Читать книгу The Epistles of John - Samuel M. Ngewa - Страница 10

The focus of this work is not issues of introduction but the teaching of the three letters. However, for their teaching to be explored fairly, an author has to work with certain conclusions, whether by way of assumption or well-argued discussion. The brief discussion below spells out the matters of authorship, date and place of writing, the historical context, and the question of genre or form and purpose.

Authorship

Unlike the Pastoral epistles (and some other epistles in the New Testament) whose Pauline authorship is questioned by many, and I have maintained in my writings that we cannot deny the truthfulness of the books’ claim that Paul wrote them (1 Tim 1:1; 2 Tim 1:1; and Titus 1:1) without diluting the authority of the rest of the books’ content,1 the three books traditionally called Epistles of John do not make mention of John at all.2 The first epistle goes directly to the message without a mention of who the author or the recipient are.3 The second and third epistles do better because they mention that the author is “the elder” (ho presbyteros) but without a name (2 John 1 and 3 John 1). Nevertheless I will, in this work, assume John the apostle to be the author. Apart from the defense of this traditional view in many books on New Testament introduction and other commentaries,4 there is a general view in the African context that when it comes to matters of history, information from the elders is more dependable than statements of later generations, unless good reason is provided for why the elders may have told lies.5

The traditional position on the authorship of 1 John is tied to the authorship of the Gospel of John, and the authorship of the Gospel of John is tied to the identity of the disciple of John 21:24 who is described in 21:20 as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” By implication, therefore, the internal evidence concerning the author is dependent on points that require to be argued out. The relationship between the Gospel and 1 John is primarily seen in the use of common language,6 and the identity of the disciple of John 21:24 is based on an argument of elimination of any other disciple until we are left with John the son of Zebedee.7

This internal evidence, though by deduction and not directly stated, is accompanied by statements by the early church fathers. These fathers include Polycarp,8 Papias,9 Irenaeus,10 and others.11 The closeness to first century dates of these witnesses (for example, Polycarp AD 110 and Papias AD 125) and listing in Muratorian Canon (AD 200) among other factors place the Gospel of John and 1 John early enough for the assumption that John wrote them to be a viable option. It cannot be dismissed without better evidence than what we have at the moment.12

Just as the similarity between the Gospel of John and 1 John implies the same authorship, so also 2 John in relation to 1 John. 2 John addresses the two issues (the matters of Jesus having come in the flesh and the practice of love among believers) at the center of 1 John’s teaching. This implies common authorship also. The vocabulary of 3 John (for example, “truth,” “children,” and “beloved”) also moves it toward 2 John, 1 John, and the Gospel of John. The argument would then be something like: Evidence that John wrote the Gospel (elimination of others and witness of church fathers) → Evidence that the author of the Gospel also wrote 1 John (similarity of content among other characteristics) → the writer of 1 John also wrote 2 John (same subject, and even use of “antichrist” in both) → the author of the Gospel, 1 and 2 John, also wrote 3 John (shared vocabulary and similar opening between 2 and 3 John).

It must, however, be mentioned that not everyone finds this convincing. Some have suggested that the similarities can be explained by the Gospel and the epistles sharing a common source, or guarding the same doctrinal interest, rather than one author.13 The mention of 1 John by the church fathers may also be viewed, by some, as better serving the point that the letter was in circulation early and not necessarily prove that apostle John was the author. Even with these challenges though, there is no better conclusive alternative to the view that John the apostle wrote all the four and that the church fathers were certain of their assertions. It is on the basis of where the weight lies that John will be assumed throughout this work.

Date and Place of Writing

Having adopted the position that John the apostle wrote both the Gospel of John and 1 John (and by extension 2 and 3 John also) the next question is, “Which of the two was written first, and what is the date for 1 John, and by implication also 2 and 3 John?” This question cannot be answered without working with some assumptions. A key assumption is that a full story needs to be told before those who deviate from it are rebuked. The Gospel tells the full story so as to show that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31) and in I John those who deny this truth are labelled “antichrist” (1 John 2:22). Working with this assumption, 1 John is to be dated after the date given to the Gospel, or about the same time, but not earlier.14

The date needs to be within John’s lifetime. Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. 3.23) quotes Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria as saying that John lived through the reign of Titus Flavius Domitian (emperor of Rome from AD 81 to 96) and into the reign of Trajan (emperor from AD 98 to 117). Given this information and the fact that John wrote in his fairly old age (his use of “children” for the believers implies this) the epistles (also the Gospel of John15) need to be dated in the late eighties or early nineties.16 Regarding from where John wrote, Yarbrough says, “Patristic sources plausibly affirm that in roughly 70–100 John was in Ephesus and ministered there.”17 These details (late eighties or early nineties date, and writing from Ephesus) will be assumed in this commentary.

The Historical Context

Within the content of the three epistles, there is in each one of them at least one detail that is helpful in providing a feel of what was happening when John wrote them.

In 1 John 2:19 John talks of those who “have gone out of us.” While this will be discussed in more detail in the commentary itself, what this implies is that John’s readers are believers whom he had shepherded and they knew his position in matters of essential doctrines and basic Christian living. When he was writing, however, some false teaching had set into the community he had taught the truth and some of the members had been deceived to the point of leaving the congregation of the faithful. Most scholars refer to them as secessionists. Their position on sin seems to be that it did not matter (implied in what John teaches in 1 John 1) and their position on who Jesus is was that he did not come in the flesh, a lie that John refutes to the point of calling those who deny Jesus’ humanity the “antichrists” (2:18, 22; 4:3). Their worldview on these matters also seems to have made them downplay the place of love among people of God, against Jesus’ teaching that we love one another—a matter to which John gives extensive and repeated attention in the epistle. Lieu suggests that the “us” John uses in 2:19 refers to him and other teachers (for example, the apostles) like him.18 In other words, the seceding was at the teachers’ level and not at the level of members of the congregation. While this is not an impossibility, John seems to be exhorting the entire congregation in a manner (see for example, the use of “if anyone . . .” in chapter 1 and elsewhere in the epistle) that he is establishing them not to follow those who have been led astray. The picture painted does not seem to be just one of potential danger as Lieu proposes, but an existing situation.19 The assumption that will be adopted in this work is that the “us” of 2:19 refers to John and the faithful ones. He refers to the faithful as “you” from time to time but also, at times, places himself among them and uses “we” or us.” The false teachers are referred to as “they” or “them.”

In 2 John, we seem to have a faithful congregation that is facing the same issues (attacks) as the readers of 1 John. Promotion of love and defense of truth about Jesus having come in the flesh are also given central place. The only other place (in addition to 1 John) in the New Testament that “antichrist” is used is in this epistle (v. 7).

3 John focuses on hospitality, and from what is said, it is clear that there was one person (Diotrephes) who did not support it as an important practice among believers. It could have been the level of his understanding but it appears to have been more an attitude toward John and the faithful (a matter of the will) than lack of knowledge (a matter of the mind). The addressee (Gaius), however, was keen on hospitality and even exercised it beyond expectation. A third person (Demetrius) seems to have needed the support of Gaius and other faithful ones (or vice versa20), and so John recommends him to Gaius in a very positive manner.

Form/Genre and Purpose

A fourth and final matter of introduction we need to make a comment on before we look at the message in these letters has to do with form or genre. This is important because, even as some have commented, it could explain why the same word may be used differently by the same author. Jobes for example says, “Despite some differences that can probably be accounted for by different genre, the letters of John and the gospel of John are closer in language, style, dualistic worldview, and theology than they are to any other NT book.”21

While the Gospel of John is a deliberate presentation of who Jesus is, the Epistles of John, especially 1 and 2 John, are a defense of that truth. The defense is occasioned by teachings that deviate from the truth expounded in the Gospel. 1 John, by its general nature, may have been addressed to several congregations while 2 and 3 John may have been addressed to particular though different congregations.22 This, to begin with, could have determined the length of the epistles. While 1 John has five chapters (as we have it divided in what we have now23) 2 and 3 John have one chapter each.

The absence of the features of a formal letter or epistle in the first century (for example, author, addressee, greetings, good wish, or prayer) in 1 John and the limited use of the same in 2 and 3 John has led some to prefer viewing them, and especially 1 John, as either a tractate or a kind of manifesto,24 or a brochure of some kind.25 The absence of these features not ignored, especially in 1 John, the message definitely has an author (though not named) and recipients. As Culy says, “Recognizing that 1 John represents hortatory discourse is more important than settling the question whether or not it represents an actual letter.”26

Conclusion

As we approach the text of these three letters, therefore, we will assume that John the apostle wrote the three of them, to different congregations but having some shared problems. He wrote from Ephesus and in the latter years of his life. He wrote the first two letters because the truth (doctrine) and God approved behavior (morality) were under attack. He also wrote the third letter because the exercise of love, in the matter of hospitality specifically, was also under attack. He wrote to exhort the faithful to stand firmly in the true teachings they had received. The twenty-first century church is facing similar challenges and so the message is as relevant to us as it was for John’s original readers. It is for this reason that statements of application to our day will be made from time to time. Both “epistles” and “letters” will be used for the three books freely but without implying that they have all the features of a letter or epistle in the first century AD. Nevertheless, they are written with clear purpose of author exhorting recipient(s) on specific matters.

1. Ngewa 2009: 1.

2. The three epistles, and especially 1 John, resemble the book of Hebrews in this respect, about which a failure to accept the once held view that Paul wrote it is the more common trend even among those who prefer maintaining the traditional positions on these matters. Almost everyone uses “the author of Hebrews” over against saying “Paul” or someone else by name when making reference to the content of Hebrews.

3. A mention of the recipient is totally lacking, and the use of the first person plural (we) in the opening verses does not help much, except to tell us that the author was an eyewitness to the earthly life and ministry of Christ. The common practice in the first century was for a writer to begin by specifying who is writing and who the recipient is (in the New Testament, Pauline epistles adopt these features extensively), among other features like good wish or prayer (Doty 1973: 14). This has even led to discussions of whether the three books commented on in this work should be referred to as epistles or even letters. From the bibliography at the end of this work, it is noticeable that less and less authors are using “epistles” or “letters” in the title of their works on the three books. This, however, is a secondary issue to the message of the books. It is very clear that behind the message was an author and the message is directed to specific readers (see discussion on genre/form below).

4. See, among others, Guthrie 1970: 864–69; and Painter 2003: 44–51.

5. The argument that it was not uncommon to have a document attached to an authoritative figure for the purpose of its acceptance has been proposed, to explain away the traditional view, but that needs to be weighed against the extent of testimony of the early church fathers.

6. A significant point of similarity between the Gospel of John and 1 John is the use of vocabularies such as logos (word) found in John 1:1, 14 and 1 John 1:1 to refer to Jesus, paraklētos (advocate/comforter) in John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7; and 1 John 2:1; entolē kainē (new commandment) in John 13:34 and 1 John 2:7, 8; and gennaō (I give birth to) in John 3:3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; and 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18, just to mention some. For more detailed listing, see Brooke 1912: i–xix; Painter 2003: 58–73; and Jobes 2014: 25–27. The use of dualism (for example darkness and light, love and hate, truth and falsehood, God and devil) is also another important element of similarity between the two writings.

7. Assumption is usually made from a study of the Synoptic Gospels that Peter, James, and John would be the most likely candidates for the description, “disciple whom Jesus loved.” While Jesus had twelve disciples, these three constituted what appears to be an inner circle (see, time of transfiguration: Matt 17:1–8; Mark 9:2–19; Luke 9:28–36; occasion of healing Jairus’ daughter: Mark 5:37–42; Luke 8:51–56; and at Gethsemane: Matt 26:37–46; Mark 14:33–42). Peter is eliminated because he is mentioned alongside the disciple whom Jesus loved (John 13:23–24; 20:2; and 21:20–21) and James is eliminated because he was killed no later than AD 44 when Herod Agrippa (the killer) died (Acts 12:2) and no New Testament book was written that early. This leaves John who also meets the criteria of the author having been a Jew and a witness of what is recorded in the gospel. For more on this, see Ngewa 2003: 429–30; and Keener 2003: 89–91.

8. Polycarp lived AD 69–155 and in his letter to the Philippians (7:1) uses words that are a clear quotation from 1 John 4:2–3 and 2 John 7 (Jobes 2014: 31). While this may prove more that the Epistles of John were known to Polycarp than that John wrote them, it does at least weaken one of the arguments used to deny Johannine authorship, that is, they were written after John had died. For Polycarp to have quoted it as authority, the gap between when it was written and when he could have quoted it need to be long enough for its authority to have been established.

9. While Papias’s witness, quoted by Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. 3.39), is center of the debate as to whether Papias’s use of “Lord’s disciple” and “elder” have the same person in view or two persons (John the apostle and his follower), the ambiguity is not sufficient basis to dismiss the view that the two refer to the same person, namely John the apostle (see Carson 1991: 69–70). It is within good judgment to view John the apostle as the same person mentioned twice (as an apostle and then as a living witness), with the first mention placing him alongside Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, and Matthew (fellow apostles) while the second mention (using the phrase “John the elder”) places him alongside Aristion. Also see Keener 2003: 95–98.

10. Of the several places where Irenaeus quotes from 1 John in his work, “Against Heresies,” 3.16.5, is a clear witness for he attributes his quote from 1 John 2:18–22 to Saint John.

11. Others include Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertulian (see Guthrie 1970: 864–65). Schnackenburg says, “The tradition of the early church since the time of Irenaeus (d. 202 CE) and Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. 211) ascribes both GJohn and 1 John unequivocally to John the apostle, the son of Zebedee” (1992: 40–41). See also Yarbrough 2008: 5.

12. The argument that has been most influential to those who deny Johannine authorship is the assumption that beliefs go through a process of thesis, antithesis, and then synthesis (as advocated by F. C. Baur in the nineteenth century) with John belonging to the synthesis stage and therefore written later than first century AD. Without going into details (for that will not serve any purpose here) the basis of this argument is that there is no revelation; all beliefs take the process of thought development. Non Johannine authorship, in this case, then becomes an assumption (John belongs to synthesis stage) based on another assumption (there is no revelation, but only development of beliefs). That is not sufficient ground to make us doubt the witness of the church fathers.

13. See for example, deSilva 2004: 452–54. Drawing from the different usage of shared vocabularies and such other observations, deSilva says, “Differences in thought and emphasis, which suggest at least a very different situation, also tend to point to different authors” (2004: 453). Brown also, working with a Johannine community view says, “We have in the Gospel and Epistles traces of development within a particular Christian community over several decades” (1997: 404).

14. Brown also assigns to 1 John a date later than the Gospel but from a different perspective. He works with the assumption of a Johannine School with at least four stages, “the beloved disciple (who was the source of the tradition), the evangelist, the presbyter of the Epistles, and the redactor of the Gospel” (Brown 1988: 106). In the fuller commentary he says, “Most probably I John was written not only after GJohn but after an interval long enough for a debate to have arisen about the implications of GJohn and for a schism to have taken place. Recognizing the approximations, if one dates the evangelist’s final work (i.e., GJohn without the redactor’s additions) to ca. AD 90, I John may feasibly be dated to ca. 100” (Brown 1982: 101).

15. See Ngewa 2003: 430. When the alternative position that the writings of John do not all need to be attributed to John but to a Johannine school or community is accepted, the date of one (for example, the Gospel) does not need to be the same time as the other. Those who assume a Johannine community argue that John had disciples who so much took after him that they also thought and expressed themselves like their master. Such scholars see the similarities between the Gospel and the epistles within this context of master-follower influence. The position adopted here, however, is that the similarities exist because the Gospel and the epistles had the same author.

16. Jobes 2014: 29.

17. Yarbrough 2008: 17.

18. Lieu 2008: 101.

19. Lieu 2008: 102.

20. The context is not very clear. Demetrius may have been someone whose company Gaius needs to keep over against Diotrephes who is in the wrong or he could have been someone Gaius needs to lend a helping hand to. In any case, he is a third and important character in 3 John. See fuller discussion in the commentary.

21. Jobes 2014: 27.

22. deSilva (2004: 452), who views the three epistles as written about the same time but to different audiences, relates 1 John to “the most approximate audiences of the author’s circle, seeking to insulate them against the secessionists’ position and consolidate their allegiance in the wake of the schism”; 2 John to “a more distant house church (or perhaps a set of churches) to warn them about secessionist missionaries, shaping the Christians’ perception of those missionaries in advance of their coming to assure their rejection”; and 3 John to “a locale where one church leader has blocked the author’s envoy from receiving hospitality,” seeking to “secure hospitality for the author’s missionaries.”

23. Chapter and verse divisions are credited to Stephen Langton of the thirteenth century and Robert Estienne of the sixteenth century, respectively (Finegan 1974: 34).

24. Kummel 1975: 437.

25. Smalley 1984: xxxiii.

26. Culy 2004: xiii.