Читать книгу The Letters of John - Robert D. Cornwall - Страница 7

Session 1

Introductory

Matters—

The Word of Life

Vision:

Participants will have the opportunity to address introductory matters, such as authorship, date, structure, and themes of the letters. They will also have the opportunity, to gain a sense of the core purpose of 1 John, by looking at the first four verses of the letter, and comparing this prologue with that of John 1:1-18.

Reading: 1 John 1:1-4; John 1:1-18

Please read the passage for the day in at least two different translations, a more formal translation, such as the NRSV, CEB, RSV, or NIV, and then read it again in a freer version or paraphrase such as The Message, Phillip’s, or The New Living Translation. As you read pay attention to images that warrant further exploration. If you have access to the internet, Bible Gateway allows you to read the passage in parallel form.

Lesson:

Authorship and Context:

It is usually appropriate to begin an introductory lesson by looking at questions of authorship, context, and destination. When a piece of literature is supposed to be a letter, we look to the opening lines for some hint as to the identity of the author, as well as the identity of the recipient. We would also try to identify the context out of which the document emerged. The three letters attributed to a person named John pose difficulties in this regard. First, regarding the genre, while 2 and 3 John have the markings of a letter, the same cannot be said for 1 John. The first “letter” does not identify the author or context. Instead, it opens with a prologue (1 John 1:1-4), much like the Gospel of John. Therefore, while we will speak of this document as a letter, we do so cautiously.

Both 2 and 3 John will have their own chapters, at which time we will look more closely at the questions of authorship, date, genre, and context of those letters. I will note here, however, that these two “letters” do not offer much information as to the identity of the author, the recipient, or the date of its composing. The only identifier we find in the letters is the word “Elder” (Gk. Presbuteros). Regarding the date of their composition, the only letter with early attestation is 1 John. Questions continued to be raised about the authenticity of both 2 and 3 John as late as the fourth century.

Tradition has long linked these letters to the author of the Gospel of John, and the similarities in vocabulary and style are noticeable. There are differences as well. Whether they have the same author, there are sufficient similarities among the documents to assume that they form what some scholars have termed a “Johannine canon.” That is, even if they do not share the same author, there are enough similarities to suggest that the Gospel and the Letters emerged out of the same community. As we progress through the letters, we will want to be alert to themes and ideas that are found both in the Gospel and the letters.

Despite the lack of either internal or external evidence for determining authorship, tradition has attributed the authorship of the Gospel and Letters to the Apostle John. The author of 2 and 3 John simply identifies himself as the presbuteros or elder, while 1 John remains a completely anonymous book. However, for the purposes of our study, we will refer to the author as John. This does not mean that I am taking a position on the identity of the author, it’s simply easier to use this designation for the author.

Since we lack any identifying authorial marks in the letter, we can take note of its use by the early church. The earliest attestation of 1 John is found in Polycarp’s “Letters to the Philippians,” which offers echoes of what we read in 1 John. That evidence dates to around 135 CE. Eusebius records the words of Papias, who was active in the early second century, referring to the “former letter of John and that of Peter.” What is intriguing, is if this is truly from Papias, it would precede any known reference to the Gospel of John. The next evidence comes around 180, when we find Irenaeus quoting from both 1 and 2 John in Against Heresies. In using these letters, Irenaeus attributes them to the son of Zebedee, the disciple of Jesus, and author of the Gospel. Thus, by the third century 1 John was considered an authoritative text. As for the letters, their status remained uncertain at best for some time. The first reference to 3 John does not appear until the mid-third century, and the scriptural status of both 2 and 3 were still being questioned in the fourth century.2

When it comes to the authorship of 1 John, questions center on its relationship to the Gospel. There are some signs that it could have been written prior to the Gospel, since the letter is less polished than the gospel and the theology seems to be more primitive than the Gospel. On the other hand, there are also signs of dependence on the Gospel by the letter writer. There is no definitive proof either way, but most scholars believe that the Gospel is prior to the letter. One possibility is that the letters depended on an earlier version of the Gospel, rather than the finished product. That would explain the letter’s more primitive theology, as well as the signs of the letter’s dependence on the Gospel. With that in mind, most scholars date the letter to around 100 CE, while the Gospel would have been written around 90 CE.

Not only is the authorship and date of composition uncertain, the same is true for the location of the receiving community. The connection with Polycarp, the earliest attestation, suggests that the letter emerged in Asia Minor or modern Turkey, though some scholars have suggested Palestine or Syria as a point of origin. Ultimately none of this can be verified.

There is a hint to the nature of the authorship with the word “we,” and the reference to having seen and touched the Word of Life. That claim suggests a direct connection to Jesus, which would make sense if the author was the Apostle John. An alternative answer, and one that makes better sense of approximate date and possible context, is that the author(s) are the bearers of a tradition that has direct lineage to the Apostles and thus to Jesus. As Raymond Brown suggests, these would be companions of the Beloved Disciple who figures prominently in the Gospel of John. There have been objections to this idea, but it makes sense of the context, and for our purposes we will adopt this view.3For our purposes, we will speak of the author as being John the Elder (even if not the Apostle).

Structure of 1 John

As we read through 1 John, we need to keep in mind its structure. We have already noted that 1 John lacks the traditional marks of a letter, but whether this is a traditional epistle, sermon, or an early theological essay, there is an undeniable structure present in 1 John. The author appears to be weaving proclamation with moral exhortation. At the same time, the letter seems to lack “a single, tightly reasoned line of argument.”4 This will make our exploration of the letter more complex and perhaps more interesting, for the issues at hand will weave back and forth. We see this complexity of structure in the way the theme of love interplays with John’s concern about the threat of those he views as adversaries, people he doesn’t always speak of lovingly. Indeed, he calls them anti-Christs (1 John 2:18). Although the structure and argument are complex, the author of 1 John appears to have in mind the basic message about Jesus found in the Gospel, that the Word has become flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:1, 14).

The Adversaries

Reading through the letters, we discover that John the Elder is pushing back against adversaries who are undermining the community. It appears likely that these adversaries are people who had once been part of the community but had left it and were seeking to draw others out. Though, in 3 John reference is made to Diotrephes, who appears to remain within the community as an opponent to the author of the letter. The tenor of the arguments suggest that John believed that they threatened the survival of the community and needed to be stopped. As we proceed through the letter, we’ll want to keep these adversaries in mind, as this will help us understand the apparent harshness that the one who proclaims the love of God shows to certain people. In recent decades, certain portions of the Christian community have focused attention on the rise of a person whom they identify as the “Anti-Christ.” While the term “anti-Christ” appears only in the letters of John, the term has taken on a life of its own, being defined through other references to a world-ruling figure, but in the letters, the term is used more broadly for those who deny that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:18ff). Nonetheless, the references to anti-Christs appear in the context of a discussion of the end of days. That means, despite the delightful words about love and hospitality, these are polemical works. We may not fully know who these opponents are, but they are considered “armed and dangerous.”

Among the issues that emerge are the nature of Christian hospitality and questions of authority in the community. Standing at the center of the conflicts that have emerged is the identity of Jesus. John’s opponents may have held docetic or gnostic views of Jesus and were attempting to bring these views into the church, causing division and thus harm to the congregation. The opponents message appears to be that Jesus did not come in the flesh (2 John 7-9), contradicting the message of the community as found in the Gospel of John, which declared that the Word became flesh and dwelt among humanity (John 1:14). In the end, John faces an age-old problem, that of division and schism, which often creates a sense of hatred toward those with whom one disagrees.

The Themes

Clifton Black suggests that readers keep in mind six primary themes that are present in the letters. First, there is the declaration that God is light (1 John 1:5). The second theme is the interpretation of the tradition the author has been expounding. The third theme is eschatological (unlike the Gospel, which demonstrates what is known as “realized eschatology,” the letters speak of the imminent closing of the current age. This is, according to the author, the “last hour.” The fourth theme has to do with Jesus becoming flesh. Continuing with Jesus, “he is the expiation for our sins.” This is an important theme that will need some attention. The final theme is the one which we have come to identify with these letters and that is the call to love.5 We will want to pay attention to each of these themes as we contemplate these letters.

The Tradition: (1 John 1:1-4)

The Gospel of John starts with words that reflect the opening words of Genesis 1: “In the beginning.” 1 John opens with: “We declare to you what was from the beginning.” This usage is intriguing. The author of the letter wants the reader to go back to the beginning of things, though unlike the Gospel, the letter starts with the incarnation and not the creation. As with the Gospel, 1 John begins with a theological prologue. In this case, the prologue focuses on the tradition passed down to the community that reveals what the author(s) claim to have heard, seen, and touched. In the concern of the letter’s author about beginnings, it is appropriate to recall what the Gospel had to say about beginnings. The Gospel opens with the declaration that “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). The author of the letter seems to pick upon this theme, for the author takes up that which has been heard, seen, and touched. The emphasis of the Gospel on the incarnation, on the embodied nature of Jesus, is picked up by the author of 1 John.

What the author claims to have heard, seen, and touched, is “the Word of life.” The letter testifies to this Word (logos) that brings life, so that the readers might be in fellowship with the author (who has seen and touched this word), even as the author is in fellowship with the Father and the Son. Notice that while this is not a Trinitarian statement, it does suggest what some call a binatarian or dyadic relationship between Father and Son. Finally, this witness to the Word of Life, which leads to fellowship, is written so that the joy of the author might be complete. Whomever is the intended audience, the author is concerned about the state of their fellowship. They’re concerned that members of the community have become disconnected to the tradition that goes back to Jesus, and they want to restore them to the right path (a theme that is present throughout the letter). This should give us some hints as to what we will encounter going forward. If fellowship has been broken, the question is how should it be restored?

John is concerned that the readers of this essay are in danger of becoming separated from the Word of Life, to which John bears witness. This reference to the Word of Life hearkens back to the declaration in the Gospel that the Word (Logos) is God (John 1:1), and incarnate in the person of Jesus (John 1:14). John wants to reconnect those who have gone astray to the tradition.

The author(s) declare what was from the beginning, that which they saw with their eyes and touched with their hands. As we’ve noted, the authors would not have been eyewitnesses, but in claiming to be witnesses to Christ’s life and ministry they claim to be bearers of a tradition that goes back to the eyewitnesses. They are claiming for themselves the right to interpret the ministry of Jesus, so that all might be in fellowship with the Father and with the Son. This emphasis on seeing and touching is an important one for the community of John, because the adversaries we’ll meet seem to deny the full meaning of the incarnation. The opponents, the ones who have departed the community, appear to take a docetic view of Jesus. The author(s) of the letter appear to claim that they are the correct or orthodox interpreters of the tradition passed down from the Beloved Disciple, that is the message of the Gospel of John. As Raymond Brown puts it: “The Prologue sets the tone for I John in terms of a polemically exclusive claim, namely, that the proclamation about Jesus made by the author represents the authentic Gospel stemming from a true witness to Jesus, and those who refuse to accept it have communion with neither the Father nor Son.”6

This may be a theological polemic with Christological implications (did Jesus really have flesh?), but 1 John also has a practical focus. John is concerned about the nature of the fellowship (koinōnia) present in the community. The Gospel never uses this word, but it becomes important in the Letter. The issue here is two-fold—communion with God and communion with the congregation. The adversaries have broken fellowship with both God and congregation, causing a disruption in the community. The reason for the letter is restoration of communion with God and congregation, so that their joy may be restored.

Questions for Meditation and Discussion:

1 What do we know about the authorship and context of the Johannine letters? Does this make a difference in the way we approach these letters?

2 Whether they share authorship, there seems to be a connection between the Gospel of John and the Letters. Both have theological prologues. Reading the Prologue of John (John 1:1-18), and comparing it with the Prologue of 1 John (1:1-4), what themes and words are found in the two Prologues? If we add in 1 John 1:5, does this add anything to the conversation about prologues? What do the similarities suggest?

3 The Gospel of John starts with the declaration that in the beginning was the Word (Logos), which is God. It then declares that this Word became Flesh. In 1 John, we have reference to the Word (Logos) of Life. If we assume a dependence by the letter on the Gospel, what can we say about this “Word of Life?”

4 What do you make of the author’s insistence that the message they declare is one that was from the beginning, and that they have heard, seen, and touched the Word of Life? Without reading the remainder of the letter, what might these words suggest about the author’s concerns?

5 The author(s) speak of their desire to have fellowship with the reader. Do you sense in this that something is disrupting their fellowship/communion?

6 Considering this word about fellowship/communion, what barriers to fellowship can emerge within a congregation? Why do these emerge? What can be done about them?

7 The author(s) declare that their joy would be made complete if fellowship is restored. What is joy that we should desire it?

Exercise:

While we speak of these three documents as letters of John, 1 John lacks traditional markers of a letter. To gain a better sense of what these markers are, find a Bible dictionary and read articles about epistles and letters. Then compare the opening and closing verses of the three letters of John with a Pauline letter such as 1 Corinthians or Galatians. Note the differences and keep them in mind as you continue reading the letters of John.

A Call to Prayer:

As we go forth from this place, having shared in the light of God, may we carry that light into the world, so that God’s grace might be revealed to all. Amen.

2 Judith Lieu, I, II, III John (New Testament Library), (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008), kindle loc. 182-184.

3 Raymond Brown, The Epistles of John (The Anchor Bible). (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1983), p. 160.

4 C. Clifton Black, “The First, Second, and Third Letters of John,” New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 12:371.

5 Black, “First, Second, and Third Letters, of John,” 12:374-376.

6 Brown, Epistles of John, p. 175.