|
|
The Johannine Letters
From R.E. Brown, Introduction to the New Testament
First Epistle (Letter) of John
Second Letter of John
Third Letter of John
First Letter of John
|
Summary of
Basic Information
Date: Most likely after the Gospel according to John; thus ca.
ad 100.
To: Christians of the Johannine community who had undergone a
schism.
Authenticity:
Certainly by a writer in the Johannine tradition, probably not
by the one responsible for most of the Gospel.
Unity: Great majority of scholars think of unified composition;
Bultmann's thesis of combined sources has little following.
Integrity
: The "Johannine Comma" or additional Trinitarian
material in 5:6-8 (n. 14 below) is a 3d-4th-century Latin theological
gloss; otherwise no additions.
Formal
Division
:
1:1-4: Prologue
1:5-3:10: Part
One: God is light and we must walk in light
3:11-5:12: Part
Two: Walk as the children of the God who has loved us in Christ
5:13-21:
Conclusion.
|
In style and
vocabulary there are so many similarities between I John and the Gospel of
John that no one can doubt that they are at least from the same tradition. Indeed,
I John makes most sense if understood as written in a period following the
appearance of the Gospel, when the struggle with the synagogue and "the
Jews" was no longer a major issue. Rather a division among Johannine
Christians had now occurred, sparked by different views of Jesus. Both groups
accepted the Gospel's profession that the Word was God; but they disagreed
about the importance of what the Word had done in the flesh - the way he had
"walked." One group felt that his actions set a moral standard to
be followed; the other held that simply believing in the Word was all that
mattered, and what Christians did had no more importance than what Jesus did.
In the General Analysis we shall see how that discernment of the
situation is verified; then subdivisions will be devoted to Composition
(author, dating, structure), Issues for Reflection, and Bibliography.
As will be
explained toward the end of the Chapter, the structure of 1 John is related
to the structure of John.
This resembles a
primitive sketch of the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel. We say
"primitive," for we certainly do not find here the clarity found in
the Gospel. Dominant is the importance of the "we," namely, the
tradition bearers and interpreters of the Johannine School (p. 369 above) who
preserve and develop the (eye)witness of the Beloved Disciple. The
"beginning" in 1:1 (unlike "the beginning" in Jn 1:1)
refers to the start of Jesus' ministry, where such witness played a role. The
object of the eyewitnessing is "the word of life," but with more
emphasis on "life" than on "word" - a life that
was made known. "Word" in the I John Prologue is less personalized
than in John's Prologue; for although "the word of life" here means
more than simply the news or message about the divine life, it is less than
the incarnate Word that possesses and gives life in the Fourth Gospel. The
"word," meaning the proclamation of divine life (v. 2) made visible
in and through Jesus, constitutes the aggelia or "message"
of 1 Jn 1:5; 1 Jn 3:11 which enables the readers to participate in this life,
and thus to have fellowship with the living God. This fellowship (vv. 3-4) is
the root of Christian joy and an essential constituent of the Johannine
community ("with us").
The message of 1
John opens
(1:5-7) by reiterating the Johannine
view of a world divided into light and darkness (see Jn 3:19-21), with God as
the light of the just. Walking in light and acting in truth guarantee
fellowship with one another and "with him," for the blood of Jesus
cleanses from sin. I Jn 1:8-2:2 turns to the false propagandists who
refuse to acknowledge their wrongdoing as sin. True Christians
acknowledge or publicly confess their sins, for which Jesus is expiation.
(Notice the emphasis on the salvific value of the death of Jesus, a theme
found in only a few passages in John.) To claim sinlessness is to make a liar
out of God; lying is characteristic of Satan (Jn 8:44). I John does not wish
to encourage sin, but reminds us that, if we do sin, we have a paraclete with
the Father, "Jesus Christ the just one." Keeping the
commandments and thus perfecting the love of God is the theme of 1 Jn 2:3-11.
(It is uncertain whether the writer means God's love for us, or our love for
God, or both.) Specifically the commandment of love for one's fellow
Christian ("brother") is highlighted as in Jn 13:34; Jn 15:12,17.
Although this is an old commandment known to Johannine Christians "from
the beginning" when they first were converted to Christ, it is new in
the sense that it has yet to be put fully into effect in a world liberated by
Jesus from the power of darkness. (The "true light is already
shining" in 2:8 echoes Jn 1:9.)
An oratorically
powerful but enigmatic passage, I Jn 2:12-14 twice uses three titles for
the addressees. "Children" may be meant as general form of address
for all the Johannine Christians, including "fathers" (who have
been Christians longer and thus know the One who is from the beginning) and
"young people" (more recent Christians who have struggled with and
conquered the Evil One). The clause following each address begins with hoti,
a connective that can mean either "that," informing the respective
group, or "because," offering reasons for what the group should
already know. The thought of the struggle against the Evil One leads to an
impassioned denunciation of the world (2:15-17) and its attractions:
sensuous lust, enticement for the eyes, and a pretentious lifestyle. The
transitory nature of the world introduces the theme of struggle with the
agent of the Evil One, the antichrist (or anti God figure; cf.2 Th 2:3ff.).
In a realized apocalyptic outlook I Jn 2:18-23 sees this struggle already
going on in the opposition to the author and the true Johannine
Christians offered by the false teachers (who are the antichrists) and their
followers who have gone out from the community. Satan is the liar par
excellence, and his mark is on anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ
(come in the flesh - see 1 Jn 4:3). Yet the epistolary writer does not really
need to tell his children this, for they have the anointing from the Holy One
(i.e., from the Father, the Son, or both?). This anointing which came at
the beginning (2:24-27) - probably the reception of the Spirit when they
became Christians - makes it unnecessary to be taught by such teachers, for
true believers have both eternal life and the truth in which they remain.
1 Jn 2:28-3:3
deals with the theme of the appearance of Christ, both ending the section
on the last hour begun in 2:18 and turning to the idea of union with God and
Jesus. While there was relatively little emphasis in John on the parousia, or
return of Jesus at the end of time (see Jn 5:26-29; Jn 14:1-3), that motif is
prominent in 1 John. The connection between the realized es-chatology of John
and the final eschatology of 1 John is that although Jesus, who was
righteous, is already present to all believers who do what is right, the
fullness of union is possible only with his final return. Present union with
Jesus enables one to face with confidence his return in judgment (either in
death or at the end of the world). Impassioned assurance is proffered in 3:1:
"See what love the Father has given us that we may be called the
children of God." Paul speaks of adoptive childhood or sonship
(Ga 4:15; Rm 8:15); an even bolder concept is advanced ml Jn 3:4-10: We
are children of God because God's seed begot us (cf. Jn 1:12-13). The
children of God and the children of the devil are plainly distinct because
the former act in righteousness and love their brothers and sisters.
At the beginning of
Part One (1:5), the writer proclaimed the aggelia or message in terms
of light; now 3:11-18 proclaims the message as love. Using the example
of Cain, 3:15 argues that hatred is a form of murder. By contrast Christ laid
down his life for us, and so we ought to be willing to lay down our lives for
our brothers and sisters (3:16). In particular, the specific demand that
those who have means must help a "brother in need" suggests that
the secessionists were the wealthier members of the community and so to be
equated with the world. Echoing Jn 14:15,21; Jn 15:12,17, the necessity of
keeping the commandments, specifically of loving, is inculcated in 1 Jn
3:19-24. "We should believe in the name of God's Son, Jesus Christ,
and love one another as he commanded us" - the very points of faith and
practice in which the false propagandists were deficient.
1 Jn 4:1-6
invokes a test of "by their fruits you shall know them" to
discern false prophets with their claim of being led by the Spirit. There is
a Spirit of God and a spirit of the antichrist, and every Spirit-led person
who acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God. More
practically the principle "Anyone who knows God listens to us"
becomes a way of distinguishing the spirit of truth from the spirit of deceit.
Of course, one may guess that the secessionists are directing the same
polemic against the author and his followers; for them he has the
spirit of deceit.
Abruptly 4:7-21
returns to the theme of love for one another with the ringing
proclamation, "God is love" (similar to "God is light" in
Part One: 1:5). We know this not because of our initiative of loving God, but
because God took the initiative of sending the only Son into the world so
that we might have life and that sins might be expiated - a divine love for
sinners (cf. Jn 3:16; Rm 5:8). The clarity and beauty of this thought come to
a head in 1 Jn 4:12: "No one has ever seen God; yet, if we love one
another, God remains in us and God's love is brought to perfection in
us." To be practical, the writer gives a test: Any who claim to love God
while hating their (Christian) brothers or sisters are liars.
The close
interconnection of Johannine motifs is illustrated by the treatment of
faith, love, and commandments in 5:1-5. Previously we heard that
sinlessness and righteousness were marks of those begotten by God (3:9-10);
now we are told that everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is
begotten by God and will conquer the world - a victory won by faith. (Notice
that "faith" here seems to involve a christological confessional
statement.) Although oratorically powerful, the three who testify in
5:6-8, i.e., the Spirit, the water, and the blood, are obscure and seem
to echo Jn 19:34 where the blood flowing from the side of the pierced Christ
is intermingled with water, a sign of the Spirit (Jn 7:38-39). This emphasis
on the salvific witness borne by Jesus' shedding blood is probably corrective
of the secessionists who placed all the emphasis in understanding Jesus'
salvific action on the moment of his being baptized as the Spirit descended.
Later sacramental use of the passage in a liturgical context discovers
references to baptism and the eucharist as testifying to faith in Christ. Part
Two of 1 John culminates in 5:9-12 by stressing that acceptance of such
divine testimony leads to belief in God's Son and the possession of (eternal)
life.
Even as the
Johannine evangelist chose to clarify his purpose in writing (Jn 20:31:
"That you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that
believing you may possess life in his name"), so also the epistolary
writer: "That you may know that you possess this eternal life - you who
believe in the name of the Son of God" (1 Jn 5:13). Connected to that
motif is the urging of prayers that sinners may receive life because such
prayers will be heard. However, there is an important exception: The writer
does not urge prayer for those who commit "deadly sin," seemingly
the sin of joining the secession, which was a form of apostasy.
Three solemn
"We know" proclamations are made in 5:18-20 as the writer returns
to his dualistic view where God and those begotten by God are opposed to the
Evil One and the world that lies in his grasp. The guarantee of knowing God
and the truth is the recognition that the Son of God has come. Most likely
"He is the true God and eternal life" at the end of 5:20 refers to
Jesus, so that I John ends as did John (20:28) with a clear affirmation of
the divinity of Christ. The impassioned concluding cry of 1 John, "Little
children, guard yourselves against idols" (5:21), has the secessionists
in mind, for their false christology is a form of idolatry.
Traditionally it was assumed that the same
writer composed John and the three Epistles (or Letters) of John. The
similarities shared by I John and John are numerous, as indicated in the General
Analysis. Indeed, many statements in 1 John could be placed on the lips
of the Johannine Jesus, and there would be no way to distinguish between them
and the words actually assigned to him in John. Yet there are also some
surprising differences:
#
The Prologue of 1 John does not emphasize the incarnation of the personified
Word, as does the Prologue of John; rather it testifies to the word
(message) of life which was seen, heard, and felt - the human career of
Jesus.
#
I John assigns to God features that the Gospel assigns to Jesus, e.g., in 1
Jn 1:5 God is light (cf. Jn 8:12; Jn 9:5); in 1 Jn 4:21 and 2 John God gives
the commandment to love one another (cf. Jn 13:34).
#
There is less epistolary emphasis on the Spirit as a person, and the Gospel
term "Paraclete" is never used of the Spirit. (Christ is the
paraclete or advocate in 1 Jn 2:1.) There is a warning that every spirit is
not the Spirit of Truth or the Spirit of God, and so spirits must be tested
(4:1,6).
#
Final eschatology is stronger in 1 John than in John, where realized
eschatol- ogy dominates. There is more emphasis on the parousia as the moment
of accountability for Christian life (1 Jn 2:28-3:3).
#
Especially as to vocabulary, the Dead Sea Scroll parallels are even closer in
1 John than in John.
Some of these
differences give the Epistles the air of being more primitive than the
Gospel, but they may reflect the author's claim to be presenting the gospel
as it was "from the beginning" (1 Jn 1:1; 1 Jn 3:11). Overall they
suggest that the same person may not have written the Epistles and the
Gospel. Some would distinguish, then, at least four figures in the
Johannine School of writers: the Beloved Disciple (who was the source of
the tradition), the evangelist who wrote the body of the Gospel, the
presbyter who wrote the Epistles, and the redactor of the Gospel.
I John was known by
Polycarp and Justin and thus certainly existed before ad 150. How much
earlier and how is it related to John and to II-III John? Most scholars think
the Johannine Epistles were written after the Gospel. More precisely, I would
place I and 2 John in the decade after the body of the Gospel was written by
the evangelist (ca. 90) but before the redaction of the Gospel (which
may have been contemporaneous with III John, just after 100). What
particularly differentiates I and 2 John from the Gospel is the change of
focus. "The Jews" who are the chief adversaries in the Gospel are
absent; and all attention is on deceivers who have seceded from the
community, and by so doing have shown a lack of love for their former
brothers and sisters. Such "antichrists" would seduce the writer's
adherents on several issues:
(a) Faith.
The secessionists deny the full import of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God
(1 Jn 2:22-23). Since they were Johannine Christians who believed in Jesus as
the divine Son, presumably the denial means that they negated the importance
of the human career of Jesus by not confessing him as the Christ come in the
flesh (1 Jn 4:3). Probably they thought that salvation came solely from the
entrance of the Son of God into the world, so that the histori cal activity
of Jesus had no salvific or exemplary importance. In particular, they seem to
have neglected the bloody death of Jesus as an act of love and expiation, a
motif that the author emphasizes (1 Jn 1:7; 1 Jn 2:2; 1 Jn 4:10; 1 Jn 5:6).
(b) Morals.
They (presumably the same group) boast of being in commu nion with God and
knowing God while walking in darkness and not keeping the commandments (1 Jn
1:6; 1 Jn 2:4); indeed, they will not recognize that they have sinned (1 Jn
1:8,10; 1 Jn 3:4-6). This moral stance may be related to their christology
if, having denied the importance of what God's Son did in the flesh after the
incarnation, they denied the importance of what they themselves did in the
flesh after becoming children of God through belief. The author insists that
the true child of God avoids sin (1 Jn 3:9-10; 1 Jn 5:18) by acting
righteously and keeping the commandments, especially the commandment to love
one's fel low Christian (1 Jn 3:11,23; 2Jn 5). The children of God must walk
in purity and love just as did Jesus, God's Son (1 Jn 2:6; 1 Jn 3:3,7; 1 Jn
4:10-11).
(c) Spirit.
Seemingly the secessionist leaders claim to be teachers and even prophets,
led by the Spirit. The author disclaims the need for teachers (1 Jn 2:27) and
warns against false prophets, "Do not believe every spirit, but test the
spirits to see whether they are of God" (4:1). There is a Spirit of
Deceit that leads the antichrists, and a Spirit of Truth that leads the
author and his adherents (4:5-6).
There have been
attempts to identify the secessionist adversaries of 1 and 2 John with known
"heretics," e.g., the docetists attacked by Ignatius of
Antioch (ca. 110) who denied that Christ was truly human; or Cerinthus
(described by Irenaeus as an opponent of John) who held that the Christ, a
spiritual being, descended upon Jesus, a normal man, after baptism and
withdrew from him before crucifixion; or 2d-century gnostics, who
regarded the world and flesh as a deception. Such known "heresies,"
however, may be later descendants of the error encountered in 1 and 2 John. That
error (illustrated under three headings above) is plausibly an
exaggeration by Johan-nine Christians of certain features in the Fourth
Gospel. For instance, the Gospel portrays the incarnation of the preexistent
Son of God who saves people by his very entrance into the world as the light
- anyone who comes to the light is free from being judged and from the guilt
of sin (Jn 3:16-21; Jn 9:39-41). Since people seemed to be saved by faith
during the ministry of Jesus, it is not emphasized in John that the death of
Jesus is salvific. The Gospel gives little ethical teaching except the
commandment to love one another. According to Jn 14:16-17,26; Jn 16:13, the
Paraclete (advocate) or Spirit of Truth comes to dwell in every believer,
guiding that person to all truth.
Despite the possibility
of developing such Gospel themes to produce the views held by the
secessionists, the author of 1 and 2 John claims that his views and not those
of the secessionists represent the true "gospel" held from the
beginning. (The word translated "message" in 1 Jn 1:5 and 3:11 is aggelia,
possibly the Johannine equivalent for "gospel" or euaggelion.)
He writes as a member of the Johannine School that bears witness to the
tradition that comes down from the Beloved Disciple - a "we" who
personally or by association have heard, seen, looked upon, and felt Jesus,
the embodiment of the life of God (1:1); a "we" who know the
importance of how Jesus lived (walked) in the flesh and died for sins. The
differences of thought from the Gospel described above make sense as a
reaction to the misinterpretation of the Gospel by the secessionists.
Scholars disagree
about both issues. As for genre, I John has none of the
features of the letter format. Plausibly it is a written exhortation interpreting
the main themes of the Fourth Gospel in light of secessionist propaganda that
had a certain plausibility and continued to attract followers. Presumably it
was circulated in the main center of Johannine Christianity (Ephesus?) where
the Gospel was written and the author lived.
As for structure,
the author offers no clear indication of plan. He is repetitious, and uses
hinge verses that belong both to what precedes and what follows. Bultmann's
theory that the author had an early source (written in poetic couplets) that
he employed in writing I John has had little following; and most think of 1
John as a unified work. A tripartite division is popular (three Parts,
preceded by a Prologue and followed by an Epilogue). However, those who
believe that I John is an interpretation of the Fourth Gospel favor a
bipartite division that corresponds to the Gospel division. A Prologue
(1:1-4) comments on the hymn that is the Gospel Prologue (Jn 1:1-18), and a
Conclusion (5:13-21) draws on the theme of the preredactional Gospel
Conclusion (Jn 20:30-31). The two main Parts of the Epistle are marked off by
the statement "This is the gospel" (aggelia,
"message") in 1:5 and 3:11. Part One (1:5-3:10) defines the gospel
as "God is light" and stresses the obligation of walking in light.
Part Two (3:11-5:12) defines the gospel as: "We should love one
another" and holds up Jesus as the example of love for one's Christian
brother and sister.
(1) Just as with
John (p. 333 above), so also with I John, there is a debate about whether the
text should be printed in semipoetic format. BEJ does so because one can
divide the Johannine writer's Greek into sense lines of rela tively similar
length that match each other in rough rhythm.
(2) Sometimes I
John's description of the world in 2:15-17 has been criticized as too
negative, as if the author were forgetting that God created the world and saw
that it was good. Be that as it may, I John is describing the world of God's
creation after it has been marred by sin. Moreover, an "anything
goes" generation may need to be reminded that the condemnation of
sensual lust and concupiscence cannot be dismissed simply as
"Victorian," but has deep roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
(3) Some find
almost a contradiction in 1 John's insistence on love ("God is
love") and the refusal to pray for those who commit a deadly sin
(5:16c). (Compare the Johannine Jesus' refusal to pray for the world in Jn
17:9.) It is not arrogance to recognize evil and those who do it; but
Christians should be careful about deciding that such people are radically
evil in themselves and cannot be prayed for.
|
Summary of
Basic Information
Date: About the same time as I John, thus
ca. ad 100.
To: Christians of a Johannine community
threatened by the advent of schismatic missionaries.
Authenticity: By a writer in the
Johannine tradition, who wrote III John as well and probably I John.
Unity and Integrity: Not seriously
disputed.
Formal Division:
A. Opening Formula: 1-3
B. Body: 4-12
4: Transitional expression of joy
5-12: Message
C. Concluding Formula: 13. |
We saw that a
decision about the genre and structure of 1 John was not easy. There is no
similar problem with 2 and III John; they are almost parade examples of brief
ancient letters, close to each other in length, which was probably determined
by the measurement of a sheet of papyrus. After the Background and General
Analysis, subdivisions will be devoted to Presbyters, an Issue for
reflection, and Bibliography.
II and III John are
alike in their letter format, especially in the Opening and Closing. Both
describe the writer as "the presbyter." 2 John has similarities of
content to 1 John (which has no letter format), especially in vv. 5-7 that
emphasize the commandment to love one another (=1 Jn 2:7-8) and condemn the
deceivers who have gone forth into the world as the antichrist denying Jesus
Christ come in the flesh (= 1 Jn 2:18-19; 1 Jn 4:1-2). Thus, though the
writer of 1 John does not identify himself, most scholars think that the
presbyter composed all three works - one who on the basis of 1 John was a
disciple of the Beloved Disciple.
II John is sent to
a Johannine community at a distance from the center. The secession has not
yet reached there, but secessionist missionaries are on the way (II Jn
10-11). The presbyter instructs that community (the Elect Lady and her
children) not to let such false teachers into "the house" (house-church
where the community met). The arrival of emissaries, some from the presbyter,
some from the secessionists, must have been confusing for such distant
Johannine communities. How were they to know who carried the truth until they
allowed the emissaries to speak? And by then the damage was done!
Opening Formula
(vv. 1-3). The Sender and Addressee sections of the Praescriptio2
are succinctly phrased: "The presbyter to an Elect Lady and her
children," i.e., figuratively, an unnamed local church and its members
within the presbyter's sphere of influence. The fact that presbyter will give
that church instructions and send along greetings from the children of
"your elect sister" (v. 13) suggests he is an authoritative figure
in another Johannine church (perhaps the mother church from which the
addressed church was founded). The Greeting "grace, mercy, peace"
(v. 3), customary for a Christian letter ("grace, mercy" in
thirteen letters; "peace" added in 1-2Tm), is followed by the Johannine
addition of truth and love.
Transitional
expression of joy
(v. 4). In epistolary format a
statement of joy is often transitional to the Body of the letter (and thus a
"Body-Opening"), and here the mention of a commandment by the
Father in v. 4 is related to the exposition of the commandment in v. 5.
Probably the presbyter's rejoicing to find "some of your children
walking in truth" in v. 4, which is intended to be gracious (captatio
benevolentiae), employs "some" generally ("those
encountered"), rather than correctively ("some but not all").
Message
(vv. 5-12). The insistence in 5-6 on the commandment of love and
the necessity of walking in the commandment echoes the main ethical thrusts
of 1 John. (On the commandment not being new but from the beginning, see 1 Jn
2:7-8; on it being from the Father, see 1 Jn 4:21; 1 Jn 5:2-3; on walking,
see 1 Jn 1:6,7; 1 Jn 2:6,11; on love involving fidelity to the commandments,
see 1 Jn 5:3.) Similarly the christological thrust of 1 John is echoed by the
insistence in II Jn 7 on acknowledging Jesus coming in the flesh as the
differentiating mark between those whom the presbyter acknowledges as beloved
children and the antichrist deceivers who have gone out into the world (see.
p. 390 above). That the dangerous teaching of the latter, already clearly
present in 1 John, is only about to make its appearance among the addressees
of 2 John, is suggested by the warnings that they should look to themselves
(v. 8) and not receive into their "house (church)" those who bring
another doctrine (vv. 10-11). Otherwise they might lose what they have worked
for and share in evil. The adversaries (actual or potential) are described in
v. 9 as "progressive" (literally as "going ahead and not
remaining in the teaching of Christ"). This corresponds to the
contention in 1 and 2 John that the writer's christology and ethics represent
what was from the beginning. That the difference is seen as crucial is
affirmed in v. 9: Whoever has the wrong teaching does not have God!
In closing the Body
or message of the letter in v. 12, the presbyter has a familiar touch: an
apology for the brevity of what has been written (also 3 Jn 13-14). The hope
to visit soon has to be taken in the same conventional vein, and not as
threatened supervisory discipline, even though the presbyter's pastoral heart
will rejoice if all goes well. "That our joy may be fulfilled"
echoes 1 Jn 1:4 where it is clear that such joy stems from the koi-nonia
of Johannine Christians with one another and with God and Jesus Christ.
Concluding
Formula
(v. 13). The fact that the presbyter
sends not his own greetings but those of a sister Christian church
illustrates that this letter is sent, not as a personal directive, but as
part of the policy of the Johannine "we" whom we heard speaking in
1 Jn 1:1-4.
Other NT letters
supply the personal name of the author or writer, sometimes with an
identifying title like "apostle" or "servant." 2 and III
John are our only Christian examples from the period ad 50-150 of the sender
of a letter giving a title or designation and no personal name. One may
suppose that in a close-knit body of Christians the recipients would have
known the personal name of the sender; yet the designation "the
presbyter" must have been customary and/or preferred by him, by them, or
by both. (One may wonder whether titles of reverence were not a Johannine
trait, for in John such symbolically important figures as the Beloved
Disciple and the mother of Jesus are never identified by personal name.) What
does the writer of 2 John mean by the self-designation ho presbyteros
("presbyter/elder")? We saw that he speaks authoritatively to other
Johannine Christians about the tradition and assumes that when he comes to
visit them they will want to hear more from him. In III John he sends out
missionaries whom Gaius is asked to receive even though a regional authority,
Diotrephes, is ill-disposed. From all this one gets the impression that
"the presbyter" has prestige but not judicial authority. If he
wrote I John, as seems likely, he is part of a Johannine "we" who
speak about tradition held from the beginning. How does this picture drawn
from the Johannine Epistles fit into what we know about
"presbyters" from elsewhere? At least five different examples of early
Christian usage of "presbyter/elder" have been offered as
parallels.
(a) An elderly man
of dignity and importance, an interpretation favored by those who think of
the author as the Beloved Disciple, who has been traditionally pictured as
dying at an advanced age (Jn 21:22-23). Yet the Johannine "we" who
speak in Jn 21:24 are clearly distinct from that figure, and "the
presbyter" belongs to the Johannine "we" if he wrote I John.
(b) Church
officials (many of them also carrying the designation episkopos) who
in groups were responsible for the administration of local churches in the
late 1st century, as attested in Ac 20:17; Js 5:14; 1Pt 5:1; 1 Tm 5:17; Tt
1:5; I Clement 44:5. Yet the Johannine writings do not give any
evidence of the church structure with presbyteroi attested by those
writings.
(c) One of the
Twelve Apostles, as attested when Peter describes himself in 1Pt 5:1 as "sympresbyteros"
or "fellow presbyter." Papias (EH 3:39.4) speaks of Philip, Thomas,
James, John, and Matthew as presbyteroi. Yet in both these instances
personal names, not the titles, tell us that apostles are involved;
furthermore there is no reference to "apostles" having authority in
the Johannine tradition, (d) A companion of Jesus who was not one of the
Twelve, also a usage attested by Papias who, after he mentions members of the
Twelve, speaks of Aristion and the presbyteros John, disciples of the
Lord, who spoke authoritatively, (e) A disciple of the disciples of Jesus and
thus a second-generation figure who served as a transmitter of the tradition
that came down from the first generation. Irenaeus (AH 4:27.1) claims:
"I heard it from a certain presbyter who had heard it from those who had
seen the apostles and from those who had taught."
In the theory of
composition offered on p. 371, 374-76 above, whereby there was a Johannine
School of writers carrying on the vision of the Beloved Disciple, the Beloved
Disciple himself might have fitted into category (d), whether or not he was
known as "the presbyter," while the evangelist, the epistle writer,
and the redactor of the Gospel might have fitted into category (e). It is the
last category, then, that would best fit the use of "the presbyter"
in 2 and III John.
Notice the
treatment proposed in 2 Jn 10-11 for those whom the writer regards as false
teachers: They are not to be received into the house or greeted. More than
likely, door-to-door evangelists visiting private homes are not envisaged,
but those who want to come into a house-church (Rm 16:5; 1Co 16:19; Phlm 2;
Col 4:15) in order to preach or teach. An outlook whereby people should be
disciplined rather than given the chance to spread falsehood or misbehavior
is attested also by Mt 18:17; 1 Co 5:3-5; Tt 3:10-11; and Rv 2:2. To some
extent the attitude was traceable to an ideal established by Jesus,
"Whoever receives the one whom I shall send receives me, and whoever
receives me receives the One who sent me" (Jn 13:20). We see where a
strict interpretation of that could lead when with Latin logic Tertullian
maintained that heretics have no right to appeal to the Scriptures, and later
Christians concluded that the safest way to be certain that heretical ideas
were not disseminated was to execute the heretics. True, when positive harm
is being done to others, even charity has limits; yet fierce exclusiveness in
the name of truth usually backfires on its practitioners. C. H. Dodd once
asked, "Does truth prevail the more if we are not on speaking terms with
those whose view of truth differs from ours - however disastrous their error
may be?"
|
Summary of
Basic Information
Date: Perhaps
after I and 2 John, reflecting attempts to deal with the situation
described in those writings; III John may be related to the pastoral
development in Jn 21 and thus written shortly after ad 100.
To: Gaius, a
Johannine Christian friendly to the presbyter, because Diotrephes, who has
taken over leadership (in a neighboring community), is not friendly.
Authenticity: By a writer in the Johannine tradition, who wrote 2 John as
well and probably I John. Unity and Integrity: Not seriously disputed.
Formal Division:
A. Opening
Formula: 1-2
B. Body: 3-14
3-4: Transitional
expression of joy
5-14: Message
C. Concluding
Formula: 15. |
The shortest book
in the NT and very similar to 2 John in format, style, authorship, and
length, III John is, nevertheless, quite unlike I and 2 John in subject
matter. There is no critique of moral indifference or christological error,
only of complicated church relationships that involve rival authority - a
situation very difficult to diagnose. After the General Analysis
describes what is said in the letter, subdivisions will be devoted to a
detailed Diagnosis of the situation, an Issue for reflection,
and Bibliography. For the moment the following surface information is
sufficient: In one community a certain Diotrephes, who has emerged as a
leader, has decided to keep out traveling missionaries, including those from
the presbyter. His refusal of hospitality causes the presbyter to write III
John to Gams, seemingly a wealthy person in a neighboring community. Gaius
has been providing hospitality on a temporary basis, but the presbyter wants
him to take over larger responsibility for helping the missionaries,
including the well-known Demetrius, who will soon arrive.
Opening Formula
(vv. 1-2). The Sender and Addressee section (v. 1) is the
briefest in the NT, but very close to the secular letters of the time. A
health wish (v. 2) is also a feature in the Opening of secular letters, but
the presbyter extends his concerns to Gaius' spiritual welfare - a connection
of soul and body (cf. Mt 10:28). Clearly the presbyter regards Gaius as very
sympathetic.
Transitional
expression of joy
(vv. 3-4). As with 2 Jn 4, this
is transitional to the Body of the letter (a "Body-Opening"). The
joy that Gaius is walking in the truth is more than conventional, because the
presbyter is implicitly holding Gaius up by contrast with Diotrephes, whom he
will mention in v. 9. Testimony has been borne to Gaius by
"brothers" who have come to the presbyter. Combined with vv. 5-6,
this shows that the presbyter has contacts with a group of travelers who are
partly missionaries and partly his eyes and ears about church situations.
Message
(vv. 5-14). The "brothers" of vv. 5-6, among whom Gaius
has a reputation of being hospitable, are coming from the presbyter's
community to that in which Gaius lives; and Gaius is asked to help them
farther on their way. We get a picture here of early preachers of Christ who
have set out for the sake of "the Name," careful to reject aid from
the Pagans (v. 7), and who therefore depend on the assistance of generous
local Christians (vv. 5:8). In the presbyter's beautiful expression (v. 8)
those who help such persons become "co-workers in the truth." If
the letter had ended with v. 8, we would have assumed simply that Gaius was
either the wealthiest Christian in a community (but then why not a letter
addressed to the community (as was 2 John) mentioning Gaius with praise?) or
the Christian formally or informally leading the community. In vv. 9-10,
however, a much more complicated situation is suddenly revealed; for a
certain Diotrephes "who likes to be first" in the church does not
pay attention to the presbyter and has ignored the presbyter's letter. Beyond
that, Diotrephes is spreading evil nonsense about the presbyter, refusing to
receive "brothers" (i.e., missionaries apparently sent by the
presbyter), hindering those who wish to do so, and expelling them from the
church! A more thorough rejection of the presbyter's authority
1. Most likely a
nearby church, not the one in which Gaius lives; for in v. 14 we hear that
the presbyter hopes to visit Gaius on a friendly basis, and the visit to the
church led by Diotrephes promises to be hostile (v. 10). V. 9 contains the
first reference to ekklesia in the whole Johannine corpus (also at the
end of 3 Jn 10).
2. More precisely
"to us." The plural is interesting given the singular "I
wrote" in the same verse. Seemingly the presbyter regards himself as
part of a community of tradition-bearers (1 Jn 1:1-5) - see also 3 Jn 12:
"We give our testimonial as well, and you know our testimony is
true."
one can scarcely imagine. One would expect
the presbyter simply to order Diotrephes removed or ostracized, but the
relatively mild urging not to imitate evil (v. 11) suggests that the
presbyter had neither the authority nor the practical power to act against
Diotrephes. Rather he writes to Gaius endorsing a figure named Demetrius (v.
12), apparently a missionary for whom this serves as a letter of
recommendation.
As in 2 Jn 12, the
presbyter closes the Body or message of the letter in vv. 13-14 with an
apology for brevity and the hope to see Gaius soon.
Concluding
Formula
(v. 15). 2 John had the children of an
Elect sister church send greetings; III John has "the beloved here"
(i.e., in the presbyter's church) send greetings to Gaius and to the beloved
there, "each by name."
Diagnosis of the
Situation
Ironically the only
work in the Johannine corpus to give the personal names of Johannine
Christians (Gaius, Diotrephes, Demetrius) is imprecise as to how these are
related to one another and the presbyter, (a) Gaius. Does he offer
hospitality to those who have recently been rejected by Diotrephes, or does
Diotrephes refuse hospitality to those whom Gaius was helping? Most opt for
the former, but why then does the presbyter have to tell Gaius about
Diotrephes? For oratorical emphasis? Gaius was probably not a member of
Diotrephes' house-church (n. 1 above); and Gaius, whom the presbyter likes,
was probably not the head of another house-church - a position condemned by
the presbyter in v. 9. In other words the presbyter may be dealing with two
churches that have different organization, (b) Diotrephes. The things for
which he is blamed are: liking to make himself first in a church, paying no
attention to the presbyter, refusing to welcome "brothers"
(apparently missionaries sent out by the presbyter), and hindering and
expelling those who extend that hospitality. Many have suggested that he was,
by title or in fact, an example of the emerging presbyter-bishop described
with enthusiasm by Ignatius of Antioch (p. 398 above). His emergence would be
3. Yet the
presbyter does not describe Diotrephes as an antichrist, a secessionist, a
false prophet, or one who denies that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (cf.
1 Jn 2:18-23; 1 Jn 4:1-2; 2 Jn 7), whence my contention that he does not
regard Diotrephes as a christological "heretic."
4. For letters of
recommendation identifying Christians to be received, supported, and listened
to, see Ac 18:27; Rm 16:1-2; 1 Co 16:3; 2 Co 3:1; Ph 2:25-30; and Col 4:7-9.
This may have been the beginning of the practice in Johannine circles, a practice
made necessary by the recent circulation of secessionist missionaries.
5. All three are
Greco-Roman names, not derivative from Hebrew. There are two or three other
figures named Gaius in NT circles (1 Co 1:14; Ac 19:29; Ac 20:4), a Demetrius
(Ac 19:24) and a Demas (short for Demetrius? Phlm 24; Col 4:14); but there is
no convincing reason to identify this Gaius and Demetrius with any of them.
Diotrephes is not a particularly common name.
very troubling on the Johannine scene where
so little emphasis had been placed on church structure. By contrast, the
presbyter-writer would represent the older Johannine situation wherein there
might be a "School" of tradition-bearers but these were not
authoritative community administrators. (c) Demetrius. A prominent missionary
(receiving "a good report from all") was coming to Gaius, either
carrying III John or shortly after it would have been received. The
seriousness of the testimonial to him reflects the presbyter's view that
hospitality must be extended so that the gospel can be proclaimed. We cannot
be sure of all the reasons for the antagonism between the presbyter and
Diotrephes; but in my judgment the letter makes the most sense if both
figures were opposed to secessionist missionaries. If we assume that the presbyter
wrote I John as well, he thought that there was no need for human teachers:
Those who have the anointing with the Spirit are automatically taught what is
true, and so one must test the spirits to detect false prophets (1 Jn 2:27; 1
Jn 4:1-6). Diotrephes may have judged all this too vague, since the
secessionists claimed that they had the true spirit, making it impossible for
people to know who was speaking the truth. As had been discovered in other
churches (e.g., Tt 1:5-16; 1 Tm 4), Diotrephes would have decided that
authoritative human teachers were needed, namely, those who had the
background to know what was erroneous and the administrative authority to
keep false teachers away. He took on that role for his local church, keeping
all missionaries out, including those of the presbyter. In the presbyter's
outlook Diotrephes was arrogant in departing from the principle that Jesus
was the model shepherd and all other (human) shepherds were thieves and
bandits (Jn 10). In Diotrephes' outlook the presbyter was naive and
impractical. That Diotrephes ultimately won in his view of what would save
Johannine Christianity may be indicated by Jn 21 (the latest element in John,
written after 1-2 John?) where Jesus gives Peter pastoral authority over the
sheep, effectively modifying the thrust of Jn 10.
If the diagnosis of
III John offered above has value, we have in the Gospel and Epistles traces
of developments within a particular Christian community over several decades:
(a) struggles with local Jewish synagogues that rejected as irreconcilable
with monotheism the Johannine Christian confession of Jesus as God; (b) a
bitter withdrawal or expulsion of Johannine Christians from the synagogues,
accompanied by the Christian counterclaim that Jesus had replaced all the
essentials of Judaism (Temple worship, feasts, natural birth from Jewish
parents); (c) simultaneously an intensification of the high christological
criterion, making the Johannine Christians suspicious of some other
Christians as not properly confessing Jesus; (d) an internal division when
this high christology was carried by some Johannine Christians to the point
of questioning the importance of the humanity of Jesus; (e) an attempt to
preserve a christological balance between the human and the divine by
appealing to what was traditional in Johannine teaching, and by rejecting as
antichrists those who deviated from that balance; (f) a struggle about
effective means to combat false teachers; (g) and the gradual acceptance of
the kind of authoritarian structure found in the other churches, thus
bringing at least part of the Johannine heritage into line with the rapidly
emerging Great Church. If one thinks of struggles and divisions in subsequent
Christianity, one can realize how often the pattern has repeated itself, in
whole or in part.
|
|
These Courses