The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (181 page)

3. The same author would be expected to compose his works with a similar style. This is exactly what characterizes John's Letters. The relatively simple syntax is the norm for both John's Gospel and his Letters, and the same stock of Greek words and constructions
can be seen in both.
²⁵
A peculiar example of this is the use of intersentence conjunctions. Poythress has demonstrated that sentences are frequently connected by asyndeton (no coordinating conjunctions). He also noted the infrequent use of “therefore”
(oun)
and other connectors in expository discourse in both John's Gospel and his Letters.
²⁶

4. Another notable piece of evidence is the failure on the part of the proponents of the various forms of the “Johannine community hypothesis” to demonstrate Johannine style outside of the Johannine literature. If there were “Johannine patterns” or a “house style,” would one not expect for it to be found also in extrabiblical literature? Indeed, there are some writings that might resemble the “house style” of the “Johannine community.” The number of Papias's extant works does not allow one to draw definitive conclusions (though his extant works do not conform to Johannine style), but there is a larger sample from John's disciple Polycarp. Yet when his
Letter to the Philippians
is examined, it does not display evidence of Johannine style.
²⁷
Kümmel's conclusion is doubtless correct: “[T] here are no cogent reasons for assuming that I John is to be attributed to another author than J [oh] n.”
²⁸

5. The author's self-references indicate that he considered himself an eyewitness to Jesus (see esp. 1 John 1:1—4). There is general agreement, even among those supporting the theory of a “Johannine school,” that the writer is one person rather than a community. This is evidenced by his use of the first-person singular 32 times throughout the Johannine Letters. However, what is contested is what the writer meant when he used a first-person plural. While the writer did refer to himself several times in the first-person plural in solidarity with his readers, in at least nine instances he referred to himself in distinction from his hearers.
²⁹
Those convinced of the presence of a “Johannine school” find support for their theory in these references.
³⁰

But this is not necessarily the best way to account for this phenomenon. First, especially in the references in the prologue, the writer used sensory language that is best understood as the speech of an eyewitness. He claims to have “heard,” “seen,” and touched with his
“hands” “the Word of life” (1 John 1:1). The latter expression, using his hands to touch the Word of life, leads us to understand that “Word of life” does not refer to the
message
of life but to the Word who
is
life—Jesus Christ (see John 1:1,14). It is hard to imagine that such language would have been used by someone who was not claiming physical contact with Jesus.

6. The author assumed an authoritative tone that is consistent with an apostle. Although he calls himself an “elder” in 2 and 3 John, this is not inconsistent with being an apostle as 1 Pet 1:1 shows (cf. 5:1). Papias similarly referred to the apostles as “elders.”
³¹
Thus there is ample reason to believe that John could simultaneously occupy the status of both an apostle and an elder—a prophet also since he wrote Revelation. Thus in his function as an apostle, he wrote a Gospel; and in his role as an elder, he wrote letters to various congregations.

7. There is also an indication that the author was advanced in years. If the Johannine Letters date from the end of the first century, then any eyewitness would have reached old age by that time. In keeping with this, the author referred to the congregations addressed in John's Letters as “my little children,” including even those he called “fathers” (1 John 2:12-14).

In the final analysis, although there are recent objections to the apostle John's authorship of the Gospel and of the Letters, no external or internal evidence has surfaced that is inconsistent with identifying the author of the Gospel with that of the Letters. Coupled with the conclusions concerning the authorship of John's Gospel reached above, the apostle John remains convincingly the best candidate for author of the Letters.

Date

Reliable historical tradition strongly suggests that John spent his latter years in Asia Minor in and around Ephesus (see Irenaeus,
Against Heresies
3.1.2; Eusebius,
Eccl. Hist.
3.1.1). The apostle's move from Palestine to Asia Minor reportedly took place sometime subsequent to the Jewish rebellion in the year
66.
We concluded that John's Gospel was most likely written in the early to mid-80s (see chap. 7). So the question concerning the date of John's Letters is, Were they written prior or subsequent to John's Gospel?

On balance, the latter seems more likely. While it is possible that some of the connections with John's Gospel in 1 John are based on a common tradition,
³²
in a few places the Gospel seems to be assumed. For example, 1 John 2:7—8 refers to and explicates the meaning of the new commandment of John 13:34—35 without naming it. In 1 John 5:6, reference is made to Jesus’ coming by “water and blood,” most likely referring to Jesus’ baptism and crucifixion, respectively (see the verbal parallel with John 19:34).

Some, such as Carson and Moo, think the Johannine Letters were written to combat heretical misinterpretations of the Gospel, which would require a date for them after the
Gospel.
³³
This seems entirely plausible. Yet even if the purpose for the Letters were construed differently, the conclusion that they postdate the Gospel would still appear to be the most probable in light of the parallels mentioned above. The best date, given the death of John at around the turn of the century
³⁴
and the dating of the Gospel in the early to mid-80s, is somewhere in the early to mid-90s.

Provenance

The ancient tradition is uniform that John spent his latter years in Ephesus in Asia Minor. Polycrates, in a letter to Victor of Rome, called John one of the “luminaries” buried in Ephesus.
³⁵
Irenaeus said that John stayed in Ephesus permanently until the reign of Trajan (98—117)
³⁶
and included specific statements about John's ministry in Ephesus. Without solid evidence to the contrary, most scholars assume the accuracy of the Ephesus tradition.
³⁷

Destination

In 1 John, John addressed various groups in the congregation as “little children,” “fathers,” “young men,” “brothers,” and “beloved” (e.g., 2:12—14; 4:1,7). These ways of addressing his audience indicate a closely established relationship between John and his readers. Since 1 John does not refer to specific names and places, contains little mention of specific events, and is general in its teaching, it seems that John focused on important truths of broad relevance to address as many believers as possible. This lends credence to the view that 1 John was a circular letter sent to predominantly Gentile churches in and around Ephesus.
³⁸

Both 2 John and 3 John are personal letters. The former was written to an “elect lady and her children” (v. 1), which most likely refers to several local congregations; the latter was written to an individual named Gaius (v. 1), but we know nothing about him.
³⁹

Occasion

The churches to whom 1 John was written are under doctrinal and emotional duress. There had been a recent departure of false teachers from the church (2:19) that apparently was both painful and unpleasant and that was still evident in 2 John (v. 7). This is evident especially in the repeated charge against the secessionists that they do not love other believers (e.g., 1 John 2:9-10; 3:10; 4:7). The Christians to whom John wrote in 1 John were in need of instruction, but more importantly they needed to be reassured and comforted in light of the recent upheaval ending in the departure of the false teachers (5:13; see 2:19).

While there was clearly conflict among John's readers, its precise nature is difficult to determine because of the oblique nature of the references. Throughout the letter, John presupposed that his readers knew the issues that were at stake. Irenaeus claimed that John wrote his Gospel to refute Cerinthus—an early gnostic teacher who held that the “Christ spirit” descended on Jesus at his baptism and left him at the cross—but does not make the same claim for his Letters.
⁴⁰
Some, with reference to Irenaeus, claim the Letters were written to combat the same opponent.
⁴¹
But it is not at all certain that Cerinthus was the catalyst of the secession that sparked 1 John. Nascent Gnosticism of his sort was certainly afoot, and some form of it may have influenced the secession.
⁴²
But wholesale identification of the Ephesian secessionists with Cerinthus's followers is unwarranted.
⁴³

The exact nature of the false teaching is impossible to pinpoint with certainty. Schnackenburg aptly observed, “The meager hints and the formulas used in the letter are all we have to go on.”
⁴⁴
As Griffin showed, these may be interpreted in different ways.
⁴⁵
Nevertheless, there are some clues to help us understand the broad contours of the false teaching found in 1 John. The clearest indicators of the secessionists’ doctrine are in 1 John 2 where repeated reference is made to their denial that Jesus is the Messiah (2:22—23; see John 20:30-31).
⁴⁶

Something to Think About: Speaking the Truth in Love

I
nteresting, isn't it, that the apostle of love
—
the apostle John
—
is also the one who wrote several very stern passages warning believers against false teachers. I once went to a church that was going through a nasty split and had divided into two parties: the “love party”and the “truth party.” Those in the “love party”focused on God's love and forbearance with sinners, while the “truth party” emphasized God's righteous demands. Silly, isn't it? I say “silly” because both are true if held in proper balance. God is a God of love
—
in fact, as John tells us, God is love (1 John 4:8)
—
but he is also most decidedly a God of truth (see John 17:17). Paul rightly said, therefore, that Christians must “speak the truth in love” (see Eph 4:15).

As far as we are able to determine with regard to the background of 1 John, some in the church taught that possession of the Spirit was not enough; those “truly enlightened” must be initiated into all kinds of “secret knowledge” open only to those initiates. This created all kinds of insecurity and second-guessing among those who were no longer sure whether they were Christians at all
—
when in fact those self characterized “super-Christians” turned out not to be believers in the end. This seems to follow from 1 John 2:19: “They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. However, they went out so that it might be made clear that none of them belongs to us.”

Some people in the church might look mighty good for a while. They are the stars, but after a brief time on the ascendancy, they come crashing down like shooting stars. This, incidentally, is one of the reasons Paul cautioned his associates not to appoint new converts to positions of leadership in the church. This also is why John told believers to “test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). So we find that John, the apostle who basked in God's and Christ's love more than any other NT writer, is also the one who stressed the need for careful discernment of truth in the church. Like Jesus, and like Paul and the other NT authors, John struck a proper balance between truth and love, unlike the above-mentioned church I visited. We, too, should speak the truth in love.

While certainty remains elusive, it is possible to identify several characteristics of the secessionists. First, they do not know God because they do not keep his commandments. Second, they do not conduct themselves the way Jesus did, especially with regard to the commandment to love one another. In all this, their behavior is characterized by a lack of obedience. If these references were included to condemn the conduct of the secessionists, the series of contrasts in 1:6—10 probably alludes to them as well. If so, the secessionists were “walking in darkness” while rejecting the notion of sin. This lack of ethical orientation
is borne out in chap. 3 where they are identified as “children of the devil” (3:10 KJV) upon an examination of their deeds.

The secessionists, or a group distinguished from them, denied that Jesus had come in the flesh (1 John 4:2—3; cf. 2 John 7). This may (though not necessarily) reflect a docetic. Christology In what follows, rather than reinforcing the humanity of Jesus, the author simply defined the denial as the failure to confess Jesus. The same pattern continues later in the letter (see 4:15; 5:1,5). It seems that the major emphasis lies not so much on refuting a docetic Christology but on the rejection or confession of Jesus.
⁴⁷
At any rate, the underlying denial is that Jesus is the Messiah. As to the exact nature of the denial, it is hard to be certain.
⁴⁸

Another possibility is that the secessionists subscribed to a Christology that denied the atoning merit of the cross. This is hinted at in the confession in 1 John 5:6, “He is the One who came by water and blood; not by water only, but by water and by blood.” Again, John was scrupulous to deny an understanding of Christ that viewed him as having come “by water only” and not also “by blood,” which seems to indicate a rejection of the sacrificial and substitutionary nature of Jesus’ death for others. This flowed from a rejection of the notion of sin.

So what can be said about the secessionists’ doctrine? First, it seems that they rejected the apostolic witness (1 John 1:1—5). They had a defective Christology that denied that Jesus was the Messiah, though the reason for this is unclear. Moreover, they were disobedient to the commands of God, especially the love command (see 3:10—15). This led to a doctrine that minimized the reality or at least the seriousness of sin. Thus, the false teachers showed they were not truly children of God. D. Akin described the false teaching well: they flaunted a new theology that “compromised the uniqueness of the person and work of Jesus Christ”; a new morality that “minimized the importance of sin; they claimed to have fellowship with God despite their unrighteous behavior”; and, finally, a new spirituality that “resulted in spiritual arrogance; consequently they did not show love to others.”
⁴⁹