Getting Up to Speed: An Essential Introduction to 1 John Barry Clyde Joslin

Barry Clyde Joslin is Assistant Introduction and Purpose of Article nal recipients of the epistle; the epistle’s Professor of Christian Theology at Over against our own evangelical culture, overall purpose (i.e., why did John write?); Boyce College of The Southern Baptist in which compromise, political correct- various issues and theological emphases Theological Seminary. He received his ness, spiritual lethargy, and cultural in 1 John; and the general outline/layout Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary relativity are common, stands the short of the book. These fi ve parts will then be and his Ph.D. from The Southern Baptist letter of 1 John. Few have poured over followed by a brief conclusion. Theological Seminary. its pages without being personally con- fronted with the apostle’s boldness and Authorship and Date stark delineation between those who are These two issues can be treated together “in the light” and those who still walk in since they are so closely related. For most the “darkness” of the world. None should readers who study 1 John, the identifi ca- miss the author’s clear description of what tion of “John” in the title is suffi cient for it means to believe and confess the word ascertaining the author’s identity.1 In addi- of life as those who have been “born of tion, this has been the traditional view of God.” A faithful study of 1 John yields a the church. Yet within New Testament treasure trove of riches for the soul and studies there are many who refute Johan- mind as the reader is confronted by the nine authorship and make alternative apostle’s message in its fi ve short chapters. arguments for the letter’s writer.2 In part Does it matter what one believes? Does the problem arises since nothing within it matter what one believes about Jesus, 1 John unambiguously tells the reader specifi cally? Can one know God and it exactly who the author is.3 The standard have no impact on one’s life? John is bold form for a New Testament letter consisted and lucid on these and other matters and of fi ve parts, the fi rst being a salutation in as such, his words are both timely and which both the author and audience are timeless. Indeed, such a message tran- identifi ed. Yet 1 John does not include scends the centuries and comes to us with this opening salutation.4 Given this fact, it abiding relevance. comes as no surprise that there are many The aim of this article is practical: to conjectures concerning authorship.5 provide a framework for further study, preaching, and teaching of the Bible, spe- Authorship cifi cally, 1 John. What follows is a tool that Those who argue against the tradi- will hopefully prove useful to the pastor, tional view of John’s authorship do so Sunday School teacher, youth director, along several lines and make one (or a Bible study leader, and anyone else want- combination) of several arguments. First, ing an overview of John’s fi rst epistle. since the authorship of the Gospel of John The article addresses the following fi ve is disputed, and given the many similari- subjects: authorship and date; the origi- ties between John and 1 John in terms of 4 style, grammar, and theology, questions the son of Zebedee, the “disciple whom concerning the authorship of 1 John are Jesus loved” (John 13:23; 20:2; 21:7, 20) and inevitable for a number of scholars. Sec- author of the Fourth Gospel, wrote 1 John. ond, others have argued that another man This view is upheld by several strands of by the name of John wrote the epistle. This internal and external evidence. man is likely “the elder” noted in 2 and 3 Concerning external evidence, several John. Yet nothing else is known of “John late first century and second century the elder,” and, as such, this view tells church writings strongly echo the Johan- us nothing other than that an unknown nine language found in 1 John.10 Clement fellow may have written the epistles.6 As of Rome described God’s people as those Donald Guthrie notes, this is diffi cult to who are “perfected in love.” The Didache accept given the early church’s preference 10:5-6 (A.D. 90-120) bears a striking for apostolic authorship of those books resemblance to 1 John 2:17. The Epistle they deemed authoritative.7 Third, some to Diognetus contains such phrases as have suggested that the author of 1 John “God sent his only-begotten Son” and was actually a disciple of the apostle John, we “love him who fi rst loved us,” both and thus the apostle “stands behind” of which are quite Johannine. There are the epistle in some fashion similar to the other possible allusions to 1 John in early way that Simon Peter stands behind the church literature,11 yet as Guthrie notes, Gospel of Mark. The difference is that each of these examples can perhaps be Mark is never said to have been written explained as part of the common milieu by Peter. Fourth, still others have sug- of fi rst century Christian thought and, gested that there are enough differences thus, are not unambiguously dependent on between the gospel of John and 1 John to 1 John.12 Nevertheless they are helpful and warrant different authorship of the two. noteworthy in the overall discussion of Yet such distinctions are not persuasive authorship and authenticity of 1 John. enough to support the claim of two dif- The first direct clear reference to a ferent authors. Far more numerous and Johannine letter is that of Papias, bishop noteworthy are the similarities between of Hierapolis (near Laodicea), who is 1 John and the Fourth Gospel.8 Finally, said to have quoted from “John’s former many have suggested that all Johannine epistle.”13 The fi rst direct dependence on writings are actually the product of a 1 John comes from Polycarp, a disciple “Johannine Community” or “Johannine of John himself, who wrote a letter to School,” and thus are not the writing of the church at Philippi (A.D. 110-120) that the apostle John. Such a “community” is likely dependent on 1 John and/or 2 is said to have been taught and led by John.14 Irenaeus (A.D. 180) knows of the the beloved disciple, which eventually fi rst two letters of John and attributes produced the Johannine writings. Thus, them to John the Lord’s disciple who such writings are not the product of the wrote the Fourth Gospel.15 After the time apostle, but products of a group of John’s of Irenaeus, the evidence is plentiful. In disciples written at a later time.9 conclusion, the external evidence for the Yet in spite of the above possibilities, a author being the apostle John is consistent, more compelling argument can be made and the fact remains that in church history in favor of the traditional view that John, 1 John is never attributed to anyone other 5 than the apostle John. John around A.D. 90. Smalley notes that Second is the internal evidence. Since this allows enough time “for a sharpening a writer is nowhere named in 1 John, all of the heterodox opinions on the part of matters of internal evidence hinge on its some members of John’s community.”22 connection to the Fourth Gospel. The For those scholars who maintain Johan- similarities between the two writings are nine authorship, the majority favor a date notable.16 Both have a formal dualism that close to the last decade of the fi rst century. polarizes matters into stark antitheses Given the available evidence for author- such as darkness and light, love and hate, ship and dating, this is an appropriate and truth and lie, belief and unbelief, obedi- acceptable conclusion. ence and disobedience, life and death, children of God and children of the devil. Place of Writing and Audience On such dualisms, D. A. Carson notes that Place of Writing John absolutely forbids the “fuzzy think- There is consistent evidence that the ing and relativism that are characteristic apostle John relocated to Ephesus dur- of our age.”17 These are fundamental ing the Jewish War of A.D. 66-70, that he issues that the writer of both the Fourth planted churches after moving to Ephe- Gospel and 1 John is concerned with, and sus, and that he was one of the foremost such common themes point to a common leaders in Asia Minor.23 Further, histori- authorship.18 Both use the unique terms cal accounts inform us that other church “Paraclete”19 and “one and only Son” (cf. leaders would make the trek to Ephesus “only-begotten Son” or “unique Son”).20 in order to hear John recount stories about Both are marked by the same simple Jesus and to listen to the teaching of the syntax and a lack of conjunctions between apostle. Ancient traditions originating in sentences. In short, there is signifi cant Ephesus also inform us that John’s tomb external and internal evidence that point is in Ephesus. Therefore, it is not reach- to and support the traditional view of ing to assume that the apostle John was apostolic authorship of 1 John. The evi- an evangelist, church planter, and pastor dence therefore points to the author being in the Mediterranean world whose fi rst- John the apostle, son of Zebedee. hand knowledge of Jesus’ life, teachings and ministry is woven into this epistle. Date If we accept that John the apostle, son Audience of Zebedee, wrote 1 John, then it follows We are limited in what we know about that it was written within his lifetime. the recipients of 1 John given that no spe- Additionally, the date of the epistle is cifi c group or individual is mentioned. Yet tied to the date of John’s Gospel, and the by means of inductive study we can gain question arises as to which was fi rst.21 some insight into John’s community.24 The The date is further narrowed when we epistle presupposes a particular pastoral consider the matter of John’s purpose to situation written to an actual church of counter Docetism or proto-Gnosticism believers united around a common con- (see below). Early forms of Gnosticism fession of faith in Christ. For John, this arose towards the close of the fi rst century confession establishes the community. A.D., and it seems warranted to date 1 For this reason, it is essential to confess 6 something concrete and distinct about direct quotations from the Old Testa- Jesus Christ (that he is the Son of God ment, Simon Kistemaker suggests that the who has come in the fl esh), apart from impression is left that John’s readers were which a person is not part of the Christian in fact mostly Gentile, though he would community.25 not rule out a Jewish contingent.33 Second, The letter was not written in a vacuum, they appear not to be recent converts to but rather to a specifi c group of second or Christianity, but have heard the message third generation Asiatic churches faced of Christ “from the beginning” (2:24; 3:11). with doctrinal and moral confl icts.26 What Third, the consistent evidence for John’s is clear is that the writer speaks tenderly ministry in Ephesus would mean that he to the recipients, addressing them as succeeded Paul and Timothy as pastor.34 “dear friends” and “little children.” He Therefore the author presumably lived also uses the fi rst-person pronouns “we” among those to whom he wrote.35 and “I,” thereby demonstrating a personal Therefore it may be concluded that John and pastoral accent that has few rivals in the apostle wrote 1 John from the Ephesus the whole of the New Testament. Brooke region to the circle of Asiatic churches,36 notes the centrality of the pastoral role of which Ephesus was the center, which when he writes that the biblical author were Gentile-Jewish in their makeup. This “is a pastor fi rst, an orthodox theologian area would also include the territory of the only afterwards.”27 seven churches mentioned in Rev 2-3. Yet this pastor also writes with absolute apostolic authority and without fear.28 On Purpose of Epistle the one hand, he commands the audience, There was much syncretism of reli- and on the other he calls the opponents gious thought in Asia Minor given the “liars” (2:4, 22; 4:20), unequivocally level of intellectual activity of the cities asserting that they are sons of the devil there, especially Ephesus. Bruce asserts, (3:10), antichrists (2:18, 22; 4:3), and false “[T]here is ample contemporary evidence prophets (4:1). Though John is focused on of syncretism in life and thought, of the rebutting the heresy of these opponents, fusion of their ancestral beliefs and prac- John Stott is correct in his assertion that tices with features from the older ethnic the apostle’s foremost concern is to protect religions of Asia Minor and from more his beloved “little children.”29 On the one recent mystery cults and philosophical hand one senses John’s deep affection trends.”37 Against this backdrop one can for Christ’s sheep,30 and on the other his better grasp the words of Paul when he intolerance for those who would pervert warns the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:29- the “word of life” that he proclaims. This 30 concerning “savage wolves” that will is the voice of a pastor and theologian. arise and false teachers that will come Gary Burge states that John’s commu- from within the Ephesian church who nity consisted of a mix of Jews and Greeks will “speak perverse things” and “draw with a common bond and fi rm allegiance away the disciples after them.” Paul’s grief to Christ.31 Given that there are few allu- over the churches in Asia is especially sions to the Old Testament in the epistle pronounced in 2 Tim 1 when he writes (though John’s theology is clearly shaped that all in Asia turned away from him by his Jewish understanding32) and no (v. 15).38 If we are correct in our dating 7 and provenance of 1 John, then it is not antichrists. In the Johannine epistles, too surprising to fi nd that some three the “antichrists” essentially taught false decades after the events recorded in Acts doctrines about Christ. Specifi cally, they 20 we fi nd that matters have escalated in denied that Jesus was the Christ who had Ephesus. Indeed Paul’s words have come come in the fl esh. They also did not take true; the Ephesian believers are facing sin to be a serious matter.42 A number of signifi cant trouble from within their own them had already seceded from the con- ranks, according to 1 John. fessing community (2:18-19). In addition A crisis arose in John’s community as to referring to them as “antichrists,” John a result of individuals who advocated a also labels them “false prophets” (4:1). different understanding of Christ and Further, though they had seceded from the nature of Christianity.39 False teach- the community, they were still attempting ers were causing trouble and misleading to infl uence the community to accept their John’s “little children.” It is within this aberrant teaching (2:26). As such, John’s context that the apostle writes with such community of believers needed a word a polemical tone.40 It is his affection for of encouragement and more importantly, the beloved (2:7; 3:2, 21; 4:1, 7, 11) and the assurance from their pastor and spiritual truth concerning Christ that fuels the father (5:13).43 Brooke remarks that it is epistle’s polemical and pastoral tone. True essential “to remember that his primary Christian fellowship (koinōnia) is tied to a objects are to exhort and to edify.”44 proper Christian confession, and where there is false teaching about Christ, there Heretical Teaching is no true fellowship with God or with What did the heretics in John’s com- those who abide in him. Such is the beauty munity teach?45 We have none of their of 1 John—John’s refusal to compromise writings (if there were any to begin with), with false doctrine concerning the person and the information about them that we and work of Christ. On this subject Carson do have is from reading John’s rebuttal of is worth quoting at length. He writes, their teachings, the specifi cs of which are the subject of some debate. Yet by utilizing Christianity . . . embraces truth, the denial of which merely proves John’s affi rmations and denials, we see one is not a Christian; it defines that the opponents denied that Jesus was conduct, the systematic fl outing of the Christ (2:22), the Son of God who came which demonstrates one is outside the camp. Precisely because our age in the fl esh as God’s Son (2:23; 4:2, 15) by thinks that ambiguity and relativ- means of water and blood (5:6). They also ism are signs of intellectual and even apparently downplayed the magnitude moral maturity, John’s immovable tests are the more necessary as we of sin, did not keep the commandments seek to construct inductively-shaped themselves, and argued that they were biblical theology.41 not subject to sin (1:6-10). Their own con- Within this community there were duct lacked love and was schismatic, and those who had already seceded, whom was therefore a denial of the gospel they John refers to as “antichrists.” The use of claimed to believe. Further, they alone this term is telling. John acknowledges claimed to have the right teaching, which that one day the Antichrist will come led some in John’s community to doubt (2:18), yet now there are already many whether or not they themselves had the 8 Spirit (2:26-27). could the Christ (a spirit-being) become flesh, which by definition is evil? The Identity of the Opponents realm of the material is the locus of sin Just who were the “secessionists”? We and evil, and the divine Christ could, must be careful when trying to identify thus, never actually become a man. There- John’s opponents precisely. After consid- fore, Jesus only seemed to be a man, and ering the essence of their teaching, we can only seemed to suffer and die. compare this to what is known about the Some 1 John scholars have found the various heretical movements that arose Docetist argument quite plausible, and in the late fi rst century. Then we may ask there is merit in it.48 However, there are if John’s adversaries can be tied to any critical differences between the seceders such movement. The question concern- and Docetism, such as the fact that that ing the identifi cation of John’s opponents the Docetists had strong Jewish tenden- has warranted three main answers:46 (1) cies, yet there is nothing to counter this Docetism, (2) the teachings of Cerinthus, in 1 John. Therefore, what is known about or (3) some early form of Gnosticism them does not fi t the group of seceders of (proto-Gnosticism). Given what is known 1 John.49 at this point, these are the most likely of the available options. Of these, the third Cerinthianism is the most promising explanation of the Second, some have suggested that the current data. teachings of Cerinthus are in view, and such a suggestion is plausible. What we Docetism know about him chiefl y comes through First, Docetism (from the Greek word the writings of Irenaeus and Eusebius.50 dokeō, “to seem”) was an early church Cerinthus was an early Christian heretic heresy that argued that the humanity (ca. A.D. 100) who taught that the world and sufferings of the earthly Christ only was not created by the God of the Bible, seemed real, yet were not real. Jesus seemed but by a Demiurge or the angels who like a human, but actually was not. What shaped it from formless matter. Jesus was we know about this heresy comes mainly a mere man, but at Jesus’ baptism, the from the writings of Ignatius of Antioch divine “Christ” (an eternal and divine (A.D. 35-107), who was led to Rome and power) came upon him. The “Christ” left martyred for his Christian beliefs. Given Jesus the man at some point prior to the its emphasis on a higher knowledge and crucifi xion since the divine Christ, being reasons for rejecting the incarnation spirit and thus good, cannot suffer.51 Thus of Christ (such as material-immaterial Cerinthus divided the earthly Jesus (who dualism), Docetism is a branch of the is man/fl esh) from the heavenly Christ larger “theosophical potpourri” known as (who is spirit). Gnosticism (see below).47 Docetism held Yet, like Docetism, there are problems that spirit is good and matter is evil and with associating the seceders in 1 John that there could be no direct mingling of with Cerinthus and his followers. Colin the “Supreme God,” who is spirit, and the Kruse notes that there is no evidence to material universe (including man), since suggest that Cerinthus was ever part of matter is essentially evil. Therefore, how the Johannine community, and there is 9 much known error attributed to Cerinthus First (like Docetism), Gnosticism was that fi nds no mention in 1 John.52 In addi- anchored in dualism that dichotomizes tion, if John were in fact writing against a matter (which is evil), and spirit (which specifi c individual such as Cerinthus, why is good). It was thought that the Supreme is he not named? If the account from Poly- God could not have created the world carp about John and Cerinthus is accurate since it is matter and thus evil. Since concerning the bathhouse scene in Ephe- matter is evil, there can be no biblical sus, then the apostle knew Cerinthus. doctrine of creation, incarnation, or bodily Therefore, why not mention Cerinthus resurrection, and thus the Divine Logos by name if it is his specifi c teachings that could never be united with human fl esh. are in view? If we accept the apostle John Second, knowledge was essential and its to be the author of 3 John, then we fi nd acquisition was of chief importance. Those that he does in fact name his opponent in who were enlightened had been granted that epistle, Diotrephes. Diotrephes does special knowledge by revelation from not accept John (3 John 9-11), and his life God, and it was via this knowledge that is evil and not worthy of imitation. He one’s spirit could be saved, salvation being is opposed by John for what was likely defined as freedom from the shackles a combination of ecclesiastical and doc- of the body.55 Therefore there can be no trinal disagreement,53 and John opposes bodily resurrection at all, since salvation Diotrephes by naming him. Thus, if John is by defi nition freedom from the body. were writing against a specifi c individual Knowledge is only possessed by the (or a particular known teacher such as spiritually elite “elect,” within whom is Cerinthus) in 1 John, it seems strange that the capacity for liberation from the matter he did not name him, since he does name of this world. Third, in Gnosticism there his opponent in 3 John. Thus, taken with is a Supreme God, the Ultimate Father the other evidence, it seems less likely that (separate from the Demiurge who is the the Cerinthus option is preferable. evil Old Testament creator god), from whom proceeds a number of lesser beings Proto-Gnosticism known as aeons. The Old Testament God Rather than the suggestions above, the is inferior to the Supreme God, the father preferable view is that some early form of Christ. This theology/philosophy did of Gnosticism (“proto-Gnosticism”) is not fully mature until some 50 to 200 maintained by John’s opponents. “Gnos- years after 1 John was written, and was ticism” (from the word gnōsis, meaning represented by a wide variety of gnostic “knowledge”) itself is quite diffi cult to groups. pin down since it was an amalgamation Most scholars today agree that John is of Jewish, Christian, and pagan teach- not countering full-orbed Gnosticism.56 ings.54 Gnosticism as a whole is quite Yet most agree that John is not coun- broad, and, to add to the confusion, both tering the other common suggestions Docetism and the teachings of Cerinthus either. What most affirm is that there were fundamentally gnostic. Yet there are are elements of each of these three sug- a few main points from which the various gestions found in the teachings of John’s sub-groups develop their core aberrant adversaries. As such, “proto-Gnosticism” teachings. has been put forward in recent decades 10 as a more careful and acceptable view in between the two. As one commissioned light of more recent research (such as the by Christ Himself (John 20:21-23), John Nag Hammadi texts). Proto-Gnosticism carries out this commission by loving, is Gnosticism in its early forms, and was teaching, exhorting, and assuring his gestating at the time of the composition fl ock as well as censuring false doctrine of 1 John. Thus, in light of the available and its adherents in no uncertain terms. evidence, Carson concludes, This is the purpose of the epistle.

It still seems best to conclude that John is combating proto-Gnosti- Issues and Emphases cism, an embryonic Docetism or John’s Three Tests Cerinthianism that has already Given the above section concerning divided Christians. Over against the emphases of his opponents . . . John John’s purpose and the opponents, it stresses the truth that Jesus is Christ comes as no surprise that the main theo- come in the fl esh and that genuine belief in this Jesus works itself out in logical emphasis in the letter is Christol- obedience to the commands of God ogy. For John, what one believes about 57 and in love for God’s people. Jesus (orthodoxy/doctrine) has a direct connection to how one lives (orthopraxy/ In conclusion, it is preferable to view ethics). Stated simply, right belief will be John as having written this epistle in order evident in how one lives, since “the one to counter an early form of Gnosticism who says ‘I know him’ yet does not keep that had become infl uential in his commu- his commandments is a liar” (2:3). Thus, nity of believers. False teachers propound- these two themes dominate the epistle: ing this philosophy had been a part of the belief and obedience. To have the former community and had left, leaving behind necessitates the latter, and the latter dem- a community that needed assurance from onstrates the validity of the former. These its apostolic pastor. As their pastor, spiri- two themes are broken into three familiar tual father, and the Lord’s apostle, John tests to which John continually returns: saw the importance of combating the false the test of doctrine, the test of obedience, teaching and of drawing proverbial “lines and the test of love.58 They are “tests” in in the sand” that determined what was the manner of a “litmus test.” A litmus Christian and what was not; his opposi- test is used in the fi eld of chemistry to tion is rooted in his pastoral leadership test for chemical acidity or basicity using and oversight of the sheep. Such tend- litmus paper. The test tells whether the ing and shepherding involves teaching, chemical is an acid or a base. Similarly, assuring, discerning, and rebuking, but John’s three “tests” assure one that he or not inventing. John had no new message. she is in fact a genuine Christian or not, Both then and now the pastor’s role is since genuine Christians are marked by not to invent or to be innovative so much right belief, obedience to God, and love as to be faithful to pass on and preserve for one another in the same manner that the apostolic gospel message. The reader an acid or base is marked by a certain pH senses John’s deep love for his message level ranging from 0 to 14. And in John’s as well as his people; this is evident as theology, there is no reading of “7” (or he encourages and assures them of their neutral). One is either a 0 or a 14! true confession. John loves God’s people These are given not as a way to exclude and sound doctrine; there is no choosing 11 some from the community of faith. of Christ in no uncertain terms, and to Indeed, the seceders had already left (2:19). insure that those who know Christ cannot Rather, they are presented as a way to simply add teachings about him in order assure believers that their confession to form a more palatable Christianity. For is genuine, and that their lives dem- John, a believer must adhere to specifi c onstrate their valid confession of Jesus things about Christ in order to be legiti- as the Christ. Here there is an intricate mate. One must believe that Jesus is the connection between believing, keeping the Son of God (1:3, 7; 2:22, 23, 24; 3:8, 23; 4:9, commands, and loving fellow Christians 10, 14, 15; 5:5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20), who has (3:23-24; 5:1-3). come in the fl esh (1:1-4; 4:2; cf. John 1:14) by water and blood (5:6), who is the Christ The Doctrinal Test (2:22; 5:1; cf. 1:3; 2:1; 2:23; 4:2; 5:6, 20), who First is the test of right doctrine and suffered and died for sin (1:7; 2:1-2, 12; belief concerning Christ. Given the tol- 4:10). Right belief must be distinguished erant and syncretistic nature of Greco- from error. Consequently, John tells them Roman religion, adding another deity not to believe every spirit, but to test every to the mix was not signifi cant. However, spirit (4:1) to see if it is truth or error (4:6). claiming that this deity became a man to John Stott notes, “So behind every prophet suffer the punishment of death in order to is a spirit, and behind each spirit either give eternal life to all who believe in him God or the devil . . . . It is their origin was signifi cant. Early in the church’s life that matters.”59 Christian faith is thus not the temptation to conform Christ to the without discrimination and discernment surrounding culture was a real allure- since “true faith examines its object before ment to which some had capitulated. reposing confi dence in it.”60 And what is This is paralleled in today’s religious the test? It is a doctrinal test about the per- climate. Many core doctrines have been son of Christ (4:2). Those who fail this test called into question and debate (such as are false prophets from the world and not God’s exhaustive foreknowledge and the from God (4:1, 3-6). John leaves no room authority and suffi ciency of Scripture) for error or compromise in such matters. by fellow evangelicals. John’s standing In fact, the centrality of right belief about fi rm and drawing an uncompromising Christ is of such importance that John line in the sand concerning the matter of says where this is denied the person is a core doctrines serves as an example for liar, does not have the Father, and is an today’s church leaders to contend for the antichrist (2:22-23). God has commanded faith in the midst of a religious climate “that we believe in the name of his Son seemingly bent on eroding the Church’s Jesus Christ” (3:23), and therefore sav- doctrinal foundation. Other issues such ing faith has specifi c content. Faith will not as the acceptance of homosexuality by save; faith in Christ saves. Their assurance mainline denominations further accent is tied to their believing correctly about the move to soften the very nature of the Christ. This comes from their believing gospel until it is palatable to all, therefore right things about Jesus (5:12-13), knowing saving none. that right belief means that they have been In contrast, John takes pains to teach “born of God” (5:1) and are thus “kept by the centrality of the person and work God” (5:18). Right belief necessarily leads 12 to obedience and love, the subjects of tests The Test of Obedience two and three. Yet the test of doctrine cannot stand However, a word of caution is neces- on its own, and genuine believers will sary lest we make Christian assurance also pass the test of obedience. Authentic have its basis in one’s actions.61 John does Christianity believes certain things and is not mean that one becomes entitled to both visibly and tangibly practiced.64 John assurance and confi dence before God as uses the term “commandment(s)” (entolē) long as he or she lives righteously. Rather, fourteen times with the assumption that the basis for one’s assurance is Christ, the believers will obey the commandment(s). righteous one, who is our advocate before In 2:3-6, John’s readers can be assured that God (2:1). He has effectively removed they have come to know God by keep- the wrath of God and cleansed all who ing his commandments, and prayers are believe in his name (2:2, 12; 3:5; 4:10). It is answered for those who obey the com- essential not to mistake the place of “doing mandments (3:22-23).65 In contrast, the one righteousness” (3:7) in John’s theology. who claims to know God, and yet does Assurance rests in the work of Christ who not keep his commandments is a liar. The is (present tense) our advocate before God. “liars” in 1 John are John’s opponents, but Yet John is also quite clear that the one by implication the same could be said of who has been “born of God” (i.e., spiritual anyone who claims to believe in Christ, rebirth) will be transformed. In short, “it yet does not live a life marked by obedi- is unthinkable that a life that has truly ence to Him. known the power of the gospel should John is especially clear on this point in not have been changed by it.”62 3:6-10. After stating that sin is lawlessness, For instance, consider 2:29, “If you that all who practice sin commit lawless- know that He is righteous, you know also ness, and that Christ was revealed in order that every one who practices [lit. “does”] to remove sins (3:4-5), the apostle writes, righteousness has been born of Him.” God’s “Each one who abides in him does not sin; act of the rebirth precedes the doing of each one who sins has neither seen him righteousness. The present actions of lov- nor has known him” (3:6). In contrast, the ing God and the present fact of knowing one who does/practices righteousness is God are rooted in a past event, namely, righteous just as Christ is righteous (3:7). being born of God (4:7). Further, all who The absolute statements found in 3:6 and love the Father also will love their brothers 3:9 look like John is saying that believers and sisters in Christ—all others who have never and cannot sin. These verses have been “born of Him” (5:1). The one who has stirred no little debate. This is particularly been born of God overcomes the world, true when compared to 2:1 and 1:8-10 in and this victory is tied to faith (5:4). The which John acknowledges that believers content of faith is explicit—faith in Jesus as do in fact sometimes sin. Though a diffi - the Son of God (5:5).63 For John, obedience cult exegetical issue, it is not to be thought and love in the present are the logical fruit that John contradicts himself. Rather, the of the rebirth in the past. One’s life refl ects confusion over the absolute statements the transformation of saving faith, and our of 3:6 and 3:9 can be signifi cantly quelled assurance is ultimately grounded in the by considering both the grammar and the person and work of Christ our Advocate. surrounding context. 13 Consider the following. The verb forms the believer and sin is that the believer of “sin” in 3:6 and 3:9 as well as “do/com- no longer habitually sins and continues mit sin” in 3:8 (cf. 5:18) are all present in sin.70 Baugh concludes that if John had tense forms and can be translated in the wished to express perfectionism, there sense of “continually sins,” in a habitual was a way to do so using normal gram- sense, since the present tense often has matical conventions of the day, such as this meaning.66 The meaning is not that a utilizing a different tense.71 believer can never sin, having somehow Some have disagreed with this inter- lost the ability to sin once converted.67 pretation,72 suggesting that John’s gram- Rather, John draws out the differences matical usage is not a strong enough between those who are God’s and those argument. Some maintain that the pre- who are not in a most direct and unam- ceding argument based on the present biguous way: one’s life is marked by sin tense actually serves to weaken John’s and the other’s is not.68 In the second half point in this passage, since what John of 3:6 (“everyone who sins has not seen says is meant to be understood in the him”) the present tense participle should most black and white terms. John makes be understood to mean the one who “con- strong rhetorical statements articulated tinually sins.” Abiding in God means that in the strongest of idealistic terms. The sin is unthinkable (cp. Gal 5:16). In 3:9 the absolute statements should not be soft- Greek literally reads, “Everyone who is ened by appeals to the grammar, even born of God does not do sin . . . and he if contradictions seem to exist on the is not able to sin.” The present tense is surface. Instead, John is arguing for a used here as well, and more than likely perfectionistic ideal,73 i.e., for Christians to it should be interpreted in the same cus- become what they are.74 Believers, who have tomary/habitual sense.69 This is further the seed of God in them (the Holy Spirit, reinforced by the statement in 3:8b that 3:9), never have an excuse to sin. Rather, the “devil sins from the beginning” (not they have power to overcome every sin “sinned”). The devil, and all those who and obey the commands of God. This is are his (lit., “the one who practices/does in contrast to John’s opponents who seem sin” in 3:8a), continually/habitually sin to be arguing that Christians are free to and can do none else. In contrast, and sin.75 Even if this is John’s meaning, it does this is John’s point, those who are from not suggest that Christians are automati- God do not continually/habitually sin. cally sinless. Rather, such black and white John speaks elsewhere of one “doing” the expressions as those found in 3:6 and 3:9 will of God (2:17), and of the one “doing” (cf. 5:18) serve to challenge the believer righteousness (2:29). In each occurrence to perfect obedience. Sinlessness is the what is in view is the idea of the one who proper implication of the new birth and “practices” these things, that is, one’s life is therefore the Christian’s obligation. This is characterized by “doing God’s will” and is in contrast to the seceders, who seemed “doing righteousness,” both of which are to argue that sinlessness has been realized ways of saying that the genuine believer’s in their own lives.76 Thus, a Christian can- life is characterized by obedience to God. not consistently sin, though on occasion Therefore, the likely interpretation of may in fact so do (2:1). John’s absolute statements concerning The perceptive reader will notice that 14 the above interpretive options arrive at life of the genuine believer is marked by essentially the same point by taking dif- love for fellow believers that is not to be ferent routes, though the former view is equated to mere sentimentalism (3:11-18). preferable. Both of these plausible options Schlatter asserts that instead of love being affi rm that what is in view is that John is seen as a heightened emotion, for John it making the strongest appeal for holiness is “the will to the generous deed.”79 Love and obedience in the believer who has the for the brethren is an indicator (test) that a power to overcome every sin and obey by person has “passed out of death into life” means of God who indwells him (4:16) (3:14). Further, that love is an emphasis in and Christ who guards him (5:18). Both 1 John is born out by the raw statistics: the perspectives maintain that John does not verb form is used twenty-eight times in contradict himself in 1:8-2:1. It logically seventeen different verses, while the noun follows that those who have been born form is used eighteen times in fourteen of God are fundamentally distinct from different verses.80 those that are not (i.e., the seceders against Moreover, the injunction to love one whom John is writing), and the difference another (4:7) is based in God the Father is a life of abiding in God and obedience who is love (4:8).81 Love is rooted in action to him in contrast to those who practice and this is seen in God’s sending of his sin and are thus of the devil (3:8, 10).77 A Son to give life to those who believe (4:9). transformed life characterized by obedi- His love is made evident in his concrete ence is in view. Sin marks the children of action of sending Christ to bear the wrath the devil; obedience marks the children of God and to cleanse believers from of God. guilt and sin (4:10).82 Love, therefore, In conclusion, John further distin- is “manifested” or “made known” in a guishes Christians and non-Christians tangible way. God is the one who loved by the test of obedience. Do we obey the fi rst, and believers are only able to love commands of God and live righteously, because God has done so already (4:10, or not? Those who have the seed of God 19). He is love’s origin and source; love abiding in them do not practice sin. This originates with God, and thus all who is the second of 1 John’s tests, the test of are born of God love. God is invisible, obedience. yet is visibly displayed in the believing community when the members display The Test of Love love for one another. This is the meaning The third and fi nal test is the test of of “God abides in us and his love [for us] 83 love. The reader should note that the tests is perfected84 in us” (4:12). To be born of of obedience and love are woven together God necessitates that the same trait of “the frequently, and Carson is quick to note begetter” is found in those whom he has that they are tightly bound.78 Consider begotten. Thus, the children of God are 5:2, “By this we know that we love the evident by loving one another in tangible children of God, when we love God and ways (4:11-12). Note the test in 4:12: “if we observe his commandments” (NASU). love one another, [then] God abides in us.” Obedience and love are linked, since to This is echoed in 4:16 and recalls 4:7. God obey his commandments means that has demonstrated his love, and those who we love one another and vice versa. The are part of the believing community have 15 responded positively to it by belief in the (2:18; 4:1), because their new “spiritual” Son.85 Finally, the one who loves will have knowledge is a lie that leads them to deny no fear in the coming day of judgment, but the person and work of Christ (2:22-23). rather will be confi dent in that day (4:17- The seceders have not received the Spirit. 18). Conversely, the one who lacks love For John, the Spirit testifi es to the truth; (for John, the secessionists are primarily therefore, the believing community must in view) will have fear in the day of judg- stand fi rm and hold to that which they ment, because that one demonstrably does received from the beginning (2:24). not know God and will thus face punish- Since they have the Spirit, they know ment. This is the third test—does one love about “all things” (2:27). This must be the family of God? understood in context. If John were These, then, are John’s three tests for all saying that they know all things about who make a claim to know God: the tests everything and that there was no need of doctrine, obedience, and love. Carson for teaching of any kind whatsoever, then rightly contends, “One cannot pass one John’s very writing of the epistle would or two out of three of these tests; in John’s violate such a statement. Yet the context view, they stand or fall together.”86 In con- illumines what John really means. John trast, the seceders from the community writes of the truth that Jesus is indeed the failed all three. Christ, the truth that they have heard from the beginning. The Spirit testifi es to them The Holy Spirit about this truth and causes the believer to An additional theological emphasis be able to detect the doctrinal error being in 1 John is the Spirit.87 The Holy Spirit is espoused by the seceders.91 They are in no the “anointing” (chrisma) that all believ- need of the seceders’ teaching about this ers receive from Christ (2:20, 27).88 It is matter and they lack nothing. Even John important to note that this anointing is states that he has not written to tell them not from the Holy Spirit, but is from Christ the truth since they already know it (2:21)! and is the Holy Spirit.89 The term used in There is likely an allusion here to the New 2:20 and 2:27 (chrisma) only appears here Covenant passage found in Jer 31:31-34, in the entire New Testament. Outside where it was promised, “‘They will not the New Testament it refers to anointing teach again, each man his neighbor and people with oil, such as those undergoing each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the baptism.90 The Spirit has a specifi c teach- Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from ing role which recalls Jesus’ words to his the least of them to the greatest of them,’ disciples in John 14:26, 15:26, and 16:12-15. declares the Lord.”92 As such, the readers of 1 John can be com- Finally, concerning the Holy Spirit that forted knowing that they are not lacking abides in them (2:27), there is a paral- in the Holy Spirit, and, therefore, are not lel idea in 3:24 (cf. 4:4) where John tells lacking in knowledge of spiritual matters them that God abides in them, and also (2:26-27). This is in contrast to the seceders in 3:9 where “God’s seed” refers to the who likely were arguing their “varsity” Holy Spirit. As such they are defended status over against the others’ “junior- against the deceptive teachings of the varsity” status. Yet John here says that the antichrists and by which they become seceders are antichrists and false prophets incapable of apostasy.93 “Seed of God” 16 (sperma autou) in 3:9 is a “bold metaphor Another acknowledges that fewer things which, when unpacked, refers to the Holy are more diffi cult in Johannine studies Spirit who effects spiritual birth in those that outlining 1 John.97 However, Carson who believe.”94 It is the Holy Spirit who is and Moo contend that a larger structure God’s means for accomplishing the new can be ascertained, and the idea that it and spiritual birth, thereby making one cannot is rather haphazard and unneces- God’s child. Such (re)birthing language sary.98 Most divide the book into either likely lies behind 1 John’s consistent famil- two or three main sections, with an ial terminology in the epistle. The apostle introduction before (1:1-4), and a conclu- sees the believing community to be the sion/epilogue after (5:13– 21).99 Thus the children of God the Father, who sent his question is how to divide 1:5-5:12? one and only Son in the fl esh as an atoning Traditionally, a two-part confi guration sacrifi ce and cleansing for sin, who accom- divides the text at 2:29, yielding a 1:5-2:29 plishes the act of the rebirth by means of unit and a 3:1-5:12 unit.100 In recent years his seed, the Holy Spirit, on behalf of all greater attention has been given to this who believe in the name of his Son. For confi guration, with slight variations. First, John, the community of believers is the the Gospel of John has two main sections family of God, born of God, by means of with a prologue before and epilogue the Spirit who affi rms the truth. after,101 and it very well could be that John In conclusion, 1 John is a letter densely models the structure of 1 John after that packed with matters of doctrine and of his Gospel. Second, Brown asserts that practice. Most of the epistle’s major John makes two chief assertions about themes were introduced above, yet there God in his Gospel, namely, that “God is are a number of other matters that could Light” and “God is Love” (John 1:5; 4:6) be mentioned for further study. These and as such 1 John mimics this thematic include: John’s theme of “abiding,” the form thusly: textual question in 5:7, the eschatological I. Introduction (1:1-4) references (2:18, 28; 4:17, etc.), his emphasis II. Part 1: God is Light (1:5-3:10) on sin, and his emphasis on eternal life, to III. Part 2: God is Love (3:11-5:12) 102 name a few. If the reader is interested in IV. Conclusion (5:13-21) these matters, he or she should consult the Each main division begins with a simi- bibliographic references in the endnotes lar statement, “This is the message . . . God for a number of helpful and accessible is Light” (1:5), and “This is the message . . . resources such as the better commentaries God is Love” (3:11). Such an organization and dictionaries. has found support by recent Johannine scholars such as Brown, Burge, and Akin Layout of 1 John and has many strengths, one of which is First John resists easy outlining95 and, its simplicity.103 many of the best commentaries are split A three-part division also fi nds sig- over the layout of the book. The letter is nifi cant support among scholars today normally divided into either two or three and according to Brown’s analysis is more main sections, yet more than one has frequently accepted than other propos- concluded that 1 John cannot and should als.104 Of those who maintain a three-fold not be divided into such major sections.96 division, Schnackenburg has received 17 much attention and acceptance, and his Conclusion outline is as follows: We cannot measure the importance of Bible study for the Christian. Children I. Introduction (1:1-4) II. Part 1: Fellowship with God of God are sustained by every word that Means Walking in the Light proceeds from the mouth of God, and (1:5-2:17) there is nothing that feeds the believer III. Part 2: The Present Situation of John’s Readers (2:18-3:24) like the worship of God’s people gath- IV. Part 3: The Separation of Those ered around his Word. Theology leads to Who Belong to God from the World (4:1-5:12) doxology, and thus the study of what God V. Conclusion (5:13-21)105 has revealed in 1 John ought to lead his people to worship the one of whom this Schnackenburg asserts that there are revelation speaks. For John, this God is distinct breaks at 2:18 and 4:1 that must be the God of truth who has sent his only taken as markers of the epistle’s divisions. Son to atone for the sins of all who would In this outline, one of John’s ideas leads to believe in him. The common confession another, and the beginnings and endings that Jesus is the Christ is brought about by of each section form recognizable units of the rebirth and produces love and obedi- 106 thought. In each case, there is a focus ence in the lives of the children of God. In on John’s opponents, be they called “anti- calling out error and assuring his fellow christs” (2:18) or “false prophets” (4:1). In believers, John serves as an example of this outline, there is a distinct focus on the pastoral leadership, Christian love, and purpose of John’s writing against specifi c uncompromising commitment both to the opponents. This appears to be preferred Lord and his people. by Carson and Moo, and is adopted by 107 Kistemaker among others. ENDNOTES To be sure, it is diffi cult to be dogmatic 1The superscription (“1 John”) was more concerning which of the above outlines than likely added at a later date when the is correct, since both have strengths and epistles were grouped together, and thus weaknesses. Both two-part and three-part is not part of the original document. outlines (and their variations) have been 2Donald Guthrie acknowledges that most used by scholars, pastors, and church of today’s New Testament scholarship leaders with success. Westcott’s assertion rejects John’s authorship, though he and is as true today as it was when he wrote many other conservative scholars are in 1883, “No single arrangement is able to persuaded that John was in fact respon- take account of the complex development sible for writing the epistle, and thus not of thought which it offers, and of the many persuaded by the historical criticism of connexions which exists between its dif- modern New Testament scholarship. See 108 ferent parts.” Yet regardless of how one Donald Guthrie, New Testament Intro- divides the book, there is near universal duction (4th rev. ed.; Downers Grove, IL: agreement that John circles around a few InterVarsity, 1990), 858-64. basic ideas (particularly the three tests 3Among others, Carson and Moo logi- discussed above) to which he continually cally argue that the question of author- returns. ship ultimately hinges on the authorship of the Gospel of John and the relation 18 between it and the Johannine [DLNT] (ed. Ralph P. Martin and cal Commentary; vol. 51; Waco, TX: epistles (D. A. Carson and Douglas Peter H. Davids; Downers Grove, Word, 1984); Simon J. Kistemaker, J. Moo, An Introduction to the New IL: InterVarsity, 1997]). James, Epistles of John, Peter and Jude Testament (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: See also commentaries on John’s (New Testament Commentary; Zondervan, 2005], 671-72). See also Gospel such as George Beasley- Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995); B. F. A. E. Brooke, A Critical and Exegetical Murray, John (2nd ed.; Word Biblical Westcott, The Epistles of St. John Commentary on the Johannine Epistles Commentary; vol. 36; Nashville: (repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, (International Critical Commen- Thomas Nelson, 1999); F. F. Bruce, 1966); Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of tary; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: John (Pillar New Testament Com- i-xix, 235-42. Eerdmans, 1983); Gerald L. Borchert, mentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 4The five parts are: salutation, John 1-11 (New American Commen- 2000); Gary M. Burge, Letters of John thanksgiving/prayer, body, exhor- tary; vol. 25a; Nashville: Broadman (NIV Application Commentary; tation/instruction, and conclusion. & Holman, 1996); D. A. Carson, The Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996). This basic format is not present in Gospel according to John; (Pillar New 6For a nuanced discussion of this the epistle to the Hebrews either, Testament Commentary; Grand possibility, see Marshall, Epistles, and therefore its author and audi- Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991); Andreas 42-46. Marshall personally prefers ence are much debated as well. Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegeti- to see the apostle John as having These two epistles are the only cal Commentary on the New Testa- written the Gospel and the epistles examples in the New Testament in ment; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004); or being responsible for their con- which neither the author nor the Leon Morris, The Gospel according to tents, yet he maintains that other audience are named. Even 2 and 3 John (New International Commen- suggestions for authorship cannot John include salutations, enigmatic tary on the New Testament; Grand be ruled out (such as the epistles though they be (“The elder to the Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995); and R. having been written by a disciple of elect lady and her children” [2 John]; V. G. Tasker, The Gospel according John and not the apostle himself). “The elder to Gaius” [3 John]). to John (Tyndale New Testament 7Guthrie, New Testament, 863. Guth- 5For the interested reader, ample Commentaries; Grand Rapids: rie goes on to note that 1 John was discussion of authorship of the Eerdmans, 1960). accepted on the basis of its being Gospel of John and the epistles of See also commentaries on 1 John written by an apostle. Therefore, John (and other important introduc- such as F. F. Bruce, The Epistles of were the early church fathers likely tory matters) can be found in such John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, to be confused over two “Johns”? New Testament works as those by 1970); Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John This is doubtful. Guthrie (New Testament Introduc- (New American Commentary; vol. 8See Carson and Moo, Introduction, tion), Carson and Moo (An Introduc- 38; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 672-75. Also note the comments tion to the New Testament), as well 2001); John R. W. Stott, The Epistles of by Stott, “Even a superfi cial read- as the many relevant articles in the John (Tyndale New Testament Com- ing of the Gospel and the First New Dictionary of Biblical Theology mentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Epistle reveals a striking similarity [NDBT] (ed. T. D. Alexander and B. 1960); I. Howard Marshall, The between the two in both subject- S. Rosner; Downers Grove, IL: Inter- Epistles of John (New International matter and syntax. The general Varsity, 2000), Dictionary of Jesus and Commentary on the New Testa- subjects treated are much the same” the Gospels [DJG] (ed. Joel B. Green, ment; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, (Stott, Epistles of John, 17). See also Scot McKnight, and I. H. Marshall; 1978); Raymond Brown, The Epistles Marshall, Epistles, 33; Guthrie, New Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, of John (Anchor Bible; vol. 30; Garden Testament, 871-79; and Westcott, 1992), and Dictionary of the Later City, NY: Doubleday, 1982); Stephen Epistles, xxx. For a comparison of New Testament and Its Developments S. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John (Word Bibli- the Gospel of John and 1 John, see 19 Brooke, Critical and Exegetical Com- epistle (Epistles, 14), and Carson and berger, John, 437; cf. 436 n. 70). mentary, i-xix, 235-42. Moo state that the above reference 20See John 1:14, 18 (variant reading); 9For a brief discussion on the “Johan- in Polycarp is “surely dependent on 3:16 and 1 John 4:9. The term here nine Community” hypothesis, see 2 John 7 and 1 John 4:2-3; cf. 1 John is monogenēs. the recent commentary on John’s 2:22” (Introduction, 670-71). 21Some date John’s Gospel before A.D. Gospel by Köstenberger (John, 1-8). 15Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.16.18. 70, such as J. A. T. Robinson (Redat- For more, see Brown, Epistles, 14-35; 16Brooke has compiled an extensive ing the New Testament [Philadelphia: idem, The Community of the Beloved list. See Brooke, Critical and Exegeti- Westminster Press, 1976], 254-311), Disciple (New York: Paulist Press, cal Commentary, i-xix, 235-42. See while others argue its being written 1979). also Guthrie, New Testament, 872-77. well into the second century, and 10See Stott, Epistles, 14-15; Carson and Contra C. H. Dodd (The Johannine thus not by John the apostle. See for Moo, Introduction, 670-71; Guthrie, Epistles [Moffatt New Testament example Georg Strecker (The Johan- New Testament, 858-59. Commentary; London: Hodder and nine Letters [Hermeneia; Minneapo- 11See for example the Epistle of Barn- Stoughton, 1946]), who maintains lis: Fortress, 1996], xxxv-xlii). abas, Shepherd of Hermas, the writ- that the similarities are due to imita- 22Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, xxxii. ings of Justin Martyr, the writings tion, and not common authorship. 23Eusebius, (Ecclesiastical History of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, 17D. A. Carson, “The Johannine Writ- 3.23.3) cites Irenaeus, the second Tertullian, and Dionysius, and the ings,” in NDBT, 133. Carson rightly century bishop of Lyons (see also Muratorian Canon, all of which are observes that such dualisms are not Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.22.5; from the mid to late second and ontological, but formal. 3.3.4). Much of this information third centuries. 18Adolf Schlatter, The Theology of the comes from a letter written from 12Guthrie, New Testament, 858-59. Apostles: The Development of New Polycrates (bishop of Ephesus) to 13This information comes from the Testament Theology (trans. Andreas Victor (bishop of Rome) in the late early church historian Eusebius, Köstenberger; Grand Rapids: Baker, second century, which was later who added the word “former” in 1999), 124-25, 145-49. recorded by Eusebius (Ecclesiastical his recording of the Papias account. 19In the Gospel of John, the Holy History 3.31.3; 5.24.2). See Carson See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History Spirit is referred to as the Paraclete and Moo, Introduction, 675-76; Gary 3.29.17. Eusebius notes that Papias (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7), whereas M. Burge, “John, Letters of,” in was a “hearer of John” and compan- in 1 John 2:1, it is Jesus who is called DLNT, 588, 595-96; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 ion of Polycarp (Ecclesiastical His- the Paraclete. This is not a contrast John, xxxii; Marshall, Epistles, 47; tory 3.39.1). If Papias and Polycarp in John’s theology, however, given Kistemaker, James, Epistles of John, knew John and knew of the letter that he sees both the Son and the Peter and Jude, 207-08; Brooke, A known to us as 1 John, then such Spirit to be “called alongside” (i.e., Critical and Exegetical Commentary, an eyewitness account would be Paraclete) as helper and advocate. xxxii. most weighty. Indeed, in John 14:16, the fi rst occur- 24The use of the term “community” 14Compare Polycarp’s Letter to the rence of the term, Jesus says that here is not meant to imply an Philippians 7:1 to 1 John 4:2-3. If he will send the Holy Spirit, who is acquiescence to the idea of a Johan- there is dependence in these two another helper. Köstenberger avers nine “school” that is behind the passages, it becomes quite tenable that the Spirit’s role in and with production of 1 John, currently a that Polycarp was drawing from believers demonstrates continuity popular explanation as to the epis- the letter known as 1 John, or from between the pre- and post-glorifi ca- tle’s authorship in many academic teachings received directly from tion ministry of Jesus; this “helping circles. Rather, what is meant is the John. Stott is certain that this is the presence” is what Jesus was when group(s) of people that John taught fi rst direct reference to a Johannine he was among his disciples (Kösten- and discipled while in Asia Minor 20 and those to whom he writes. (see 1:9 where they are mentioned Introduction to the New Testament (ed. 25The verb “confess” (homologeō) is together). “Cleansing” (katharizei), Werner Georg Kümmel; trans. A. J. used more by John than any other the main verb of the fi nal clause of Mattill, Jr.; 14th rev. ed.; Nashville: New Testament author, and more v. 7, is a term frequently found in Abingdon Press, 1966), 309; Mar- in 1 John than in any other New Leviticus (LXX). See for example its shall, Epistles, 14. Testament book. fi rst occurrence in Lev 8:15 (“Moses 40Contra Judith Lieu, The Theology of 26Carson, “Johannine Writings,” 133; took the blood and with his fi nger the Johannine Epistles (Cambridge: Kistemaker, James, Epistles of John, put some on each of the horns of University Press, 1991), 16. See also Peter and Jude, 206-08; Westcott, The the altar, purifying the altar; then idem, “‘Authority to Become Chil- Epistles, xxxii. he poured out the blood at the base dren of God’: A Study of 1 John,” 27Brooke, Critical and Exegetical Com- of the altar. Thus he consecrated Novum Testamentum 23 (1981): 210-28. mentary, xxx. it, to make atonement for it.”), and Lieu asserts that the epistle should 28Schlatter, Theology of the Apostles, note the parallel ideas with John’s not be seen as a polemic against 120-24; Bruce, Epistles, 17. usage such as the cleansing func- heresy, and avers that this frame- 29Stott, Epistles of John, 41. tion of the blood of the sacrifi ce for work is not compelling given that 30See John 21:15-17. It would not sin. It is telling that Christ is the such rigid codes of “orthodoxy vs. at all be surprising to fi nd Jesus’ single propitiatory sacrifi ce in both heresy” were not yet in place when commands to shepherd and tend 1 John and the Gospel of John. Thus, 1 John was likely written. While his “lambs” taking root in John’s John’s doctrine of the atonement is Lieu is correct that many defi ni- own life and ministry. Though rooted in a Jewish Old Testament tions of what was and what was not Jesus’ commands were specifi cally understanding of sin, sacrifi ce, and orthodox Christian teaching had addressed to Peter, other disciples Levitical cleansing from sin. not yet been developed (given that were present (John 21:12-15), includ- 33Kistemaker, James, Epistles of John, there were no formal church creeds, ing John (v. 20). Peter and Jude, 207. councils, or even a completed and 31Burge, “John, Letters of,” 588. Such 34Ibid., 208. agreed upon “New Testament” a heterogeneous group would be 35Brown, Epistles, 101. Brown argues to which one could appeal), it is a fitting given that Paul’s letter to that the apostle John is not the mistake to assert, therefore, that the Ephesian church was arguably author. John could not have been delineat- written both to Jewish and Gentile 36Brown suggests that it is more ing between right and false teaching Christians. likely that 1 John was addressed “to (i.e., heresy and orthodoxy). Carson 32For example, John’s “Jewishness” is Christians in one place, presumably and Moo (Introduction, 681) criticize demonstrable in 1:7, where imagery the ‘mother’ Johannine group that Smalley for making a similar argu- and language from the Levitical spawned the Johannine churches in ment and note that such is diffi cult sacrifi cial system is evident. The the outlying areas” (Brown, Epistles, to maintain given that Paul himself “cleansing” (katharizei) function 89), and not a circular letter per se. had done this almost fifty years of “blood” (haima) for “every sin” He adds that the Christian readers earlier in his letters to the Galatians (pasēs hamartias) that comes from of 1 John “may have met in many (1:8-9) and 2 Corinthians (11:4). the single sacrifi ce of Christ (cp. different house-churches in the one Kruse agrees with the assess- John 1:29, where Christ is the “lamb city” (89 n. 200; cf. 101-02). Such is ment maintained here, and points of God who takes away the sin not a radically different idea than to the apostle’s own words. John of the world”) is very Johannine, that presented above. states those that had departed the and very Jewish. Both forgiveness 37Bruce, Epistles, 14. community (2:19) were antichrists and cleansing are necessary and 38Stott, Epistles of John, 41. (2:18; 4:3) and false prophets (4:1). are supplied in the work of Christ 39Paul Feine and Johannes Behm, Such descriptions certainly sound 21 polemical! In short, Kruse con- and A. Weiler; Edinburgh: T. & T. 48See esp. Schnackenburg, Johannine, cludes that these references “do Clark, 1988), 55-65. 17-24. Schnackenburg argues that seem to indicate that the author 46For further suggestions, see Mar- Docetism is more likely in view had a polemic purpose in writing” shall, Epistles, 14-21. Others have than the views of Cerinthus (esp. (Kruse, Letters, 16 n. 23). Guthrie suggested that what is being com- 21-23). Yet in the end, he concludes notes that there was a “pressing bated is an overreading, misread- that no specifi c group should be need for presentation of adequate ing, or “progressive reading” of identifi ed (23), though he does see Christian antidotes to combat the parts of John’s Gospel (James Leslie pre-gnostic tendencies in John’s danger” of religious syncretism, Houlden, A Commentary on the adversaries (24). and the apostle recognized this Johannine Epistles [2nd ed.; Black’s 49See esp. Schnackenburg, Johan- (Guthrie, New Testament, 866-67). New Testament Commentaries; nine, 20-21; cf. Marshall, Epistles, 19; Cf. Terry Griffi th, “A Non-Polemical London: A & C Black, 1994], 14-20; Kruse, Letters, 21-24. Reading of 1 John: Sin, Christology see also Brown, Epistles, 69-71). For 50Irenaeus was the second century and the Limits of Johannine Chris- doing so, Brown has been charged bishop of Lyons, and Eusebius was tianity,” Tyndale Bulletin 49 (1998): with “considerable speculation and a fourth century church historian. 275. For more on the “adversaries,” uncontrolled inferences” (Carson A well-known story handed down see Brown, Epistles, 47-68. and Moo, Introduction, 681). from Eusebius attributed to Poly- 41D. A. Carson, “The Johannine Let- Still others ask whether the early carp says that the apostle John in ters,” in NDBT, 354. church heresy of the Ebionites is fact knew Cerinthus. On one occa- 42E. Kauder, “Antichrist,” in The in view. Ebionites essentially were sion John went to the bathhouse in New International Dictionary of New Jews with low Christology. They Ephesus only to fi nd that Cerinthus Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: could have some belief in Jesus as was inside. Upon learning that this Zondervan, 1975), 1:125-26. the expected Old Testament Mes- “enemy of the truth” was inside, 43Kruse, Letters, 15. See Kruse (16-18) siah and Davidic king, but not Mes- the apostle ran out terrifi ed saying for a “judicious mirror reading” of siah in the sense of the Messiah—the that at any moment God could lay 1 John, from which Kruse ascertains incarnate divine Son of God who waste to the entire bathhouse since the teaching of the secessionists. has come in the fl esh (Brown, Epis- “the heretic was inside.” Such a mirror reading perhaps goes tles, 53). They rejected such notions 51F. L. Cross, The Oxford Dictionary too far. as the divinity and preexistence of the Christian Church [ODCC] (ed. 44Brooke, Critical and Exegetical Com- of Jesus, perhaps due to a fear of E. A. Livingstone; 3rd ed.; Oxford: mentary, xxx. what might lead to “ditheism” University Press, 1997), s.v. “Cer- 45For further discussion see Kruse, (two Gods). However, the Ebionite inthus.” Letters, 16-18; Brown, Epistles, 47-68; suggestion is less likely given that 52Kruse, Letters, 21. Westcott, writing 505; esp. 762-63; Carson and Moo, John’s opponents seemed to have in the 1880’s, seems comfortable Introduction, 677-82; Schnackenburg, Christology that was too high (over- attributing the heretical teachings Johannine, 17-24; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, emphasizing the divinity of Christ to Cerinthus (Epistles, xxxii), though xxiii-xxv; Marshall, Epistles, 14-22; to the detriment of his humanity) he does so without discussion. See John Painter, “The ‘Opponents’ and not too low (overemphasizing also Kistemaker, James, Epistles of in 1 John,” New Testament Studies the humanity of Christ to the detri- John, Peter and Jude, 213-14. Marshall 32, no. 1 (1986): 48-71; Hans-Josef ment of his divinity). In either case, (Epistles, 17) observes that this is Klauck, “Internal Opponents: The they did not accept the teaching indeed a view with a wide amount Treatment of the Secessionists in the concerning Jesus Christ passed on of support, though rightly (we con- First Epistle of John,” in Truth and Its by the apostle John. clude) disagrees that Cerinthus was Victims (ed. W. Beuken, S. Freyne, 47Carson and Moo, Introduction, 678. explicitly in John’s sights. 22 53See Brown, Epistles, 723-39. of John, Peter and Jude, 220-21; Donald God the Father or Christ the Son? 54The difficulties of definition are Guthrie, New Testament Theology Were John to mean God’s com- seen in E. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, mandments, then he could well be Gnosticism (Grand Rapids: Eerd- 1981), 616. referring to the “Ten Words,” i.e., mans, 1973), 14-19. 62Carson, “Johannine Letters,” 354. the Ten Commandments. If Christ’s 55Cross, ODCC, s.v. “Gnosticism.” Paul puts it similarly, using the commands are in view, then the 56Hengel is critical of scholars who phrase “good works” in Eph 2:8- love command is likely in the spot- would assert any gnostic infl uence 10. light. There is neither time nor space in any part of the New Testament 63Kruse, Letters, 173-74. See also here to discuss the matter fully, and hopes that such “gnostic fever” Schlatter’s discussion concern- given that the discussion centers will completely disappear from ing faith in 1 John (Theology of the on the diffi cult question of how the NT studies as a whole (Martin Apostles, 124-29). Mosaic Law relates to Christians. Hengel, The Son of God: the Origin 64See also 1 John 3:18. This is remark- Commentators and scholars are of Christology and the History of Jew- ably similar to James 2:14-26, where divided over this issue, and this ish-Hellenistic Religion [trans. John James writes that “faith without question undergirds discussion of Bowden; Philadelphia: Fortress, works is dead.” 1 John 2:3ff. The view held here is 1976], 33 n. 66). In contrast, earlier 65There is some discussion over the that John is referring to God the New Testament theologies such explicit content of the command- Father in 2:3, and this is reinforced as the able work of Adolf Schlatter ments in view here, as well as whose by 3:19-24 where God the Father’s did assert full-blown Gnosticism commandments they are. The ques- commandments are in view. The (Schlatter, Theology of the Apostles, tion is whether these are the com- view maintained here is that there 120-21), but more recent theologies mandments of the Father or of the is a connection between keeping have concluded that Gnosticism Son? Yet one must fi rst ask if this is His word/commands (2:4, 5) and did not ripen until the late second the best question. Would John make the “Ten Words” given through century A.D. The discovery of the such a dichotomy between com- Moses (see the excellent discussion Nag Hammadi texts in the 1940’s mands issued from one member of in Brown, Epistles, 250-52; cf. T. R. has aided this investigation. By the Godhead or another? Jesus kept Schreiner, “Law,” in DLNT, 645- way of contrast, George Eldon Ladd the commands of the Father, and as 46). These are not in tension with appears to propound an early form such, believers ought to walk just the love commandment of Christ of Gnosticism while not using the as he walked (2:6). Is obeying Jesus (see John 13:34-35), given that the nomenclature “proto-Gnosticism” different than obeying the Father? whole Law, which is summarized (G. E. Ladd, New Testament Theology Kruse’s explanation that what is in the Ten Commandments, is kept [rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, in view here is merely the Father’s in the believer when he or she loves 1993], 657-59). command (singular) to believe God and neighbor (cf. Matt 22:36- 57Carson and Moo, Introduction, 681. in the Son (3:23) is reductionistic 40). Further, the commandments 58See especially Robert Law, The (Letters, 78-79). This is especially of Father and Son are not kept by Tests of Life (2nd ed.; Edinburgh: T. true when one considers that “com- one’s own strength, but because of & T. Clark, 1909). For an overview mandments” is plural (tas entolas the work of the rebirth that God of these three tests, see Carson, autou) in 3:22 and 3:24. has accomplished in all who believe “Johannine Letters,” 352-54. What is at issue in this discus- (5:1-2, 4), and the presence of God’s 59Stott, Epistles, 153. sion is the larger issue of how New seed (the Holy Spirit) that remains 60Ibid., 152. Covenant believers relate to the Old in every Christian (3:9). 61Carson, “Johannine Letters,” 353. Testament commandments. Who 66See Buist Fanning, Verbal Aspect See also Kistemaker, James, Epistles exactly does “him” refer to in 2:3, (Oxford: University Press, 1991), 23 215-17. The grammatical usage argu- 71For instance, the aorist infi nitive the other does not. Note the chiastic ably here is a customary present. (rather than the present) could have structure: However, for an alternate view, see been used to complete the idea of A. The one who has been born the discussion of these present tense the verb (Baugh, Reader, 52). of God verbs as possible gnomic presents 72Smalley (1, 2, 3 John, 159-65), after B. Does not practice sin in Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar criticizing the grammatical view, C. (Why?) Because his seed Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: lists almost a dozen other explana- abides in him Zondervan, 1996), 523-25. See also tions, as well as his own. Cf. Dodd, B’. He is not able to continue Kruse, Letters, 126-32. Johannine, 80; Marshall, Epistles, 180. to sin 67Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek: Marshall’s question concerning why A’. Because he has been born Illustrated By Examples (trans. and it is that God could not protect the of God adapted by Joseph Smith; Rome: believer even from occasional sins The “seed” is likely the Holy Spirit Scripta Pontifi cii Instituti Biblici, misses the point, since occasional that resides within believers. See 1963), 82; Nigel Turner, Grammati- sins is exactly what is in mind in Brown, Epistles, 410-11. Such an cal Insights Into the New Testament 1:9 and 2:1. Further, the matter of interpretation was held by Calvin (Edinburgh: Clark, 1965), 151. God’s ability is not in question. For and Beza and is found very fre- 68Burge, Letters, 150. a longer survey of seven groups quently today. Brown stresses the 69See the brief but helpful discussion of interpretive options see Brown, New Covenant setting of 1 John, by Baugh (S. M. Baugh, A First John Epistles, 412-17. and sees Ezek 36:26-27 as forming Reader: Intermediate Greek Reading 73Or perhaps an eschatological ideal a backdrop in the author’s thought Notes and Grammar [Phillipsburg, that has broken into the present. See here as well as in John 3:5, where NJ: P & R, 1999], 50-52). Baugh’s Wallace, Greek Grammar, 525. Wal- the Spirit is tied to the act of beget- excursus, “The Present Infi nitive lace argues that these are gnomic ting. It is quite possible that John is and Perfectionism,” considers the present tense verbs, which express relating the act of divine begetting, context, lexical meaning, and the timeless, proverbial truths. Kubo the indwelling seed of God and the grammatical construction. Though seems to argue for the “ideal” indwelling Spirit. Because of the acknowledging the criticisms of view. See Sakae Kubo, “1 John 3:9: abiding Spirit the believer cannot the “customary/habitual” view, he Absolute or Habitual?” Andrews continue in sin, since the Spirit is concludes that it is in fact persuasive University Seminary Studies 7 (1969): that of truth and is the opponent of on these three considerations. 47-56; cf. Schnackenburg, Johannine, sin. Mills, too, fi nds a chiasm here 70See the study of Inman (Kerry 257-58. (Donald Mills, “The Holy Spirit in Inman, “Distinctive Johannine 74Marshall, Epistles, 183. 1 John,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Vocabulary and the Interpretation 75Burge, Letters, 150. Burge does not Journal 4 [1999]: 37). of 1 John 3:9,” Westminster Theologi- choose between the two interpre- 78Carson, “Johannine Letters,” 353. cal Journal 40 [1977-78]: 136-44), who tive options that he presents. In fact, all three are so inseparable downplays the argument surround- 76See Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 163; R. E. that Carson avers that there are ing the tense of the verbs, yet comes Brown, Community of the Beloved really three facets to one compre- to the same interpretation by dem- Disciple, 126. hensive vision. See also Schlatter onstrating that when John uses the 77Further, this distinction between (Theology of the Apostles, 123) who expression “doing sin” the apostle the two groups is seen in the writes that the awakening of love is referring to habitual/customary chiastic structure of verse 9 that in the believer guarantees “that sin. For further discussion see the stresses the reason for the distinc- one’s actions would now be pure excursus on the topic of sinless per- tion between the two groups—one and fruitful.” fection in Kruse, Letters, 126-32. has the “seed of God” in him while 79Schlatter, Theology of the Apostles, 24 123. third possibilities. Smalley does the word. See also Dodd (Johannine, 80First John has 105 verses, and on not think that the biblical author 63), who argues that it is the gospel average “love” appears in roughly would have made such distinctions, word. Note the rebuttal of Dodd and one out of every three verses in therefore he leaves it ambiguous (1, Potterie by Marshall (Epistles, 154- either its verb form or noun form. 2, 3 John, 248). 55) and Kruse (Letters, 109-110). Clearly for the apostle, no matter 84Akin rightly describes the perfec- 90Strecker, Johannine, 65-66. what his topic, love is never far from tion/completion in view here as 91Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 105. his mind. the achievement of a goal, namely, 92Carson, “Johannine Letters,” 354. 81To be sure, John is not making an that believers love one another (1, 93See above, note 77. See Schnack- ontological statement about God. 2, 3 John, 182). God’s love is seen enburg, Johannine, 141; Akin, 1, 2, Rather, he is highlighting the fact today in believers’ love for one 3 John, 118; Brown, Epistles, 410-11; that to love is to act on behalf of oth- another (Stott, Epistles, 163). Recall Kruse, Letters, 154. ers, which is supremely revealed in 2:5, where the perfection of God’s 94Kruse, Letters, 154. the sending of the Son by the Father. love is seen in the obedience of the 95Perhaps the best survey of the See Kruse, Letters, 157, 160. believer (Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 248; structural options is found in Akin’s 82Mark A. Seifrid, “Propitiation,” in Dodd, Johannine, 113). Again, John’s commentary (1, 2, 3 John, 37-48), fol- DLNT, 281-82. Seifrid affi rms that three tests are interlocked. lowed by that of Marshall (Epistles, both elements of removal of divine 85Kruse, Letters, 158. 22-27) and Brown (Epistles, 764). wrath (propitiation) and cleansing 86Carson, “Johannine Letters,” 353. Brown is helpful in that he puts into from guilt and sin (expiation) are 87See the excurses by Kruse (Letters, chart form the divisions of over 30 in view in John’s use of the term 151-55) and Schnackenburg (Johan- different scholars. hilasmos (2:2; 4:10). The term is nine, 191-95). 96See Kruse (Letters, 31, 49), and Mar- variously translated as “propitia- 88On the rare title “Holy One,” see shall (Epistles, 22-27), for example. tion” (NASB, ESV, HCSB), “atoning John 6:69 and Rev 3:7 where it refers Marshall concludes that 1 John is sacrifi ce” (NIV, NRSV), “sacrifi ce” to Christ. Outside of John’s writings, “not meant to be divided into large (NLT), and “expiation” (RSV) in 4:10 see also Mark 1:24, Luke 4:34, and sections on a logical basis” (26). He (cf. 2:2). The NIV/NRSV reading is Acts 3:14. However, Akin rightly does not conclude that the epistle is preferable since “atoning sacrifi ce” cautions a strict distinction between illogical, however, but simply that 1 can express both aspects. Seifrid the Godhead in such matters given John is a series of connected para- avers that in 1 John, death is the their intimate fellowship, so clearly graphs governed by an association consequence of disobedience and described in John’s writings (Akin, of ideas (26). unbelief and the result of divine 1, 2, 3 John, 119). 97Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, 37. Cf. Burge, judgment (282). Kruse agrees (Let- 89The majority of commentators are “John, Letters of,” 597. Smalley notes ters, 34-35; esp. 75-76). agreed on this interpretation. For the diffi culty and says hyperboli- 83This is God’s love for us ([subjec- an exception see Ignace de la Pot- cally that there are as many outlines tive genitive] Stott, Epistles, 164; terie, “Anointing of the Christian of 1 John as there are those outlin- Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, 182 n. 124; Kruse, by Faith,” in The Christian Lives by ing it (Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, xxxiii). Letters, 162 n. 184) and not our love the Spirit (ed. I. Potterie and S. Lyon- Houlden calls 1 John a “puzzling for God ([objective genitive] Dodd, net; trans. John Morross; New York: work” when it comes to matters of Johannine, 113), or a God-like love Alba House, 1971), 101-08, 114-15. structure (Houlden, Commentary, ([genitive of quality] Law, Tests, Potterie combines the Spirit and the 22). 399; Schnackenburg, Johannine, 241; word, seeing the anointing here as 98Carson and Moo, Introduction, 669. Westcott, Epistles, 152). Marshall the (Spirit-inspired) word of truth 99Some begin the epilogue at 5:14 (Epistles, 217) combines the fi rst and received by faith, giving priority to instead of 5:13. 25 100Carson and Moo, Introduction, 669. Synthesis of the Exegetical Meth- Smalley maintains this approach (1, ods of Rhetorical Criticism and 2, 3 John, xxxiii). Discourse Analysis as Applied to 101John 1:1-18 (prologue); 1:19-12:50 the Structure of 1 John,” Ph.D. diss., (Book of Signs); 13:1-20:31 (Book Mid-America Baptist Theological of Glory); 21:1-25 (epilogue). See Seminary, 1993). Köstenberger, John, vii. 108Westcott, Epistles, xlvi. Westcott 102Brown, Epistles, 124. argues for a three-part division with 103See Brown (Epistles, 122-29), Burge breaks after 2:17 and 4:6. (“John, Letters of,” 597; idem, Letters, 42-45), and Akin (1, 2, 3 John, 46-48). Such an outline can be traced to the French scholar Feuillet (A. Feuillet, “Structure of 1 John,” Biblical Theol- ogy Bulletin 3, no. 2 [1973]: 194-216). 104Brown, Epistles, 124. 105Schnackenburg, Johannine, v-viii. Others divide parts 1 and 2 after 2:27, 28, or 29, and parts 2 and 3 after 4:6. See Brown, Epistles, 124. 106Schnackenburg, Johannine, 12-13. Yet see Westcott (Epistles, xlvi-xlvii) who divides the epistle into three slightly different sections: 1:1-2:17; 2:18-4:6; 4:7-5:21. Westcott does not separate the prologue and epilogue as do most. 107Carson and Moo, Introduction, 669-70; Kistemaker, James, Epistles of John, Peter and Jude, 224-26. Kiste- maker retains yet renames these divisions. For the many others who hold a tripartite division of 1 John, see the chart in Brown, Epistles, 124. It is also reproduced in full in Akin’s commentary where the reader can fi nd an excellent discussion of the matter (Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, 37-38). For further study, see the works of D. T.-C. Wu (“An Analysis of the Structure of 1 John Using Discourse Analysis” (Ph.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1997), and H. W. York, “An Analysis and 26