The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (184 page)

But the major contribution comes from the grounds for assurance given in these Letters.
⁸⁹
They are so prominent that some have seen these Letters as supplying “tests of life.”
⁹⁰
Indeed, nowhere else in the canon is there a sustained discussion laying out such objective grounds for the believer's assurance of salvation. Kruse described the nature of these grounds: “The readers’ assurance is to be grounded on God's testimony about his Son, their own godly living, loving action and concern for fellow believers, their obedience to the love command, and the Spirit's testimony to Christ.”
⁹¹
But just as prominent is the fact
that some claim to have fellowship with Christ, to know him, to abide in him, and to be in the light, while in fact being deluded.

Therefore the point of 1 John is to instill confidence in true believers that their salvation is assured, coupled with exhortations to persevere (see esp. 1 John 5:13). John wanted his Christian readers to be sure of their salvation, but he also wanted them to remain in Jesus and his word; by contrast, he was not satisfied with believers continuing in sin. Thus John painted a picture of the ideal believers: (1) they are confident of their standing in Christ because of the life-transforming regeneration they experienced through the Holy Spirit; (2) they are obedient because of their love for Christ; (3) they grow in maturity because of their steadfastness; (4) they love because of the nature of the God who changed their lives; and (5) they are victorious because of their faith in Christ.

Love
While not unique to the Johannine Letters, John's emphasis on love is pronounced. Marshall noted that “love is thematized in a way that is unparalleled elsewhere in the New Testament. …The indications are that for all the emphasis on right doctrine, the author's main concern is with the Christian behavior of his readers.”
⁹²
While the last phrase may be overstated (the author does not separate love from doctrine), it cannot be overstated that love
(agapē
and verbal cognates occur 48 times) is a major theme in 1 John. Marshall listed six dimensions of love in 1 John: (1) the source of love is God; (2) we love in response to God's love; (3) those who love demonstrate their birth from God; (4) love is expressed in obedience (especially the command to love one another); (5) it is possible for love to be only a claim; and (6) one can argue proof of our new birth from the presence or absence of love.
⁹³

CONTRIBUTION TO THE CANON

• Jesus Christ as the propitiation for the sins of the entire world (1 John 2:2)
  
• God is love (e.g., 1 John 4:16)
  
• Christian assurance (1 John 5:11-13)
  
• Prohibition against extending hospitality to false teachers (2 John)
  
• Warning against autocratic church leadership (3 John)
  

STUDY QUESTIONS

1. What are three alternative proposals to John's authorship of the Johannine Letters?
   
2. How would you summarize the internal and external evidence for John's authorship?
   
3. Which of these was probably written first: John's Gospel or the Letters? Why do you say that?
   
4. What is the major occasion for John's writing of 1 John? What is a specific reference to back up your point?
   
5. Which major heresy is combated in 1 John?
   
6. What are three major heresies perpetrated by the false teachers?
   
7. What are two major purposes for John's writing of 1 John?
   
8. What are the purposes for John's writing of 2 John and 3 John?
   
9. Who is the “chosen lady”?
   
10. What typical literary pattern do 2 John and 3 John follow? What makes the structure of 1 John so difficult to discern?
    
11. What are several dimensions of love noted in 1 John?
    
12. What is the “sin that brings death”?
    

FOR FURTHER STUDY

Akin, D. L.
1, 2, 3 John.
New American Commentary 38. Nashville: B&H, 2001.

Brown, R. E.
The Epistles of John.
Anchor Bible 30. Garden City: Doubleday, 1982.

Bruce, F. F.
The Epistles of John.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Bultmann, R.
The Johannine Epistles.
Hermeneia. Translated by R. P. O'Hara et al. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973.

Griffith, T.
Keep Yourselves from Idols: A New Look at 1 John.
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 233. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002.

Hill, C. E.
The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church.
Oxford: University Press, 2004.

Kruse, C. G.
The Letters of John.
Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Law, R.
The Tests of Life: A Study of the First Epistle of St. John.
3d ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1914; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979.

Lieu, J. M.
The Theology of the Johannine Epistles.
Cambridge: University Press, 1991.

Longacre, R. “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 D. A. Black. Nashville: B&H, 1992.

Marshall, I. H.
The Epistles of John.
New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

O'Neill, J. C.
The Puzzle of 1 John: A New Examination of Origins.
London: SPCK, 1966.

Painter, J.
1, 2, and 3 John.
Sacra Pagina 18. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2002.

Poythress, V. S. “Testing for Johannine Authorship by Examining the Use of Conjunctions."
Westminster Theological Journal 46
(1984): 350-69.

Schnackenburg, R.
The Johannine Epistles: A Commentary.
New York: Crossroad, 1992.

Smalley, S. S.
1, 2, 3 John.
Word Biblical Commentary 51. Waco: Word, 1984.

Stott, J. R. W.
The Letters of John.
Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Rev. ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Strecker, G.
The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John.
Hermeneia. Translated by L. M. Maloney. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.

Streett, D. R. “‘They Went Out from Us’: The Identity of the Opponents in First John.” Ph.D. diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2008.

Thompson, M. M.
1—3 John.
IVP New Testament Commentary. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.

Yarbrough, R. W.
1—3 John.
Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.

¹
M. Luther,
D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, Weimarer Lutherausgabe
, vol. 28 (Cologne: Böhlau, 1903), 183.

²
J. Calvin,
The Gospel According to St. John 11—21 and the First Epistle of John
, trans. T. H. L. Parker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 231.

³
Cited in Eusebius,
Eccl. Hist.
6.25.10.

⁴
R. E. Brown,
The Epistles of John
, AB 30 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1982), 6; cf. J. Painter,
1, 2, and 3 John
, SacPag (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2002), 40.

⁵
See the comments on the external evidence for authorship in the chapter on John's Gospel for a defense against the commonly held opinion that there was a “Johannophobia” among the orthodox (a.k.a. the OJP theory).

⁶
Irenaeus's quote of 2 John 7—8 occurs in a context that refers to 1 John and cites 2 John as if it were in the same letter
(Against Heresies 3.16.8).
Instead of claiming that Irenaeus was mistaken, it is more commonly held that this is evidence that at least 1 and 2 John circulated together. See Brown,
Epistles
, 10.

⁷
Brown
(An Introduction to the New Testament
, ABRL [New York: Doubleday, 1997, 389) stated that the letter must have been written prior to 150, but it is possible to be more specific. Since the letter, which was sent as a cover letter for the Ignatian Epistles, inquires about the fate of Ignatius (13.2), one can surmise that it was composed soon after his martyrdom, between c. 107 and 110. M. W. Holmes
(The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations
, 3d ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007], 275—76) said that the letter is customarily dated within a few weeks (or at most months) afterward. Thus many date the letter to the Philippians as early as 108 (e.g., S. L. Peterson,
Timeline Charts of the Western Church
[Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999], 19). Polycarp showed not only knowledge of 1 John but also affinities with John's language and thought, especially chaps. 9—10; compare 10.1 (“joined together in truth”) with 3 John 8 (“co-workers with the truth”).

⁸
See the impressive study by C. E. Hill,
The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church
(Oxford: University Press, 2004) for a thorough catalogue of early Johannine citations.

⁹
See “Appendix A: The Collection of Paul's Letters,” in D. Guthrie,
New Testament Introduction
, rev. ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990), 986—1000; D.
Trobisch, Paul's Letter Collection: Tracing the Origins
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000 [1994]); and S. E. Porter, ed.,
The Pauline Canon
, Pauline Studies 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2004).

¹⁰
This was a popular decision among nineteenth-century theologians that has been reopened by M. Hengel,
The Johannine Question
(London: SCM, 1989). See the discussions of Papias's statement in Eusebius,
Eccl. Hist.
3.39.4.

¹¹
C. H. Dodd,
The Johannine Epistles
, MNTC (New York: Harper, 1946); id., “The First Epistle of John and the Fourth Gospel,”
BJRL
21 (1937): 129—56. This is in spite of able works countering Dodd such as W. G. Wilson, “An Examination of the Linguistic Evidence Adduced Against the Unity of Authorship of the First Epistle of John and the Fourth Gospel,”
JTS 49
(1947): 147-56; W. F. Howard, “The Common Authorship of the Johannine Gospel and Epistles,”
JTS
48 (1947): 12-25.

¹²
Dodd,
Epistles
, xlix. According to Dodd, the writer of the Letters overworked certain grammatical constructions and used a smaller set of compound verbs. Moreover, he was “immoderately addicted” to conditional sentences. Following Dodd, there was a marked readiness on the part of some to disparage the author of the Letters in the effort to prove that the Gospel could not have been written by him. E.g., K. Grayston
(The Johannine Epistles
, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984], 7—9) described a hierarchy of ability within the Johannine literature. While the Gospel is the high-water mark of intelligence and expression, the writer of 1 John pedantically transformed the existentialism of the Gospel into a historical expression and “thereby degraded it.” Even further down the scale is the “less adept” author of 2 and 3 John, who preferred speaking to writing, simply repeated the tradition, renounced deviation, and on the whole was more limited than the writer of 1 John.

¹³
Dodd,
Epistles
, xlix. Dodd considered “God is love” to be Hellenistic thought hammered out on a Christian anvil. The abstract “love” would not be found in Semitic thought. The Fourth Gospel instead declares that “God is spirit” (John 4:24).

¹⁴
Brown
(Epistles
, 24) stated, “Overall, then, it seems that the variation of minute stylistic features between GJohn and 1 John is not much different from the variation that one can find if one compares one part of GJohn to another part. In particular, the Johannine Jesus speaks as the author of the Johannine Epistles writes.”

¹⁵
Brown,
Epistles
, 24—25; see Painter,
1, 2, and 3 John
, 60.

¹⁶
Brown,
Introduction
, 389.

¹⁷
For a description of the parallels, see T. A. Hoffman, “1 John and the Qumran Scrolls,”
BTB
8 (1978): 117—25; and M.- É. Boismard, “The First Epistle of John and the Writings of Qumran,” in
John and the Dead Sea Scrolls
, ed. J. C. Charlesworth (London: J. Chapman, 1972), 156—65.

¹⁸
Brown
(Epistles
, 30) himself admitted this point: “They could have been written at the same time by different men…or, and this is more probable, at a different time by either the same man (sadder and wiser as he faces a new battle, now from within the movement) or by different men.”

¹⁹
B. H. Streeter,
The Four Gospels
, rev. ed. (London: Macmillan, 1930), 460.

²⁰
H. J. Holtzmann wrote the foundational work on Johannine vocabulary: “Das Problem des ersten johanneischen Briefes in seinem Verhältnis zum Evangelium,”
Jahrbuch für Protestantische Theologiel
(1881): 690—712; 8 (1882): 128—52, 316—42, 460—85. These were later included and adapted in English
by A.
E. Brooke, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles
(New York: Scribner, 1912), i—xix.

²¹
Brooke
(Epistles
, ii—iv) listed 52 separate items, not including 15 occurrences of “in this/this” followed by an explanatory clause.

²²
Only two words are unique to 1 John and John's Gospel, but these are significant: the words
parakletos
(“Comforter”/”advocate”; or “Paraclete”) and
anthrōpoktonos
(“murderer”). The latter is used in John 8:44, where the Devil is described as a “murderer from the beginning.” It is striking that in 1 John 3:8 the word occurs in a section detailing the differences between the children of God and the children of the Devil.

²³
Brooke
(Epistles
, v) noted that one could make the list quite long.

²⁴
Ibid.

²⁵
Examples include:
ekeinos
(“that one”) used as a pronoun; “everyone who is -ing”
(pas ho
+ participle instead
of pantes;
1 John 3:4//John 3:16; similarly,
pan
+ participle where
pantes
might be used; 1 John 5:4//John 6:37); repetition of emphatic words;
kai
+ de combinations;
kathōs
+
kai
combinations; elliptic use of
ou kathōs
(1 John 3:11—12//John 6:58);
hina
used like an infinitive.