John Lecture Notes

1 JOHN: INDUCTIVE LECTURE NOTES Frank G. Carver

If I use these notes again, see handwritten suggestions and inserts in New Mexico hard copy 6.3.7.1 file which have not been assimulated.

John Wesley: “THE WIND BEING IN MY FACE, tempering the heat of the sun, I had a pleasant ride to Dublin. In the evening I began expounding the deepest part of Holy Scripture, namely the First Epistle of John. Here are sublimity and simplicity together, the strongest sense and the plainest language!” (Journal, quoted from R.E.O. White, An Open Letter to Evangelicals, p.9). [Document from Wesley’s Works. White does not document]

“Personally, for this ‘staid church member,’ the impact of John this time around was in the positive passages of the epistle. Though I profess a grace theology, I know that humanly I often interpret the Marks of a Christian as CONDITIONS for walking in the light. This attitude is so subtle that is hard to recognize even in myself” (Shirley Cox, Fall, 1975. See Luther, D. Moody Smith, 7).

1 JOHN THEME: LIFE IN THE SON Key text: 5:13 (1:1; 5:11-12) (Spring 1985)

God is love CHRISTOLOGICAL Incarnation (sin and forgiveness) Atonement

witness We proclaim Life (koinōnia) (walking in the light) = ASSURANCE write (that you may know)

we love one another ETHICAL Christlikeness (righteousness) (loving)

The Whole of 1 John

1. At one sitting read through 1 John twice, preferably in different translations (one standard).

Write in your own words a topic sentence (complete) for each paragraph in the book according to its major thought. Follow the paragraphing in your Bible or the structure chart (unless you disagree with the divisions).

Bultmann:

1:1-4 Proemium 1:5-2:2 Fellowship with God and walking in the Light 2:3-11 Knowledge of God and Keeping the Commandments 2:12-17 Homily and Parenesis 2:18-27 Warning against the False Teachers 2:28-3:24 Children of God and Brotherly Love 4:1-6 Warning against false teaching 4:7-12 Brotherly Love as response to the Love of God 4:13-16 Confession and faith in God’s Act of Salvation 4:17-18 Confidence as the Fruit of Love 4:19-5:4 Brotherly Love as commandment or as the Essence of the commandments 5:5-13 Faith in the Son of God and witness for Him 5:142-21 Appendix

How many major divisions or sections do you see in 1 John apart from a prologue and epilogue? Two, three, or more? Write a topic sentence for each.

Listen to a few suggestions;

Problem: Twofold- Plumber, Brown, Smalley, Burge,44-45. Threefold- Law Schnackenburg Chart: Haering

Preface

1. Ethical Thesis: 1:5-2:17, walking in the light as the authentic mark of fellowship with God. Christological Thesis: 2:18-27, belief in Jesus as the foundation of fellowship

1. Ethical Thesis: 3:38-3:24, doing righteousness as the evidence for the birth from God. 2. Christological Thesis: 4:1-6, the Spirit that is from God confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. Both theses bound up together

4:7-21, love as the foundation of belief 5:1-12, belief as the foundation of love.

Conclusion, 5:31-21

Both Schanckenburg and Haering must except prologue and conclusion and include seemingly fragmentary material.

Fred O. Francis, 123f. see #5 below.

Thematic statements, 1:1-3

Joy in writing, 1:4

The message heard and proclaimed, 1:5-2:29

Reflections on the Message, 3:1-5:12

Closing affirmations, 5:13-21

See personal outline: 1 John: Life in the Son Handout

Introduction--the Message: “we proclaim to you . . . the word of life” 1:1-4 “God is light”: “walk in the light” 1:5—2:27 “He is righteous”: “practice righteousness” 2:28—4:6 “God is love”: “love one another” 4:7—5:12 Conclusion: “we know that we are of God” 5:13-21

State in a sentence or short paragraph the writer’s theme or central message (i.e., what is the book about?). Suggest a key verse that contains this theme most succinctly.

Theme: Life in the Son 5:11-12 (1:1) “this life is in His Son”

Insert graph of whole letter: Xerox and Handout

5. What kind of a document is 1 John? How would you classify it according to literary genre (type)?

“The First Epistle of St. John is a deceptively simple book: simple, because its message at any and every point seems to be open and clear; deceptively so, because the book as a whole resists all attempts at classification.” (J. C. O’Neill, Puzzle of 1 John, 1. Has the author a member of a Jewish sectarian movement, the bulk of whose members had become Christians. Opponents were those members who had refused to follow their brethren into the Christian movement. Page 6).

“I write” 1:4, 5:13

In comparison with the beginning and ending of 2 and 3 John, note absence of letter style.

Content is theological exposition and moral exhortation- - so it appears that the homiletic material (previously delivered orally in the congregation) has been utilized to meet a particular situation by writing.

So a “treatise” or “epistle” (Deissmann).

“I J is then not a letter, it is a theological tract, modeled roughly on this congregations existing production, GJ especially in structure and terminology, and in the use and contents of the prologue. This is not to say that IJ does not have one or two features which give it something of the appearance of a letter which has lost a top and a tail: There are thirteen occurrences of the verb write (grapho), chiefly in expressions like “I have written to you’ (e.g. v. 13). Six of them are concentrated in ii:12-14, a passage which on any showing is likely to lack a pre-history. The statements where this word occurs probably all belong, as they stand, to the final stage of composition” (Houlden, 24, 31f.).

Fred O. Francis, “The Form and Function of the Opening and Closing paragraphs of James and I John,” ZNW 61 (1970), 110-126), 110-126:

“In the still unfinished task of form criticism of the Hellenistic letter, the double opening statement is a form heretofore not given specific attention. The form appears to be related to structures of the common Hellenistic private or public letter, but it is equally common in ‘secondary letters,’ that is letters which for one reason or another lack situational immediacy (111). . . . : I John 1 3 is clearly a parallel reformulation/of 1 1-2. Awareness of the convention of double opening statements enables one o sort out the elements of the passage. I John 1 1-2 emerges as the first half of the double form, and 1 3 the second. Verse three complements verses one and two by picking up the themes of seeing and hearing and proclaiming, and recasting eternal life with the Father as fellowship with the Father and Son. Verse one is a compound relative clause in which the first clause, ‘that which was from the beginning,’ is best understood as the antecedent of the subsequent relative pronouns. In any case, verse one, with its aggregation of relative clauses, attaches direction to verse two as an introductory relative clause standing in apposition to an independent sentence. The kai with which verse two begins is explicative or epexegetical. ‘That which was from the beginning . . . that is, life was manifest,’ etc. The probability of this view is enhanced by the fact that heorakomen in verse two takes zoe as its object while ho heorakmen in verse one takes ho en ap’ arches as its antecedent and peri . . . zoes as a prepositional modifier. Hence, ‘that which was from the beginning’ is life. There is no need to treat verse two as a parenthetical remark. Verse one stands in apposition to the independent sentence, verse two (especially to its subject, life, and verse three is simply a new sentence. Verse four is a summary, transitional epistolary device alluding to the echaren in the opening of other epistles. The lack of address or greeting in I John simply/illustrates the thoroughly secondary character of the document’s epistolary form. May secondary letters evidence this phenomenon (121-123). . . . The opening thematic statement makes it clear that the primary issue in I John is life, which is articulated as Christian fellowship, that is, fellowship ‘with the Father and with his Son’ (123). In summary, scholarship must reassess the literary character of the epistles James and I John in the light of what would appear to be carefully styled opening thematic statements, a recognizable epistolary close, and the rather substantial literary-thematic coherence of the epistles as a whole. James and I John may be understood as epistles from start to finish—secondary epistles in form and in literary treatment of the subject matter.” (126).

See R. Brown, Epistles, 86-91.

From your reading of the content, why do you think the author is writing this book? What can you already sense about the situation in the churches to which he is writing?

1:1-4; 2:7-14, 21, 27; 5:13-20.

Basic Problem: Assurance of eternal life

Personal words from “How Great a Love: The Rest of Faith, 1-6). “The purpose of this writing is (1) the strengthening of genuine faith and brotherly love and (2) the joyous assurance of divine fellowship which is given by it,” i.e., by the strengthening. (Schnackenburg, 1), [my translation]. The published translation reads: “His purpose in writing is to strengthen true faith and mutual love, and the joyful certainty of fellowship with God (1:3) and of eternal life (5:13), which that brings. This general Christian goal of salvation is endangered by certain heretics and enemies of the faith. The polemic against these antagonists is by no means confined to the two sections 2:18-27; 4:1-6, but in fact pervades the entire document:” (3).

Dieses allgemeine christlich Heilziel ist durch bestmimmte Irrlehrer und Glaubens-feinde gefahrdet. Die Bekampfung dieser Gegner ist nich auf die beiden Abschnitte 2, 18-24; 4, 1-6 beschrankt sondern durchzieht das ganze schreiben.

Gnostic denials: incarnation, flesh/spirit dualism, ethical character of religious experience, here the denial of love only religion a matter of enlightenment only, who you are.

1 John 1:1-4 See “Rest of Faith,” 8ff.

From your reading or these verses what is your first observation about what 1 John is (the nature and character of the document)?

What can you discern form these verses about the problem in the community to which John is writing?

See text.

Define the basic function of 1:1-4 in 1 John, that is, what are they doing as a unit in relation to the remainder of the document?

Introduction or epistolary preface: “concerned essentially with the apostolic proclamation of the Gospel-what it was, and why it was made” (Stott, 57).

See Fred Francis in #5 above who says it follows a recognizable epistolary (secondary) pattern: “The cultivation of the twofold statement specifically as an opening form appears to go hand in hand with attention to the epistolary form in the Hellenistic era” (117). Read Greek, V. 2 not as a parenthesis: “The second half of the twofold pattern never simply repeats the first; rather, even where there is a close parallelism, the second statement adds a new element to the first. This is true in all the letters we have surveyed, including Philemon.” (117, cf. 122f.).

Verses 1-3 are one sentence in Greek. Identify its irreducible grammatical core—simple subject, verb and object. If you want to have fun diagram the entire sentence in Greek. What is the note struck by the main verb, and where else is a similar note sounded in verses 1-4?

“proclaim” (3) = “witness” & “Proclaim” (2) = “write” (4)

Core: we proclaim | what….

We proclaim (v. 3, cf. 2 & 4) --a common life, v. 3 --introduced as “Word of Life” --explained as “eternal life”

Already the unity of gospel and ethic is evident.

5. Define the issue that concerns the writer in verse 1.

With the message being Jesus in the concreteness of his historical existence, the issue is then the validity of the revelation of the life of God in the historical actuality of the incarnation. Illustration: Evelyn Underhill’s journey of faith. Von Huegel her mentor.

In verse 2 what is meant by the expression “eternal life” and how does it tie in with “Word of life” in verse 1?

From dissertation: “The Johannine as well as the New Testament use of zoe aionios has its immediate background in the common rabbinic formula, the ‘life of the age to come,’ a life which is both qualitatively and quantitatively different from this life. The reference is properly to life in Messianic Age, which is to come. In the Synoptic Gospels the term is equivalent to ‘the kingdom of God’ (cf. Mk. 10:17-31) that, though a future blessing, is present in the person and ministry of Jesus. Similarly in John’s Gospel the phrase ‘kingdom of God,’ occurring only in 3:3, 5, is made equivalent to ‘eternal life’ (3:15-16). In Johannine language ‘eternal life’ supplants the Synoptic ‘kingdom of God.’ John can use the term in the futuristic sense (5:39; 6:27; cf. 5:29), but more often it carries a qualitative emphasis upon life in the present (5:24; 6:54; 1123-26). The two conceptions merge in the living Christ.”

That which has ultimate meaning must comprehend both the past and the future.

“Word of life” is the point of reference for the “what” of v. 3 that comprehends the “whats” of v. 1. “Eternal life” defines what John means by “life” in the phrase, “Word of Life.”

The grammar is indirect, but the thought is direct.

“ho heorakamen in verse one takes ho hen ap’ arches as Its antecedent and peri… zwes as a prepositional modifier”

Is the author’s first reference in the phrase “Word of Life” (1) the person (John 1:1) or the message about Jesus?

Rudolf Bultmann writes on verse 1 that in the first instance the answer is the subject matter. But yet what is significant “is that subject matter and person are identical in a unique fashion: to speak of the subject matter is to speak at the same time of the person” (8). On verse 2 he adds, “Subject matter and person are not directly identical; rather one must speak of a paradoxical identity, which consists in the fat that a historical event is at the same time the eschatological event. . . . For I John . . . it is characteristic that the eschatological event is further realized in the proclamation” (8) Check Jim Kay’s dissertation for an expansion of Bultmann‘s views at this point..

THE MESSAGE IS JESUS IN THE CONCRETENESS OF HIS HISTORICAL EXISTENCE!

How does verse 2 grammatically relate to verses 1 and 3? What is the writer concerned to tie together in verse 1-2? That is, what or who is he identifying with what? How do verses 1 and 2 relate to the core sentence as defined in #4?

Fred Francis: “I John 1 3 is clearly a parallel reformulation of 1 1-2. Awareness of the convention of double opening statements enables one o sort out the elements of the passage. I John 1 1-2 emerges as the first half of the double form, and 1 3 the second. Verse three complements verses one and two by picking up the themes of seeing and hearing and proclaiming, and recasting eternal life with the Father as fellowship with the Father and Son” (121-122). More material in Q5 of previous section.

The subject matter, eternal life, with the historical event. Cf. Bultmann, 8, quoted above.

1:1-2 are the content of the proclamation.

Define the purpose of 1 John as stated in verse 3. What more (than we have already seen in verses 1-2) do we learn about the content and thrust of the message that is proclaimed in verse 3? What does this way of stating the message imply about the situation or condition of the readers?

“that you also may have fellowship with us”—“the aim of the whole Epistle is announced: hina kai humeis koinonian echete meth’hemon. . . . Naturally this sentence is spoken with a view to the threatening cleavage between the true believes and the heretics.” (Bultmann, 12-13). Cf. Stott, 63, in expository notes, 9.

“the church, the fellowship which is the body of Christ, the koinoinia, is the fellowship-creating reality of Christ’s presence in the world’ (Paul Lehman, Ethics in a Christian Context, 14.

Reformulation of 1:1-2: “Life now equals fellowship”  Jesus is the relation between us!

the historical and qualitative uniqueness of his relation to the Father?

The threatened break in fellowship between true believers and the teachers of error.

Note the two verbs used to describe the apostolic announcement in verses 1-4. What two different kinds of authority are involved?

The content of “write” is (the apostolic ministry) (1) a testimony—“bear witness” (v. 2)—the authority of experience a proclamation—“proclaim” (v. 3)—the authority of commission

“Having received a commission, he proclaims the gospel with authority, for the Christian message is neither a philosophical specculation, nor as tentative suggestion, nor a modest contribution to religious thought, but a dogmatic affirmation by those whose experience and commission qualified them to make it” (Stott, 62f.)..

How does verse 4 summarize or restate verses 1-3? Note and reflect on the corresponding concepts?

Write = witness (v. 2) proclaim (v. 3)

joy = fellowship (= salvation) “our” is the correct reading. John 15:11; 17:13

“And what is the secret of fullness of joy, ‘the complete and perfect felicity which we obtain from the Gospel’ (Calvin)? It is in the fellowship which the proclamation creates; for if the immediate purpose of the proclamation is the establishment of fellowship, the ultimate purpose is the completion of joy. This is the divine order – angelia, koinonia, chara” (Stott, 65).

Bultmann, 13f.: “In v 4 apaggellomen (. . .) is replaced by tauta graphomen hemeis(. . .), which applies to the whole Epistle and thus to everything following, without the necessity of excluding what is expressed in vss 1-3. The statement of intent, too, is now differently formulated, in that it reads hina he chara hemon e pepleromene (. . .) instead of hina . . . koinonian echete (. . .). The hemon (. . .) is noteworthy, not only after the statement of purpose in v 3, which contains the wish for the readers, but also because an humon (. . .) would better correspond to the traditional formulation of the wish at the end of the prescript. It is understandable, therefore, that in some manuscripts and translations, the hemon has been changed to humon. Nevertheless, hemon is the correct reading (so also Schnackenburg), when one considers that according to v 3 the koinonia (. . .) of the author with the readers is at the same time the koinonia with the Father and the Son. Just as the latter is included in the former, so also the chara (. . .) of the readers and the author is the same. The chara (. . .) is nothing other than the salvation that is given with the koinonia (. . .) with the Father and the Son: the eschatological salvation. But the chara is present without losing its eschatological sense, because the believers are freed in faith from the world that is pressing upon them, as stated in 5:13: tauta egrapsa humin hina eidete hoti zoen echete aionion (. . .). 3:14, too, says that the zoe (. . .) is present: hemeis oidamen hoti metabebekamen ek tou thanatou eis ten zoen (. . .). However, as certainly as this eschatological joy can be present, it is just as certainly only a provisional joy, whose fulfillment is still pending. Thus the wish: hina he chara hemon e pepleromene, i.e, that our joy made be complete. It is complete in the fellowship that already exists between the author and the readers in conjunction with the Father and the Son, and yet it is not. For the being of the believer is no static being, but is always in the process of becoming, a peripatein (. . .) (see 1;5, etc., because he stands under the claim of the commandment. That is demonstrated immediately in 1:5—2:11, and basically in the whole Epistle.

In summary (a) what all can you now say about the error John is refuting and (b) with what affirmations does he counter them?

The unity of revelation between the Father and the incarnate Son, or the presence of eternal life in the midst of men.

The unity of religious experience and interpersonal ethic.

THIS IS WHAT HE PROCLAIMS!

What is the witness of these verses concerning the nature of your Christian existence in the life of the church?

THIS IS WHAT HE PROCLAIMS!

The Christian Life as one relationship which comprehends both Gospel—what God has done, and Ethic—what we are to do. So we proclaim both—in balance!

As adapted for SS use (11/9/03: These verses introduce John’s first letter as they present in essence the message, the theological witness, of the entire letter. Simply put, they stress the essential biblical truth that the life of the Christian is one relationship, a relationship that comprehends both Gospel and Ethic, that is, they hold together both “What God has done” and “What we are to do”—the inherent unity of the horizontal and vertical dimensions. It is imperative for our spiritual welfare and the health of the Church that these two are kept in balance—not only the presence of both, but their proper relationship to each other. “This life, . . . the eternal life,” is “fellowship with us” and “ with the Father and with the Son.”

“God is light” emphasizes the fact of the unity, and “God is love” stresses the nature of the ethic.

OUTLINE FROM EXPOSITORY NOTES:

Introduction: theme—“the Word of Life . . . we proclaim to you,” 1:1-4

The Word of Life is God’s Eternal Life, 1:1-2 Concretely known in the Gospel of Christ, the life of Jesus, v. 1

A life that incorporates the message The life of the incarnate Jesus, “hear, see, looked at, touched” The life which was with the Father, v. 2 The life of the age to come The life from eternity

The word of Life is a Common Life, 1:3-4 A partaking together in the life of Jesus, v.3 The purpose of the proclamation is fellowship centered in the presence of Christ. The presence of the Son is the life of the Father. Which ethically qualifies our relation to each other, v. 3 A common sharing of life One inseparable relationship The content of a joyous witness, v.4 Likewise a sharing-out The Apostolic ministry

Expository notes not assimilated from here on.

1 John 1:5—2:27

The Whole

From major part to major part in this section (1:5—2:2; 2:3-11; 2:12-17; 2:18-27) what continuities in emphasis are most evident? Discontinuities?

1:5-2:2 to 2:3-11

C-ethical emphasis (sin) C-light C-contrasts C-walk

D-general to specific D-atonement theme discontinued D-parallel structure differs

2:31-11 to 2:12-17

C-abide C-logos C-agape C-use of absolute contrasts

D-write D-classes of Christians D-kosmos D-poneros

2:12-17 to 2:18-27

C-write C-abide C-absolute contrasts

D-Christological concerns D-chrisma D-truth and lie

How do each of the above defined parts relate to the central assertion in 1:1-4?

1:5-2:2 Message is now developed in terms of a denial of koinonia now defined religiously and solved by use of sin and atonement categories.

2:3-11 Denial of koinonia defined ethically

2:12-17 Life is affirmed, qualified, and a warning given

2:18-27 Picks up the Christology theme- incarnation.

1 John 1:5—2:2 “Rest of Faith,” 21ff.

how does 1:5 relate to 1:1-4? What in 1:1-4 is now more concretely develped in 1:5—2:2?

“the message” (5) develops concretely “what we have seen and heard (3) “concerning the word of life” (1) and “these things” (4).

He now begins to spell out in detail the implications of the apostolic message for the particular situation of his readers, i.e., for the life of the Johannine church as koinonia is put in a religious setting. Cf. Bultmann, 15.

How does the writer’s assertion that “God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all” function in the way he structures 1:5—2:2? What is the basic dualism the author uses? How should it be understood in the light of the other contrasts in the passage?

The phase of the “message” John is now going to develop.

Schnackenburg: “Die Botschaft” of 1:5-2:27, and “steht als Kern und Leitgedanke ueber dem ganzen Haupteil” (78).

Law describes it as “the fundamental announcement: of his First Cycle, 1:5-2:28. “It is the logical starting-point for the whole paragraph--the major premise from which the apostle proceeds, in regarding the conditions of fellowship with God.” (57).

Cf. Stott, p. 70, and Bultmann, p. 16f.

Primary use is ethical or moral, although “vision” and the realms of salvation are implied--so revelational, salvational. Cf. Stott

“the ultimate underlying notion is that the real meaning of light is the luminosity man needs in order to find his way in his daily as well as his spiritual life.”

“God is light”: As “God is love” (4:8, 16) and “God is spirit” (FG 4:24) as “eine Definiton des Wesens Gottes, wie Gott an sich ist. Er besagt vielmehr, was Gott fuer den Menschen bedeutet” (Bultmann, 21 [16]). 3. List the three sets of “if” clauses in 1:6-2:2 and note their relation to the structure of the passage. As John develops his message (1:5) how do verses 6 and 7 relate to each other? Does the same hold true in verses 8 and 9? In verses 10 and 2:1-2? Why do you think the author varies his structure at this point?

“the message” that “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all” when develped means.

“if we say…”(1:6) “but if we walk…” (1:7) “if we say…” (1:8) “if we confess…” (1:9)

“if we say…” (1:10) (“my little children…” (2:1) “and if any one sins…” (2:1b-2)

John alters his purpose in line with his pastoral purpose (2:1a).

4. Analyze the structure of verse 7, that is, define the function of each of its three clauses in relation to the other two. Does the same analysis work in verses 6, 8, 9, 10? How does it apply to 2:1-2?

Condition: “but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light”

Consequence: “we have fellowship with one another.”

Explanation: “and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.” (reason)

So vv. 6, 8, 9, & 10.

But 2:1-2:

2:1a: (My… sin)

2:1b: Bedingung

2:1c: Konsequenz

2.2: Explikation (Nauck 19ff.) 5 Note the four basic sets or parallels found in 1:6—2:2 (6a. 8a, 10a; 6b, 8b, 10b; 7a, 9a, 2:1; 7b, 9b, 2:2). What is the function of each set in the writer’s argument?

Set #1: Opponents denial or claim, 6a, 8a, 10a

Set#2: John’s evaluation, 6b, 8b, 10b

Set#3: The Twofold Gospel solution: One--7a, 9a, 2:1b

Set#4: The Twofold Gospel solution: Two--7b, 9b, 2:2

THE ETHICAL PROBLEM IS CHRISTOLOGICAL!!

On 1:6: “truth”

For truth only is living, Truth only is whole, And the love of his giving Man’s polestar and pole Man, pulse of my centre, and fruit of my body, and seed of my soul.

Now putting the text back together, sketch the development of thought (selection and defining significant terms) as the author moves from 1:5 to 1:6-7 and through 1:8-9 to 1:10—2:2.

“If follows that Christianity takes a unique place as a creative fore in the history of human thought. The reason why it has been equally creative in both religion and thics is that these, from a Christian point of view, are not strictly two separate things, but are so interwoven with one another as to be really only two different aspects of the same thing. Christianity knows nothing either of a non-ethical fellowship with God or of non-religious ethics. The Christian Religion is a thoroughly ethical religion and its ethic is a thoroughly religious ethic” (Anders Nygren, Agape and Eros, tran. Philip S. Watson (London: S. P. C. K., 1953), 46

In verse 7 what is your suggestion as to why the author states the consequences as “we have fellowship with one another” and not “we have fellowship with Him” as we might expect from verse 6 (see the critical apparatus in the Nestle Greek text)?

See Bultmann, 19; O’Neill take it as original, 8.

What distinction should be made, if any, between “forgive” and “cleanse” in verse 9?

From “How Great a Love: The Rest of Faith”:

Forgiveness removes the sin confessed as a barrier to fellowship with God. Our lives are opened anew to His eternal life, Jesus Christ alive. Our spiritual sky is clear: “There is therefore now no condemnation, for those who are in Christ Jesus . . . who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit” (Romans 8:1, 4). Cleansing removes the sin confessed as a barrier to fellowship with man—that is, sin as moral defilement of the life is removed by the new life of love which we no share in Christ. At the heart of the fellowship of mutual love after the pattern of the earthly Jesus and with the dynamic of the risen Christ is the confession of sin in what ever form or at whatever level we become conscious of it (59).

How does the use of “righteous” (dikaios) in 2:1 help to define its meaning in 1:9?

“Rest of Faith,” 62ff.

In 2:2 what does “propitiation” pick up from 1:5-10?

“Rest of Faith,” 64-66ff.

How would you now define the error John is addressing in the Christian community?

What does John mean by his fundamental affirmation that “God is Light”? How does he intend for his readers to “walk in the light”?

Ethical holiness-righteousness demanded (love) Communicating holiness-righteousness communicated (love) Blood Faithful and righteous Advocate. . . propitiation

Walk = ethical likeness Walk = confession, forgiveness, cleansing

See “Rest of Faith” 46-48. Read the Affirmations.

The denials are ethical with Christological implications. The answers are Christological with ethical implications.

So again the ethical problem is Christological!

See Sermon #567b for my application of this passage and the addition of John of the Cross to the original “As He is in the Light.”

How does John’s use of the expression “walk in the light as He is in the light” inform your Christian walk?

Reread 1:1—2:2. See Expository Outline 1:1—2:27.  1 John 2:3-11

Define the new theme expressed in 2:3.

The knowledge of God

2. Into what two paragraphs do these verses fall? What differences in style and subject matter do you notice between them?

2:3-6 2:7-11

“we. . . the one” “beloved, I am. . . the one”

Obedience-disobedience Love-hatred of brother

Commands Commandment

Relation to God relation to men

Assurance ethic

General specific

In 2:3-11 as compared with 1:5—2:2 what shift does John make in conceptual direction (or emphasis) as he develops the implication of “God is light” (1:5) for the situation of his readers?

“The theme of fellowship with God is now replaced by the theme of the knowledge of God.” Bultmann, pp. 24.

From the unity of religion and ethic (i.e. sin is real) to the necessity of ethical obedience-necessary to knowing God. The necessary obedience is progressively defined.

Or from the necessity of ethics to the necessity of a particular ethic which is now defined.

Fellowship with God involves an ethic, generally. Knowledge of God involves a particular ethic which now becomes specific.

From belief to practice.

What phrases in 2:3-6 correspond with “fellowship with Him” (v.6) “If we say” (vv.6, 8, 10) “walk in the light… fellowship with one another” (v. 7)?

“fellowship with Him” (v. 6)

“we have come to know Him” (2:3) “I have come to know Him” (2:3) “we are in Him” (2:5) “he abides in Him” (2:6)

“If we say” (vv.6, 8, 10)

“the one who says” (2:4) “Th one who says” (2:6)

“walk in the light. . . fellowship with one another “ (v. 7)

“we keep His commandments” (2:3) “keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected” (2:5) “ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked” (2:6)

What other ways in 2:4-6 does John express the “know Him” and “keep His commandments” of verse 3?

See #1 and #3 in question four above

Analyze the function of verses 3-6 in relation to each other, that is, the structure of the unit. What is the function of verses 3-6 in John’s presentation?

Verse 3 states the thesis that is elucidated in vv. 4-6

v. 4 negatively v. 5 a positive restatement v.6. second positive and defining restatement

“By this we know” in vv.3 and 5 serve as bracket to which v. 6 is the conclusion? See Bultmann, pp. 34-26.

Verse 3-6 drive home in different concepts the necessity of an ethic-an obedience ethic defined as Christlikeness.

What does John mean by “keeps His word,” “in him the love of God has truly been perfected” (v. 5; see 4:12), “in Him… abides in Him” (form and intent of language), and the “He” of “He walked” (v. 6)?

Bultmann: “It is easily understandable that logos (‘word’) replaces entolai (‘commandment’) , since God’s ‘word’ is the revelation of his reality and thereby also of his demand (his ‘commandments’) and of his forgiveness as well. In fact, in a certain sense the gift of forgiveness belongs also the ‘commandments,’ insofar as it demands from man the admission of his nothingness”(25).

Stott: “the single and complete revelation of the will of God in the incarnate Jesus: tou logou tes zoes.” “walk in the light” (ethic and forgiveness) = “keep his commandments”

A subjective genitive, “God’s love for men.” Bultmann: “To be sure, the man who is loved by God is also obliged to live, as vvs 10f. show, but this loving is oriented directly toward the brother” (25).

Teteleiotai – perfect tense telos is aim or goal.

“in Him . . . abides in Him” – “in God.”

Brown: “Since keeping the commandments (or God’s word) certainly involves the commandment to love one another, the love of God shown us in Jesus Christ reaches its perfection when the same love is shown to ‘one another’ and to the God who abides in the Christian” (257).

“keeping His commandments” is now “walking as He walked,” as the incarnate Jesus walked: “Jesus is thus referred to as the model and the foundation of Christian conduct. . . . The reference to this model is preparation for the fact that the commandments are summed up in the one commandment, the commandment to love, as vss 7-1l immediately indicate” (Bultmann, 26).

What is your response to the relation between “keep His commandments” and “know Him” in verse 3-6?

Bultmann, 25: “It is doubtless more nearly correct to say that ‘keeping the commandments’ (like ‘fellowship with one another,’ 1:7) is not the condition, but rather the characteristic of the knowledge of God. There is no knowledge of God which as such would not also be ‘keeping the commandments.”

“God does not accept us because we are good, but the terms on which he accepts us insures our becoming good” (MacIntosh, Forgiveness, 21),

“The only proof that we have really known God in Christ is the moral one” (White, 45).

“The real test of what you know is how you live. This is as true of the scientist, the artist, the economist, the psychologist, as of the Christian” (White, 47).

In verses 7 and 8 what does John mean by “new commandment” and “old commandment”? Note 1:7, 9 and the shift from “commandments” in verses 3-6 to “commandment” here, from plural to singular.

What new aspect appears in John’s use of the light-darkness dualism? What are the implications for his message?

Light Darkness Truth Falsehood LOVE HATRED

What new dualism now appears? How does it relate to the former dualism? Is there any neutral territory (i.e., are they mutually exclusive)? Why or why not?

An eschatological dualism, v. 8.

The categories are those of eschatological reality, not those of the psychology of Christian experience as they are applied in terms of the dualism of love and hate. In reality the realm of “hate” and therefore darkness and falsehood are passing away! So there is no neutral territory eschatologically. But they over lap psychologically, in the reality of human experience.

Bultmann, 28-29.

Edith Stein, The Hidden life, 101: “Every aversion, any anger and resentment we tolerate in our hearts, closes the door to the Savior.”

Describe the relation (continuities and discontinuities) between verse 3-6 and verse 7-11. How do verses 7-11 function as a unit in the context of the progression of John’s thought?

Continuity of ethical emphasis, but now spun out in new terms, defining “same manner as He walked.”

Introduces specifically his primary ethical concern in the light of the situation of the church.

Koinonia 1:3, 7 lack of love excludes from the new order.

What more have we learned from 2:3-11 about the views of the dissidents in the Johannine community?

Ethics = lack of love Cliquishness = hate

What have you learned about the nature of Christian assurance from this passage? Any new or enriched insights?

See following textual study: The Assurance of Eternal Life

Introduction

The basic theme of the passage appears to be that of the tests of assurance: “by this we know” (3, 5). Present tense.

The assurance in question is that of the possession of eternal life: “we have come to know him.. we are in him” (3, 5). An intensive perfect and a present tense Epistle.

To know God in Christ is eternal life (John 17:3) and eternal life (1 John 1:1-2) is one of the themes of the Epistle.

The passage presents two basic tests of assurance, or was that we may know that we are in possession of eternal life—3-5a, 5b-11.

We are assured of eternal life by an obedient life (3-5a)

For obedience to God’s commands is evidence that we know him 3-4)

The present tenses emphasize the necessity of the continual observance of God’s commands.

The negative statement in 2:4 accents the mandatory continuity between profession and moral life.

For obedience to God’s words perfects his love in us (5a).

logon is the “single and complete revelation of [God’s] will” (Stott, 90) in the Gospel as centered in Christ.

en touto is in the sphere of man’s life

he agape tou theou Subject genitive-God’s love for us teteleiotai (perfected) has the force of accomplishing God’s purpose, i.e., that is, when we keep his word, Intimated is the God’s communication of his own nature (1:7)-his love-obedience of life in consistency with the nature of the one to whom we are obedient.

We are assured of eternal life by a likeness of life (5b-11)

For our lives are to be like the lives of Jesus (5b-6)

For our lives are to issue in a love like his (7-11)

Conclusion: The exercise of redemptive love

in obedience to the will of God revealed in Christ, and

in consistency with the dynamic and pattern of the life of Christ constitutes the assurance of eternal life.

1 John 2:12-17

Into what two paragraphs are these verses best divided? Distinguish between the paragraphs in mood of the verbs employed, in literary form, in general content, and in the overall mood of each set of verses.

15-17

Indicative Imperative verbs

Assurance V.S. Warning

Homily Parenesis

Superiority (over the world)

“Here perhaps, more than elsewhere in the Epistle, he speaks to them in the words demanded by the time of the writing, without relying on existing material” (Houlden, 69)

“All six statements are best read as encapsulations, suitable for the time, of the writer’s essential and no doubt well-known convictions… they are not in the least an interruption of the argument: they look back particularly to v. 8” (Houlden, 71).

How do verse 12-14 relate in function to verses 7-11 (or 1:5—2:11) and verses 18-27, and thus to the basic issues of the epistle?

1:5-2:11 Contain an indirect warning against the Gnostic Heretics and thus can be understood as preparation for the direct warning in 2:18ff.

The function of 2:12-14 is to make the readers aware of their superiority to the heretics, and that indirectly and without naming the latter. They bring the reader to a consciousness of his existential situation which results from the eschatological character of the present, as designated in vv. 7-11. . . They are shown, e.g., what v. 8 means to them.

So these students indirectly contain an imperative, to realize their existential possibilities. So insofar as vv. 12-14 connect with the preceding verses, they constitute a preparation for 2:18ff. Cf. Bultmann

How do verses 15-17 relate in function to verses 12-14?

A direct warning which indicates how the reader is to authenticate the possession described in vv. 12-14.

So live on the right side of v. 8.

Cf. Bultmann.

Note the three groups of Christians apparently addressed in verse 12-14. What is the significance (is hoti “because” or “that,” causal or declarative?) of the statements made concerning each in the thought of the letter thus far?

See Brown, 297ff. for a discussion of the options and the “declarative” function of hoti.

Causative: “He would be writing because they have had their sins forgiven, because they know the Father and Jesus, and because they are strong” (301). Declarative: “the author would be writing because he felt a need to tell his ‘Children’ that their sins are forgiven, that they know the Father and Jesus, and that they are strolng. This would imply a demoralized audience unsure of themselves and their status” (301). The meaning “affects the relationship of this section to wjat [precedes and what follows” (301)

Unity of Religion and Ethic

Christology-Son, Father, Atonement

Ethic—reality of sin Necessity of love

Result is a loveless ethic

Reflect on how significant it is for us to rightly “learn Christ” (Ephesians 4:20) for our own Christian walk and for life in the Christian community.

1 John 2:28—4:6

In view of the character of the remainder of 1 John do you have any suggestion as to why it has been said that “the Epistle could have been concluded with 2:27” (Bultmann, p. 43)?

“The Epistle could have been concluded with 2:27 and originally probably was. The following sections contain no new ideas, but the same themes treated in 1:5-2:27 recur. There are occasional variations and new formulations, which are sometimes especially impressive” (Bultmann, p. 43).

Note the five basic paragraphs of this section (see chart). What is the basic concern of the first four as compared with the fifth?

2:28-3:3 Ethical 3:4-10 Ethical 3:11-18 Ethical 3:19-24 Ethical – transition? 4:1-6 Christological

1 John 2:28—3:24

How does this segment differ essentially from 2:18-27? What is its relation to 1:5—2:11?

From Christological back to ethical.

Comes back to the theme of the unity of religion and ethic, and to a re-emphasis on the nature of the ethic.

(2:28—3:3 and 3:4-10) What new theme unites the first two paragraphs? What similar yet different feature is used as the fundamental motif or logical ground of the argument of each?

Children of God

The appearing of Christ: 2:28-3:3 future 3:4-10 past

(2:28—3:3) Define the function of verse 28 and the connection of verse 29 with it.

“In 2:28 there is a formal transition to the theme, children of God, in that menete auto (‘you abide in him’) is take up from v. 27” (Bultmann, p44).

“The ground of the appeal to ‘abide in Him’ was their expectation of the speedy return of their Lord in glory, and their desire to be able to meet Him with confidence and joy, and not to have to shrink away abashed from His presence. This naturally raised the thought of the conditions which could make such a meeting possible” (Brooke, p. 67). So v. 29ff.

(2:29) Who is the “He is righteous”? of 3:7? Compare with 2:6.

“On the basis of the sequel to v 29, it appears that the subject of ‘righteous’ can only be Jesus, who is also characterized in 2:1; 3:7 as ‘righteous.’ However, Jesus cannot be intended, if it is immediately said of poion ten dikaiosune (‘the one who does right’) that ex autou gegennetai (‘is born of him’). The notion of procreation from Jesus is not viable; the text can only mean born of God, as in 3:9; 4:7; 5:1; 4, which is further supported by the reference to children of God in the verse immediately following (3:1)” (Bultmann, p.45).

“A person’s righteousness is thus the evidence of his new birth, not the cause or condition of it.” (Stott, p.118).

(2:28—3:3) Interpret John’s use of the return of Christ motif. How does 3:3 apply these verses to the nature of our Christian lives? See verse 7b and 2:6b. How does hope function?

“John’s reason for writing about the return of Christ and the final state is not theological but ethical” (Stott, p?)

“The hope of perfect likeness to Christ’s glory hereafter is not held out as a motive to strive after present likeness to His purity; but conversely, to strive after His purity is the inexorable test of having the hope of His glory” (Law, p. 215).

The purity of Christ’s humanity—ekeinos

--a purity at whose heart is full obedience to the will of the Father, John 4:34

--a purity which learned the meaning of obedience to the Father, a purity resulting from discipline on earth—“that element in holy character which is wrought out by the discipline of temptation” (Law) Hebrews 5:8-9—a purity which kept deepening until it was climaxed in the cross—John 17-12; Romans 12:2.

--an entire purity of life in impression and expression “being made conformable to his death,” a sanctification that reaches and keeps on reaching to the inmost recesses of the heart-a sanctification that makes its way ever more and more to the outmost disciplines of practical living.

Likeness to Christ in His cross, in nature, in thought, in word and in deed is the constant concern, the supreme concern of the child of God. Here is the heart and height of the Christian ethic-Jesus Christ Himself and His likeness.

“that we may know thee more clearly love thee more dearly and follow thee more nearly (Richard of Chichester)

The constant purifying of life is dependent on the constancy of the vision of Christ. Matthew 6:22: “if therefore your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light.”

Trotsky, in exile in France, at a time when the fate of his son Seryozka in Russia was unknown because of Stalin’s wrath towards Trotsky, in 1935 wrote in his diary: “the sky is gray; from the mountains the fog is creeping down into the valley; in the house it is chilly and damp. N. is fussing over the housework with a heavy weight in her heart. Life is not an easy matter. . . You cannot live through it without falling into prostration and cynicism unless you have before you a great idea which raise you above personal misery, above weakness, above all kinds of perfidy and baseness” ( Trotsky’s Diary in Exile, p. 68).

The Christian is to live in line with his hope. As Prince Charles—destined to be a King, so live like a prince!!

Thou dist Thy work begin by blotting out my sin; Thou wilt the root remove, and perfect me in love.

Yet when the work is done, the work is but begun. Partaker of They grace, I long to see Thy face; The first I prove below, The last I die to know. Charles Wesley

(3:4-10) what use is made of the coming of Christ in these verses? Identify the theme of verses 4-6 and verses 7-10. In view of the character of his readers, why do you think John emphasizes these particular themes?

The past appearance of Christ relates to the sin question, so it is again an ethical use!

The nature of sin is lawlessness. Genesis cc. 2-3 The origin of sin is the devil.

Reason for it is probably their Gnostic –like antinomianism. Bultmann, 49f. They agree that lawlessness is a heinous sin, but affirm that they are sinless.

(3:4) What do you think the author means by “lawlessness”? Does he use it here merely “to mark sin as a wrong act, willfully done” (Grayston, p. 104)? Burge: “John may mean that those who sin participate in lawlessness, otherwise know as rebellion, that is characteristic of the devil” (148). See 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7. So Marshall, 176.

Bultmann: “The epistle and the false teachers evidently presuppose a common conceptionof ‘lawlessness,’ viz., that ’lawlessness’ is a heinous sin” (49f.).

(3:9) Interpret “he cannot sin” and “His seed abides in him.” Why the apparent contradiction in argument between 3:4-10 and 1:5—2:2? What do you think of Marshall’s discussion on verse 6 (pp. 178-184)? How do you relate these verses to your own theological heritage, to your understanding of the nature of the Christian life?

“As in v 6, ‘not sinning’ is certainly in principle to be understood as the realization of the possibility given to the believer. Psychological/theological distinction valid here?” What do I mean by that? See Conny Link e-mail.

Argument in 7-10 contradicts that of 1:55-2:2? “the resolution of the contradiction lies in the fact that the menein (‘abdigin’) of the spora (‘seed’) is understood as the gift of God’s agape (‘love,’ 3:1), which remains for the believer a possibility not be lost, so that he can always can upon that gift, even though he in fact sins. Ou dunatai hamartanein (‘he is not able to sin’) is therefore to be understood as the possibility of not sinning, which the believer has received as the unforfeitable gift of God’s love, a possibility that is always to be realized, as v 10 immediately indicates. The gift of a possibility always includes a demand, and thus the demand itself can be understood as a gift. Consequently, v 9 can speak one-sidedly of gift” (Bultmann, 53).

Not, it is impossible to sin, but it is possible not to sin!

Define the function of 3:10 and the connection of verse 11 with it.

v.10: “at the same time a summary and conclusion of what has gone before and a transition to what follows” (Stott).

“Verse 11 provides the basis for the conclusion of v 10 by means of the sentence ( hoti, ‘for’) which states that mutual love is the content of the message heard from the beginning” (Bultmann, 54).

(3:11-24) What appears to be the function of each of the last two paragraphs? What is the relation between them?

3:11-18: The illustration and application of love as the correct expression of righteousness.

3:19-24: Enforces the love imperative by emphasizing the resultant assurrance.

(3:11-24) What new dualism can we add to the light-darkness, righteousness-sin, and love-hate dualism’s found in the epistle from these paragraphs?

Death--life

(3:11-18) How does John define hatred? Love?

Hatred = murder Love = sharing of the world’s goods

(3:19-24) Attempt a structural analysis as follows:

3:19-22: The ground of assurance 3:19-20: Christological Ground 3:21-22 Ethical Ground 3:23-24 Summary and Transition

(3:19-22) Interpret these verses, particularly verses 19-20. See 2:28—3:9.

1. “by this” in v. 19 refers back to love (Stott)

“God is greater” means “He knows all things, including our secret motives and deepest resolves, and, it is implied, will be more merciful towards us than our own heart. His omniscience should relieve, not terrify us” (Stott).

So Bultmann: (“God is greater. . . and knows all things”) means, in any case, that God’s standards are different from those of the human heart, that God is, so to speak, more magnanimous, and that, consequently, human self-condemnation can be silent before him. That God’s magnanimity consists of his knowledge of all things can only mean, in this context, that he knows we are basically lovers of the brethern (v 14) and as such, are ‘of the truth’ (v 19).”

BUT!

2. Nauch, 78f. takes “by this” forward which is answered by vv. 20-21 which are set up in negative fashion after the (1) Condition, (2) Consequence, and (e) Explication pattern of the earlier chapters with some startling differences.

3:20 (a) [if] our heart condemns us (b) God is greater than our heart (c) and knows all things

Compare the negative 20 with the negatives 1:6, 8, 10, and the positive 21 with 1:7, 9, 2:1-2. So with Calvin “aus das Gericht Gottes zu beziehen waeren: 1. Aus dem negativen tatbestand, dass uns das Herz verklagt, folgt die negativen Tatbestand, dass wir dann dem gericht Gottes verfallen und aus der Gemeinschaft mit ihm ausgescholossen sind (3, 20). 2. Aus dem positiven Tatbestand, dassuns das Herz nicht verklagt, folgt die positive Feststellung, dass we dann Zugang zu Gott and damit Geminschaft mit ihm haben (3, 21)” (Nauch, 81).

But does this imply the severity of God’s judgment, or his mercy? Luther the latter. Cf. Brown on this passage who takes the latter view.

Cf. Nauck, 80ff. So the question is, what is the basis of our confidence in v. 20 in the last analysis, our performance as in v. 21 or the immeasurable forgiveness of God?

Conclusion: God knows more about us than our heart tells us—that by the ultimate standards of God’s holiness we are even worse than our limited conscience tells us. Our assurance is in the fact that God’s forgiveness is greater than the condemnation of our hearts.

Edith Stein: “. . . . If, up to now, a person has been more or less contented with himself, the time for that is over. He will do what he can to change the unpleasant things he finds in himself, but he will discover quite a bit that can’t be called beautiful and yet will be nearly impossible to change. As a result he will slowly become small and humble, increasingly patient and tolerant toward the specks in his brother’s eyes, now that he has so much trouble with the beam in his own. Eventually, he’ll be able to look at himself in the unblinking light of the divine presence and learn to entrust himself to the power of divine mercy” (Waltraud Herbstrith, Edith Stein: A Biography [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1985], 154. But quoted from the German edition of her Works).

In Nauch’s German: Man kann sich diesen Bruch des Gedankens noch von einer anderes Ueverlegung her deutlich machen: Die letzte Teile der Strophe haben wir in Analogie zu den anderen dreizeiligen Strophen als Ezplikation der zweiten Zeile zu verstehen. Das Heisst: Gott erweist sich darin groesser als unser Herz, dass er alles weiss. Unser Herz weiss nicht alles. Wenig einleuchtend waere die Paraphrasierung: Wenn uns unser Herz, das night alles weiss, verklagt, dann wird Gott, der alled weiss, uns noch mehr verklagen. Denn dass Gott groesser ist als unser Herz, erwiest sich, wie eie c-Zeile zeight, darin, dass er mehr weiss, nicht aber darin dass er mehr verurteilt. Vielmehr wird der Bruch des Gedankens deutlich, wenn we paraphrasieren: Wenn us unser Herz verklagt: es weiss nicht alles – 0 Gott verklagt uns nicht: er is groesser als unser Herz, denn er weiss alles, wenn uns unser Herz night (oder: nicht mehr) verklagt, dann habe wir die parrhesie zu gott, die darin besteht, das wir alles, was wirr erbitten, von ihm empfangen werden Das is das Kennzeichen dafuer, dass wir aus der wahrheit sing, bei dem wir unser Herz ueberzeugen and beschwichtigen: Gottes Vergebung is groesser als die Anklage des Herzens” (82).

Do we have to always be “right” to be assured? Or only forgiven?

If lack of love, then we are assured by forgiving faith. If love is present, then sanctifying faith is our assurance.

But Wesley aggrees with Bultmann. See his Plain Account.

Adolf Schlatter, Die Briefe und die Offenbarung des Johannes (Stuttgart: Calwer Vereinsbuchhandlung, 1938), 75-79.

3, 19-24 What the Love for God Grants

3, 19a: daraus werden wir erkennen, dass wir aus der Wahrheit sind, . . .

3, 19b: und wir werden vor ihm unser Herz stillen; denn wenn uns das Herz verurteilt, ist Gott groesser als unser Herz und erkennt alles. . . Our hearts can not forget, God can forgive; our hearts ought to feel guilt, God makes us pure and righteous; our hearts ought to observe (achten) the damage (harm) for the incurable (unhilbar) and earnestly fear the danger of falling, before God that is no obstacle (hindrance). He knows everything, what our sins are, he knows however also how it stands with our love, he knows that we serve him honestly and that his command lives in our hearts. [check this translation of Nauck above.]

3, 21:22: . . .

3, 23: . . .

3, 24: . . .

(3:23-24) what is keeping “His commandment” for John? And the relation to Christian assurance? And to “the Spirit”? Should it be “spirit”? Should it be “spirit” or “Spirit”?

Commandments = believe and love

Obedience = assurance

Spirit = gift of faith + gift of love, so defined by the gift of commandment keeping. Or simply Holy Spirit undefined by context?

(2:28—3:24) what are the five either-ors of John in this segment?

We are either or

Of God of the Devil Practice righteousness practice sin Love hate Live die Confident ashamed

(3:24) How is this verse similar in function to verse 10? How does it function, precisely?

Summary and transition.

1 John 4:1-6

What is the justification of linking these verses with 2:28-3:24 to make one section?

The repeated warning is probably occasioned by the mention of “Spirit” in 3:24.

Also the seemingly intended Ethical-Christological structure.

To what previous passage of the epistle are these verses similar? What additional points or assertions are made here?

2:18-27

“test the spirits”

“false prophets”

“has come in the flesh”

“You are from God, little children, and have overcome them, because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world.”

“They are from the world. . . and the world listens to them.”

“We are from God; he who knows God listens to us.”

“the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.”

What kind of situation in the church does this passage presuppose?

Brown: “the false prophets are the secessionist deceivers who went out from the Community and aligned themselves with the hostile world (I John 2:18-19; II John 7). In so doing they found their spiritual home: It was the Evil Spirit that led them to destroy Jesus to the point of negation, and the world to which that have gone is the realm of which the Spirit is ‘the prince.’ . . . If the secessionists are the false prophets who have gone out into the world, they are already known and visible. Why then is a criterion needed for putting their Spirit to the test? The criterion is for the sake of the author’s adherents to help them against the secessionists’ seductive claims to have the Spirit of God and to speak the truth” (503). Bultmann , 62.

Explain the solution John gives and the contribution of verse 4 for that solution.

As in 2:24-27; 5:4-5?

Brown: “Testing the Spirits, then, has nothing to do with Paul’s idea of discerning the (good) spirits or charisms among the Corinthian Christians I Cor 12:4ff.). . . the specification of the confession that the author gives in 4:2 is what will separate the secessionists from his own adherents and thus constitute a criterion of the Spirits: ‘Jesus Christ come in the flesh.’ . . . they are denying that what Jesus was or did in the flesh was related to his being the Christ, i.e., was salvific” (503-505).

1 John 4:7—5:21

The Whole

Do you think the major division in this section should come at 4:21 or 5:4 (4a?)? Why?

5:4 Bultmann and Alexander

4:21 Stott

5:3a Law

Preceding 5:1-4 love is the emphasis Following 5:1-4 belief is the emphasis Both are mention so it is a transition paragraph, attached probably more closely to the preceding. The only really new element comes in 4b that sets us up for the next section. So 4b an go either with what preceded or follows. See Bultmann, 75.

My Outline makes a break at 4:21:

God is love: “love one another” 4:7-5:12

Love is the only adequate ethic for “God is love” 4:7-12.

Love is the assurance of faith, for “perfect love casts out fear” 4:13-21.

Love is the evidence of faith in Jesus as the Son of God 5:1-12.

Conclusion: “we know that we are of God” 5:13-21

Should 5:14-21 be considered an epilogue (see 1:1-4) or part of the argument proper?

Alexander: “Division of opinion over the analysis of I John is sharp. Most commentators conclude that v. 13 ends the letter proper [so Bultmann], the rest being ‘epilogue’, ‘postscript’. They do so largely because of the close parallel of v. 13 to John 20:31, close enough to be called conscious reminiscence. But wheras ch. 21 is not integral to the Fourth Gospel, and is a true ‘Appendix’, vv. 14-21 of the epistle, we believe (here we are in a argument. . . We judge 5.4b-21. . . to be the final section of carried on right to v. 21” (116f., 29).

See Brown, 630, on his “conclusion” –vv. 13-21.

How does this section relate to our distinction between ethical and Christological passages?

Mixed: Christological Ethical

4:14-15 5:1 5:5-13 Rest 5:20

Hermeneutics?

In its external structure, the Bible is the Word of God

In its internal structure, the Bible becomes the Word of God

The way to the second is through the first. We are convinced of the first, however, by the second! No the other way around.

1 John 4:7—5:4

Note the opening address. Where else has it occurred? What themes previously encountered in the epistle are picked up again in verse 7?

2:7; 3:2, 21; 4:1

“love one another” “born of God” “knows God’ “love is of God”

Define the one main theme of 4:7—5:4. Where do the paragraph breaks come? Assign a sentence topic to each.

“love one another”

4:7-12 4:13-18 (13-16; 17-18) (or 13-19?) 4:19-5:4a (19-21; 5:1-4a (or 20-4a?)

What major development does the author make in the use of his basic theme as he moves from verses 7-12 to 13-18? What is the function of 4:19—5:4 in the author’s thought?

Love is the only adequate ethic- exhortation Love is the assurance of faith- affirmation

Presented are two ways of relating “love one another” to “God is love.” The imperative to love is found in (a) the indicative or God’s act in Christ and (b) in the nature of his judgement.

In John 4:24 “God is spirit.” In 1:7 “God is light” and here in verse 8 “God is love.” In view of the first two what do you think is meant by the latter assertion? Could we turn it around and say “love is God”’ without changing the meaning?

Bultmann: “The sentence, ho Theos agape estin, is not intended to describe the nature of love as such, but indicates the basis of the demand to love. One can doubtless say that the nature of God is thereby also depicted, but the assertion is not a definition, any more than “God is light: (1:5) and “God is spirit” (Jn 4:24) are. Rather God’s work is described, i.e., his acts in their significance for man, which becomes the subject matter in what immediately follows (vss 9f). Moreover, the sentence cannot be reversed to read, “love is God.” In that case “love” would be presupposed as a universal human possibility, from which a knowledge of the nature of God could be derived. The theme of 4:7-5:4 is therefore the love of brother which has its basis in God’s love, and this theme is so important to the author, moreover, because love characterizes the nature of Christian faith in contrast to the false teaching. The claim of the false teachers that they know God, even behold him, is refuted by the fact that they lack brotherly love” (66).

How do the two assertions “God is love” (vv. 8, 16), function in the argument of 4:7—5:4?

The assertion “God is love” provides the basis for love for the brother in vv. 7-12 and for the assurance of the Christian in vv. 17-5:4. Since the heretics lace the first, they also lack the second. God’s love for us fulfills its purpose In the love of our brother, and In our confidence on the day of judgement.

Interpret “in us” (v. 9) and “with us” (v. 17). See verses 12, 13, and 16.

In the fellowship!

Why does John assert in verse 12a that “No one has beheld God at any time”?

In order to stress that love to God is only possible through love to the brother and sister. Bultmann, 68, against Gnosticizing claims. Direct knowledge of God.

Verses 13-21 remind us of what previous passages? How do these verses fit into the argument of 4:7—5:4? Or do they? Interpret “Spirit” in verse 13. See 3:24ff.

2:18-27 3:23-24 4:1-6

See Bultmann, 69.

The gift of the Spirit whose proof is seen here “precisely in the fact that God has given us of his spirit” (Bultmann, 70) and in 3:24 b the keeping of his commandments. VV. 14-16 links the Spirit to belief. So as the commandments. VV. 14-16 links the Spirit to belief. So as the commandment includes both faith and love (3:23) so the proof of the Spirit is in faith and love.

How do I know I have the Spirit? (cf. Romans 5:5; Hebrews 11:1).

By the ability to trust God—believe By the ability to love as God loves

Whose love is meant by “His love” (v. 12), “love” (v. 17), and “the love of God” (5:3)? See 2:5 and 3:17. Does the meaning shift or is it consistent? Greek students, interpret the force of the genitives involved.

With the possible exception of 5:3 Bultmann takes them all as subjective genitives—God’s love for it. See 25, 35, 56, 68, 72. On 5:3 see 77.

Stott makes only 3:17 and 4:12 to be clearly subjective. Blaney does not even make 4:12 subjective: “It is not God’s love for us that is perfected” (391). Alexander makes 2:5; 4;12; 4:17-18 subjective.

What is John saying with his perfect love language: “His love is perfected in us” (v. 12), “By this love is perfected with us” (v. 17), “perfect love” (v.18), and “perfected in love” (v. 18)? Reconsider 2:5.

Bultmann: “Teteleiomene . . . estin then means: The love of God conferred upon us reaches its goal in brotherly love” (68, cf. 25f., 72f.)

Law: “It is only when we love one another with the love of God—the love which is his own which he begets in us that his love if fulfilled in us” (287).

Stott on v. 12: “The whole paragraph is concerned with God’s love, and we must not stagger at the majesty of the conclusion” (164).

In view is more an effective than a qualitative perfection. It is Divine love, God’s love flowing out through us to others reaching its goal, attaining its appointed end, fulfilling its divine purpose. PERFECT LOVE IS MORE THAN LOVE INS PIOUS POSSESSION, IT IS LOVE IN PRACTICAL EXPRESSION..

What does John mean by “as He is so also are we in this “world” (v. 17)? How does it function in the verse? See 1:7; 2:6; 3:3; and 3:7 (cf. Greek).

“as He is . . . in this world”—in love effected—emphasis in 2:6; 3:3-7.

Law: “The heart of all Christ’s doing and suffering was the intense longing He had to make Himself the channel through which the love of God might reach men. To this end He followed the path of love to the crowded city, to the wilderness, to the Cross and to the grave. In Him love has its absolute fulfillment. And if we also seek to be channels through which the love of God reaches our fellowmen, then in our small measure and degree, we are ‘as He is’; and Love, feeble and poor though it be, has herein reached fulfillment in us, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment. Love will be on the judgment-seat. Love will be before the judgment seat. And Love cannot be condemned or disowned of love” (288, bold mine).

The phrase give the reason why “perfect love” makes for confidence.

Schweizer, Church in the New Testament: “Love must be constantly carried out afresh . . . in such a way that the one who loves realizes that he must let Himself be constantly loved afresh, so that he can radiate the love he has received” (241).

Reconstruct the author’s argument in verses 17-18. Would we have missed these verses if they had been left out? What is the reason for their inclusion?

Assertion: God’s love received by us expressed to others constitutes assurance. Reason: Such a life-style is Christliketed to Result: Freedom from tormenting fear. (See 2:28f.)

Luther: “Fear has its own agony.”

Bultmann adds, “That would mean: fear contains its own punishment” (74).

These verses could have been left out and we would not have missed them. But they serve to makes explicit the relation of brotherly love to Christian certainty in vv. 13-16..

What is the point made in 4:19—5:4? Why?

The point is that God cannot be loved directly, but only indirectly through (inseparably by) love to men, and that in response to God’s love. Again it is a polemic against those who wanted (1) to separate their relation to God from their relation to men, and (2) to separate their relation to God from revelation in historical act.

Bultmann: “love intended for God can only be demonstrated in love for the brother” (76).

What does John mean by “overcome the world—our faith?” (5:4).

Love constitutes the victory over the world which is both separated from God and hostile to Him—but faith also is the victory as 4bff. Goes on to show.

Thus again the inseparability of faith and love in Christian experience when properly defined. Christology and ethics are one entity for John.

In view of its central theme sketch the overall argument of 4:7—5:4. Is it convincing? Why or why not?

See expository outline.

Define the function of 5:1-4 in relation to what precedes and follows.

A transition passage—attached more closely to preceding. See above issues. Only real new element comes in 4b which set us up for the next section.

1 John 5:5-21

Compare 5:5-12 in NASB, NRSV, or NIV with the KJV. What is the major difference? Do you know why? Greek students, analyze the evidence.

See critical apparatus and commentaries: In NASB v. 8 after “witness” the Clementine edition of the Vulgate adds en to ourano, ho pater ho logos kai to hagion pneuma, kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisi. 8. Kai treis eisin hoi martousountes hen te ge. In Greek the addition comes in verse 7.

In verse 5-9 note the tree witnesses. What is meant by “water and blood” in verse 6? What point is the author stressing in verses 5-9?

Water, blood, spirit

Water—not by baptism only did the heavenly Christ descend Blood—but by physical birth So against gnostics

So the point is the same that the author has made many times before, that the Christ who is the bringer of salvation is to be identified with the historical Jesus—which the gnostics deny. But now in a new form.

Vv. 7-9 bring in the Spirit.

How do verses 7-9 relate to 10a? What is 10a saying about the nature of Christian assurance? See Romans 5:5f. and Hebrew 11:1.

Bultmann: “Verse 10a provides the suitable continuation of v. 6 [Greek text, v. 7 in NASB]. When v. t asserts that the “spirit” testifies that the historical Jesus is the Son of God, and that testimony was nothing other than the event of faith, it may now be said accordingly: ho pisteuon eis ton huion tou theou echei ten marturian en auto. The believer therefore requires no testimony other than his own demonstrable witness.” (81ff.)

“So Schnackenburg (p.265) comes to the same point: ‘The witness of God in v. 10a is not an ‘inner witness’, the testimony that has become the possession of faith. . . .’ . . But that only means: the event of faith is the witness [das Ereignis des Glaubens ist das Zeugnis]” (p.82)

On verse 6 [Greek] Bultmann writes: “The witness of the Spirit is thus not a datum which could be used to establish the correctness of the assertion of faith on a neutral basis. Faith as faith in the proclaimed word is certain of itself. The witness of the Spirit is nevertheless valid: hoti to pneuma estin he aletheia (‘because the spirit is the truth’). The aletheia (‘truth’ with article) is the reality of God, which discloses itself, reveals itself. The matter can therefore be formulated: the revelation bears witness for itself” (p.80).

Luther on Romans 8:16: “Whoever believes with a firm faith and hope that he is a child of God, is a child of good, for that (to believe) no one can do without the Holy Spirit” (Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Translated by J. Theodore Mueller. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1954, 106. See Wesley and 1 John lectures.

Do verses 11-12 capsulize the essential thrust of the epistle? Why or why not?

How does verse 13 relate to the entire epistle? See all the occurrences of “I write” in the epistle, and John 20:31

vv. 11-12 what v. 13 why and how

2:1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 21, 2:26

What key word informs the whole of verses 13-21? What is the dominant note of verses 14-17? Or verses 18-21

Assurance-12-17 the prayer of Christians the Christian’s knowledge

What is the function of verses 14-17 in the author’s thought? What light does it shed on “ a sin leading to death”? What kind of distinction do you think the author is making between sins? Why? Or why does he say of the one sin, “I do not say that he should make request for this”?

Expresses the practical meaning of assurance as confidence in prayer which is

--effective for the backslider-the one who does not deny the truth, just fails to do it --non-effective for the apostate-the one who calls black white. In this letter probably the heretic

See Klassen xerox material

Once again it is prayer as a means of assurance: 3:21-22

Matthew 7:6: “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear your to pieces.”

So with sin against the Holy Spirit in Mark, etc., and Hebrews.

Characterize the three affirmations of verses 18-20. What logic do you see in their order in the light of the theme and purpose of the epistle? How does the function of these verses help us understand verses 14-17?

Verse 18: Ethical thesis—general statement

Verse 19: Religious thesis—a personal and particular application of v. 18

Verse 20: Christological thesis: “Christian assurance is the presence of the heavenly Christ reproducing the character of the earthly Christ in our daily walk.”

How does verse 21 connect with verse 18-20? With the entire epistle?

An imperative which warns against the error implicit in vv. 14-20: “an admonition not to fall prey to false teaching.” The author understands “the false teaching only as apostasy from the true faith and thus call[s] it ‘worship of idols,’ even though the heretics claim to be Christians” (Bultmann, 90f.).

The Whole of 1 John

Sum up the teaching of the epistle on Christian assurance. Think your way backward thorough the epistle, that is, consider 5:5-21 first, then 4:7-5:4, etc.

2. Now describe the situation in the church to which John was writing. What was the nature and significance of the errors he faced? How adequate do you feel his arguments are for similar challenges to the gospel in the contemporary scene? Explain.

Word of Life | Eternal Life | Koinonia God is Light—walk! Fellowship with God (sin and atonement) Confession Knowledge of God Obedience Love command

God is righteousness--walk! Divine sonship No sinning Love command Assurance Belief

God is love—walk! Love one another Knowledge (incarnation) Assurance (judgement) Born of God faith

Outline taken from Rudolf Schnackenburgf, Die Johannesbriefe, 2nd. Ed., 1963. 10 (see English edition, 12). From Theodore Haering (1892 & 1927). See also A. E. Brooke, ICC. Lit., were having. As John presents his witness, the proclamation that “God is light” (1:5) emphasizes the fact of the unity and the declaration that “God is love” (4:8, 16) stresses the nature of the ethic. See :”Rest of Faith, 30ff. Old is new age, now is post-modern!! Algernon Charles Swineburne, “Hertha,” The Prenguin Book of Religious Verse, ed. R. S. Thomas (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1963), 142. See 52ff, 58f.

TIME \@ "h:mm AM/PM" 11:36 AMPAGE 1

PAGE 1 6.3.3.2 DATE \@ "MM/dd/yy" 07/05/16 TIME \@ "h:mm AM/PM" 11:36 AM TIME \@ "h:mm AM/PM"11:36 AM FGC

The Whole

Commands Commandment

Assurance V.S. Warning

Homily Parenesis

Unity of Religion and Ethic

Christology-Son, Father, Atonement

Children of God

The Whole

Mixed: Christological Ethical

Related in the archive

Commentary Draft 1 John 4 Chapter for submission to Rick

Ezra-Nehemiah 1--Introduction

Ezra-Nehemiah 4--The Stirrings of God--Part Three

Final Review 1 John 4 Chapter after response by Rick