatians 1:8 2:2 2:20 3:1−3 4:4 4:4−5 4:11 4:23 5:11 6:3 6:7

195 348 175, 218 332 206, 212, 216 206 348 206 314 126 126

Ephesians 1:7 2:13 2:13−14 3:5 4:8−10 5:6 5:14

314 314 212, 223, 226 332 248 126 208

Philippians 1:22 1:24 2:6−7 2:6−11 2:7 2:11 2:16

218 218 213 248 199, 216 246 348

Colossians 1:20 1:22

314 213, 223, 226

2:1 2:5 2:8−9 212 2:9

216 217 200 274 213

1 Thessalonians 1:5 332 3:3−4 150 3:5 348 4:14 248 5:1−2 150 5:19−22 122, 230 2 Thessalonians 2 144–45 2:1−12 145 2:3 148–49, 166 2:4–5 144 2:5−6 150 2:11 238 1 Timothy 2:5−6 3:9 3:16 4:1 4:1−2 4:1−3 4:1−4 4:6 5:19 6:3 6:7 6:20

204 209–10, 326 210 181, 202, 207–12, 214, 216, 218, 248, 310 148, 238 342 230, 253 119 210 302 210 191 26

2 Timothy 2:8 3:1−5 3:1−9 3:13

205 143, 148 119, 342 169, 350

Hebrews 1:2 1:5−6 1:9 2:4 2:14 4:15 5:5−6 5:7 5:9

105, 314 143 326 152 332 181, 213 182 326 181, 213, 218 326

Ancient Sources 9:8 9:12 9:13−14 9:14 9:19 9:25 10:5−11 10:15 10:20 10:22 10:28 10:37 10:38 12:24 13:15

332 274 181 330 318 274 326 332 213 318 302 346–47 242 318 163

James 1:16 1:26 2:4 2:18 5:3 5:6

126 126 126 126 143 242, 324

1 Peter 1:2 1:5 1:11−12 1:19−20 1:20 2:8 2:24 3:17 3:18–22 4:1 4:1−3 4:2 4:16

204 314, 318 143 332 314, 316 143, 211 321 213 211 181, 211, 223, 242, 248 211 181 218 163

2 Peter 1:12 2:1−3 3:3

151 119, 148, 230, 254, 342 119, 143, 148

1 John 1:1 1:1−2 1:1−3 1:1−4 1:2 1:3

21, 36, 82, 167, 186, 249 25, 38, 329, 334 22, 52, 79, 88, 119, 202, 236, 309 147, 237 148, 167, 198, 202, 208, 216 55, 84, 90, 108, 113, 127, 159, 242

1:4 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:6−7 1:8 1:9 1:9−2:2 1:10 1:31 2:1−2 2:1−6 2:1 2:2 2:3−4 2:4 2:4−5 2:5 2:6 2:7 2:7−8 2:8 2:9 2:9−11 2:10 2:12 2:12−14 2:13−14 2:15−17 2:16 2:17 2:18–27 2:28 2:28−3:3 2:29 2:29−3:10 3 3:1 3:2−3 3:3−7 3:2 3:3 3:4 3:5 3:6 3:7−15 3:7 3:8

455 167 21, 25 21, 81, 113, 117, 123, 125 38, 79, 82, 85, 108, 242, 274, 287, 291, 314, 315 22, 108 21, 113, 117, 123, 125, 271 242, 249 109 21, 81, 113, 117, 123, 125, 271 208 78, 323 21 55, 143, 242 22, 38, 79, 82, 85, 108–09, 242, 287, 291, 301, 315 103, 113 81, 116, 117, 123, 125 340 143, 147 79, 82, 85, 88, 113, 117, 123, 125, 167, 221 82, 168, 249 340 143 81, 113, 117, 123, 125 21 167 168 120 22, 82, 167–68, 235–36, 306 118, 142, 198 142, 197 143, 167 132–72 22, 85, 113, 115, 143, 148, 167, 198, 208 79, 82 242 21 165 127, 237 85 85 113, 115, 148, 198, 208 79, 82 143 148, 198, 202, 208, 216 21, 167 108 79, 82, 221 110, 127, 148, 186, 190, 198, 202, 208, 216, 235

456 3:8−10 3:9 3:10 3:11 3:11−24 3:12 3:13−14 3:14 3:15−17 3:16 3:16−18 3:17 3:18 3:19−24 3:22−24 3:23–24 3:24 4:1–6 4:7 4:7−12 4:7−15 4:8 4:9 4:9−10 4:10 4:12 4:12−13 4:13 4:14 4:14−15 4:15 4:16 4:17 4:21 4:20−21 5 5:1 5:1−5 5:3 5:4 5:4−5 5:5 5:5−8 5:6–12 5:13 5:16−17 5:16 5:17 5:18

Index 113, 237 21, 127, 167 108, 186 82, 168, 249, 340 224 108, 186 240 167 174 79, 82, 163 224 113, 118, 167 83, 118 228 229, 233 55, 159, 229, 240, 242, 306, 340 152, 155, 167, 229, 236, 292, 293, 328, 329 173–255 233, 240 174, 224, 229 240 240 181, 198, 206, 208, 306 190, 191 79, 82, 85, 198, 315 113, 329 167, 236 152, 155, 167, 240, 292–93, 329 84, 113, 190, 191, 329 240, 309 55, 73, 183, 224, 236, 240 167 113, 115 233, 340 174 327 7, 55, 160, 183, 224, 240–43 159, 306 340 235, 236 249 7, 55, 73, 160, 183, 224, 236, 268, 273, 277, 311, 327 184 256–337 120, 130, 283, 308 108 115, 233 21 236

5:19 5:20−21 5:20 5:21 2 John 1 3 4–6 5−6 6 7−9 7−11 7

235 233 55, 97, 99, 141, 159, 190, 198, 217, 242, 347 97, 110, 118, 163

8–9 9 9−10 10 10-11

151, 302 55, 159, 242 339–340 82, 168, 249 169 189 130 37, 55, 156, 159, 176, 182, 186, 191, 215, 242, 249, 250, 258, 338, 340–47 348–354 8, 79, 159, 242, 338, 354 171 149, 341 115, 233, 252, 356–58

3 John 3−4 7 9 12

98, 120 340 106 147, 352 303, 332

Jude 5 12 17 17−21 18

150, 151 342 148 148 119

Revelation 1:5 1:7 1:8 2 2:2 2:7 2:9 2:14 2:15 3:3 3:7 3:9 3:10 5:9 6:9 7:14

105, 161, 344 314 324 347 69, 71 356 332 99 354 354 143 152, 323 99 143 314 329 314

457

Ancient Sources 11:1 12:9 12:17 13 13:11 14:5 14:7 14:15

61 169 329 145, 342 252 156 143 143

16:13 19:10 21:25 21:27 22:6 22:15 22:16

253 329, 332 62 156 332 156 332

Other Ancient Sources 1QH 3:9−10

260

1QpHabakkuk 2.1 156 5.11 156 10.9 156

Acts of Peter 2 20

275 272 272

Acts of Thomas 151 121 272 Apocalypse of Gabriel 145, 325

1QS 3:13−14 3:13−4:26

108 238 238

Apocalypse of Peter (VII, 3) 48, 50, 76 Aprocryphon of John (III, 1) 10, 287

11QMelchizedek 145 Ascension of Isaiah 45 4QPs 1:17−19 4:13−14

37 156 156

Augustine Tractates on the Gospel of John 15.8 269

4QTestimonia (4Q175) 149 4QFlorilegium (4Q174) 149 1.8−9 150 CD 20.14−15

156

Acts of John 89 93 97 98−101 101 101:7 101:7−8 104 110

10 44 44 45, 264 264 45 264 262 44 272

Acts of Paul 8.26

192

Chrysostom Homiliae in Joannem 85 269 Homiliae in Matthaeum 82 272 1 Clement 38:3

191

Clement of Alexandria Excerpta ex Theodoto 265 1.1−2 46, 199 33.3 350 41.2 350 41.4 350 59 46, 75, 199 60.1−2 200 61.3 265 61−62 76 62 265

458 76 Fragments 35 Paedagogus 1.5.21.3−23.2 Stromata 1.19 3.3−4 3.6.1−9.3 3.17.102 3.59.3 5.14.105

Index 76 178 76 272 39 30 35 47 192

3 Corinthians 1:2 1:10−15 1:14 2:36−39 3:36−38

51, 189, 192, 195 188 188 188 353 188

Cyprian Epistle 62 11

272

Cyril of Alexandria Commentary on John 12 269 Didache 11 11:1−2 11:6−12 11:8 16:4

122 356 230 230 169, 238

Didascalia Apostolorum 151 Dionysius of Alexandria Peri Epangelion 62 1 Enoch 38:2

242

3 Enoch 6:3

260

Epiphanius Panarion 3.198.14 24.9.5 28 28.1.6

19 192 192, 246 63 64

28.1.7 28.2.3−6 28.4.1 28.6.1 28.6.4 28.6.4−5 28.8.1 28.8.2 29−30 30.24.1 42 42.3 51.4.1−2 51.6 51.10.4 51.12.3−6 61.432

64 64 64 64 64 64 63 64 140 71 39 272 64 64 64 64 272

Epistle of Barnabas 214 5:6−7 214 5:10 215 5:10−14 214 6:6−9 215 6:9 215, 344 6:14 215 7:9 344 11:1 313, 327 11:2–10 313 12:9–10 215 Epistula Apostolorum 67, 71 1 56 7 56 14 72 Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 3.27 140 3.28.1–2 63 3.28.3−5 62 3.28.6 63 4.11 39 4.14.6 63 4.29 39 5.13.2−7 46 5.24 186 6.12 35 6.12.2−6 45 7.25.1−3 62 7.25.1 63 Extracts from the Prophets 129 3 162

Ancient Sources 4 Ezra 8:8

260

First Apocalypse of James (V,3) 76 31.15−22 75 Ginza Right 1.29.5 2.53.3

263 263

Gospel of Peter 35 4 45 5 45 Gospel of Philip (II,3) 44 152 56.24−26 200 57.2−10 200 57.9−22 200 57.28−58.10 200 68.30−37 200 69.7−8 25 71.1-10 200 74.12−20 25 Gospel of Thomas 202 28 202, 216 29 202 Gospel of Truth (I,3) 24, 203, 216 26.4−8 199, 216 30.26−32 25 31.1−8 199, 216 35.2−6 25 36.13−20 25 Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies 6.18 349 6.35.5−7 46 7.19 39 7.21 59 7.22 140 7.23 74 7.34 140 8.1−4 36 9.13−17 140 10.12 36 10.17 59, 283 Homer Iliad 5.339−40 266

Ignatius To the Ephesians 7:2 42, 206 17:1−2 152 18:2 313, 327 20:2 42 To the Magnesians 9:1 42 11:1 42 To Polycarp 3:2 42 To the Romans 7:1 245 To the Smyrnaeans 1:1−2 41 2 41 4:2 41 5:2 42 5:3 42 6:1 42 6:1−2 275 6−7 271 7:1 275 7:1−2 42 To the Trallians 9:1−2 42 10:1 42 Interpretation of Knowledge (XI,1) 265 10.34−37 265 Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.6.1 46 1.21.3−5 154 1.23-28 26, 57 1.23.3 40 1.24.2 40 1.24.3−4 47 1.25.2 75 1.26.1 57, 69, 283, 305 1.26.2 58, 140 1.26.3 69 1.27 39 3.2.1 57, 58 3.3.4 58, 70, 186 3.11.1 69, 70, 73 3.11.2 58 3.11.3 46, 58 3.11.7 67, 71, 140 3.16 19 3.16.1 58, 69, 73

459

460 3.16.2−8 3.16.3 3.16.5 3.16.8 3.16−18 3.21.1 3.22.1 3.22.2 4.8 4.32.1 4.33.2 4.34 5.1.3

Index 72 206 59, 70, 72, 73, 133 25, 73, 176, 178, 180 345 140 206 261 39 67 39, 261 39 140, 272

Jerome De viris illustribus 17 186 Josephus Antiquities 3.161 Jewish Wars 6.423−428

320 317

Justin Martyr 158 Dialogue with Trypho 8.1 159 9.1 162 16.1 162, 252 32.2 159 35.1 159, 245 36.1 325 39.3 159, 162 39.7 325 48.2 159 47 140 47.4 105, 162 48.2 245 68.16 162 89.1 162 89.2 325 90.1 325 95.1 162 99.1 245 108.1 159, 245, 252 131.1 159, 162 142.2 159 First Apology 26 26 56 26 11 162 31 162 35 162, 245

49 159 53 159 54 159 58 159 63 159 De Resurrectione 2 36 Latin Infancy Gospel 45 Martyrdom of Polycarp 8.2 163 9.2 163 Melito Paschal Homily 158 4 317 56 317 71 317 Minucius Felix Octavius 9 30 Mishnah m. ‘Abot 3.1 m. Pesah 5.9 7.1

260 317 317

Origen Against Celsus 2.1 140 2.36 266, 319 6.53 39 Commentarii in evangelium Johannis 6.224 319 6.26 305 32.301 166 Commentarii in Romanos 1.5.3 179 Fragmenta ex commentariis in epistulam i ad Corinthios 47.7 196 Homiliae in Genesim 3.7 175 8.9 76 Homiliae in Exodum 7 175 Homiliae in Leviticum 8.12 319 Homiliae in Psalmos

Ancient Sources 49.3 67.5

196 196

Philaster Adversus Haereses 45 71 Philo Questions on Exodus 1.11 317 Special Laws 2.148 317 Pliny Letter to Trajan 10.96 163 Plutarch Alexander 28.3

266

Polybius Histories 2.65.1 3.35.1

353 353

Polycarp To the Philippians 6.3 185, 186 7.1 179, 185–86, 191–92, 194, 225 7.2 185, 186, 345 12.3 195 Protoevangelium of James 49.1 217 Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.54 297 1.60 296–97 48 313 Pseudo−Tertullian Adversus Haereses 1.7.2 260 4 46, 260 11 140 Second Treatise of the Great Seth (VII,2) 47 51.20−25 75 51.32−52.6 75 55.30−56.19 48 55.34−56.20 75 69.21−22 76

Shepherd of Hermas Mandates 4.3.1 313 11 230 Similitudes 6:5 192 9.16.4 313 Similitudes of Enoch 324 Tertullian Against Marcion 19, 39, 199 3.8 187 3.8.1 39 3.9 40, 199 3.10−11 39 4.7 39 4.7.1−5 39 4.21.11 39 5.8.3 39 5.14 40 5.16 187 5.16.4 178 5.20.3 39 Baptism 7.1−2 151 16 305, 327 16.1−2 269 The Flesh of Christ 19, 199 1 37, 39, 46, 140 2 39 3 40, 199 6 46 14.6 75 15 46 15.1 199 16 46 19.5 199 22 206 24 187, 192, 195 214 37, 140 Prescription against Heretics 187 33 6, 140, 188 33.11 37, 39, 101, 140 Testament of Benjamin 215 10:7-9 216 Testimony of Truth (IX, 3) 9.30.19−28 278 Treatise on the Resurrection (I,4) 44.13−34 201

461

462 44.14−15 49.9−50.11

Index 201 201

116.30

200

Trimorphic Protennoia (XIII,1) 22, 76, 287 47.16 201

Victorinus In Apocalypsin 11.1 61, 62

Tripartite Tractate (I,5) 66.14 200

Vision of Paul 41 27