The Gospel and Letters of John, Volume 3: The Three Johannine Letters
453
The Gospel and Letters of John, Volume 3: The Three Johannine Letters
453Paperback
-
PICK UP IN STORECheck Availability at Nearby Stores
Available within 2 business hours
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780802822185 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Eerdmans, William B. Publishing Company |
| Publication date: | 11/22/2010 |
| Series: | The Eerdmans Critical Commentary (ECC) |
| Pages: | 453 |
| Product dimensions: | 6.20(w) x 9.10(h) x 1.00(d) |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
THE GOSPEL AND LETTERS OF JOHN
VOLUME 3 Commentary on the Three Johannine LettersBy Urban C. von Wahlde
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
Copyright © 2010 Urban C. von WahldeAll right reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-8028-2218-5
Chapter One
General Introduction to the Letters
This general introduction will concern issues pertinent to all three of the Johannine Letters. This will include issues of authorship, place, date of composition as well as the order of composition. It will also include a brief discussion of the various rhetorical techniques used by the author in his writings. However, the most important issue pertinent to the discussion of the Letters is the nature of the crisis that divided the community. Here, in the Introduction, I will summarize my view of the crisis, and the evidence for that view will be argued in detail in Appendix 4 (The Crisis That Divided the Johannine Community) below.
The Commentary will dialogue primarily with the watershed commentary of R. E. Brown in 1982 and with those commentaries, monographs and articles that have been written since then. But it will regularly take advantage of the insights of earlier literature also.
A. THE GREEK TEXT OF THE LETTERS
The Greek text of the Letters is less fully attested than is the text of the Gospel. Only two papyri of the Letters remain. The earliest comes from the third century and is designated P9. The other, P74, is from the seventh century. As a result, the first complete texts are those of the great uncials (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Vaticanus). The critical texts used as the basis for this analysis are the Nestle27 and UBS4. The view of the text of the Letters conducted in this Commentary varies only minimally from these critical editions. The most significant change is perhaps that suggested in 1 John 4:3 to choose lyei rather than me homologei. This will be discussed at the appropriate place.
B. A COMMENT ON THE TRANSLATION
In the Introduction to the Commentary on the Gospel, I made several observations about principles employed in the translation of the Greek text of the Gospel. While those principles are also applied here, the Johannine Letters exhibit a number of rhetorical features not found in the Gospel. There are a number of passages in 1 John in which the rhetorical design is quite marked and modestly impressive. The attempt has been made to reproduce these even at the cost of some fluidity in the translation.
At the same time, 1 John is replete with ambiguous antecedents and obscure grammar. This gives rise to considerable frustration and inevitably has its effect on the translation. Two examples may be given from the first four verses of the First Epistle. In those verses, the conjunction kai ("and") appears twelve times. Most of these have been retained in order to reproduce the cadence of the original. In addition, in the same four verses the reader meets repeated interruptions that result in half sentences as well as interjections that all but destroy the sequence. The translation will preserve the awkwardness of the original. Where the original is repetitive, the translation will tend to be also. Where the original is awkward, the translation may be also. In this way, I hope that the translation serves as something of a window into the Greek text even at the cost of some readability in its English form.
C. THE CRISIS THAT DIVIDED THE COMMUNITY AT THE TIME OF 1 JOHN
At the time of the Johannine Letters, the Johannine community was experiencing an internal theological crisis. That is clear from the pages of the Letter. However, there is extraordinary diversity of opinion among scholars regarding the nature of that crisis. The problem is that the crisis is not described systematically. Rather, the author has chosen to comment on various aspects of the crisis in a way that is seemingly random. Consequently, in order to determine the nature of this crisis, it is necessary to comb the pages of 1 John for statements that relate to the views of the opponents and for those espoused by the author himself. By combining these various comments, it becomes apparent that the views of each group do in fact constitute an integrated "system" of beliefs. Furthermore, it becomes apparent that the opponents of the author of 1 John based their views on the second edition of the Gospel and mirror the theology of that edition quite closely. At the same time, the views espoused by the author of 1 John are represented within the Gospel by those of the third author.
As a result, not only does the analysis of 1 John itself reveal evidence for the nature of the crisis, but, in the light of the identification of the stages in the development of the Gospel itself, it becomes apparent that these same two views are reflected, respectively, in the second and in the third editions of the Gospel! This provides an additional level of confirmation, not only of the nature of the crisis, but also of the correctness of the identification of the second and third editions of the Gospel.
1. An Overview of the Crisis
By the time 1 John was written, the Johannine community constituted a community independent of the synagogue but one that was undergoing its own internal theological crisis resulting from differing interpretations of the community traditions. One group (the "opponents") takes a strict interpretation of the theology of the second edition of the Gospel regarding the outpouring of the eschatological Spirit and the implications of that outpouring. The group has drawn conclusions that the author of 1 John holds to be inadequate. Consequently, the author writes 1 John to explain the errors of the opponents and to put forward his own understanding of the tradition.
The differences between the author and his opponents are discussed in some detail in Appendix 4 (The Crisis That Divided the Community) in this volume and in more detail in Volume 1, Part 4, which deals with the development of Johannine theology. Here I will provide only a brief overview of the positions of each group and the way these positions relate to the eleven major areas of theology discussed in Volume 1, Part 4.
a. The Views of the Opponents
For the opponents, the ministry of Jesus was focused primarily on the promise that God would give the Spirit, which would be given in its eschatological fullness and would be the source of eternal life, to all who believed in Jesus. Belief for the opponents centered on the person of Jesus: those who believed in him would receive the Spirit.
Implicit in this overall view of the ministry were a number of other beliefs that they understood to be based on the second edition of the Gospel. The opponents had their own distinctive understanding of Jesus (#1 Christology). While they agreed that Jesus was all that he claimed to be, they saw this to be the result primarily of his having received the Spirit at his baptism. He was anointed and he was Son of God. His ministry consisted of announcing that God was about to bestow the Spirit in its eschatological manifestation on all those who believed in him (#3 Pneumatology). When the believer received the Spirit, that person too was reborn and became a son (daughter) of God and could be said to be anointed — and to possess the (#4 Eternal) life of God, just as Jesus did. Moreover, because of the transforming effect of the Spirit, the believer would no longer sin and so had no need of ethical directions such as the essential commandment to love (#8 Ethics). The believer had already passed over from death to life (#5 [realized] Eschatology). In all these respects, according to the opponents, the believer was similar to Jesus (#9 Anthropology). Yet another effect of the transformation by the Spirit was that the individual would now know God fully (#6 Knowledge) and would have no need of the "historical" words of Jesus (#2 Belief). The Spirit would provide all the direction that was needed.
The opponents also believed, in accordance with numerous texts in their Scriptures, that the eschatological Spirit would wash them clean from their sins. Thus, although they believed in Jesus, he was considered important because he announced God's gift of the Spirit. However, his death was not an atonement for sin but his means of departure to the Father (#7 Soteriology). Because the believer's guidance came from the Spirit, there was no need or place for human authority. All were united through the Spirit (#10 Ecclesiology). Because the reception of the Spirit was all-important, ritual or anything dealing with the material aspects of religion was simply unnecessary and ineffectual (#11 Attitude toward the material aspects of religion).
b. The Views of the Author
When the author of 1 John corrects his opponents, he does so in what might be called a "both/and" manner. The author was a member of the same community and accepted the same traditions as the opponents although he understood many of those traditions differently. Thus, the task that confronted the author was not one of confirming belief in Jesus versus unbelief, as it had been at the time of the second edition. Rather, the author must now confirm correct belief versus incorrect belief (#2 Belief).
Like the opponents, the author believed that Jesus was anointed and was Son of God, but he believed that Jesus' sonship was unique and one of the aspects of this uniqueness was that Jesus had existed before coming into the world. Jesus was not simply human; he was also divine. Thus, as exalted as the Christology of the second edition was, the third edition makes it even more exalted and brings the identity of Jesus closer to that of God the Father (#1 Christology).
Moreover, although the believer had received an anointing, had been born again, had received eternal life and was now a child of God, the transforming effect of the Spirit was not yet total and complete (#3 Pneumatology; #9 Anthropology). The believer had eternal life but needed to continue to work to bring that life to completion (#4 Eternal life). It was possible for the believer to lose eternal life, and a future judgment would decide one's final destiny (#5 Eschatology). Although the believer was radically sinless, the believer could still sin and so needed ethical directives such as the love commandment (#8 Ethics). Although the believer had knowledge of God and of what was right, the individual still needed to have the external guidance provided by the actual words of Jesus and so needed the commandment to keep the words of Jesus (#6 Knowledge).
Even though the Spirit was the principle of life, it was the atoning death of Jesus which took away sin (#7 Soteriology). Moreover, for the author of 1 John the ongoing religious life was not a purely spiritual undertaking but had a human and material element to it (#11 Attitude toward the material aspects of religion). Not only should the believer keep to the historical words of Jesus (rather than just the inspiration of the Spirit), the believer also had need of ritual actions such as Baptism and the Eucharist. Finally, the believer had need of human intermediaries who would provide leadership and authority within the community (#10 Ecclesiology).
But the most important aspect of the author's thought was the introduction of an apocalyptic worldview as the framework within which the overall ministry of Jesus was to be understood. Thus, although there is no indication that the conflict between the author and his opponents involved the issue of worldview in itself, clearly there is a new worldview introduced at the time of 1 John.
2. 1 John as a "Handbook" for Understanding and Dealing with the Community Crisis
In the earliest period of Christianity, it was said that 1 John functioned as a kind of handbook for explaining the Gospel of John and that the interpretation this afforded enabled the acceptance of the Gospel into the canon. The view of the role of 1 John presented here confirms that. For the community at the time, the author of 1 John presented the views of the opponents and then explained why they were erroneous. At the same time, he explained the correct interpretation of the tradition.
For the modern reader, 1 John has something of a different function. Once the material of the second and third editions of the Gospel has been identified, we are able to recognize certain features as distinctive of the material. In a number of cases, however, the particular significance of those features is not fully intelligible until we read 1 John. For example, we have noticed the absence of any attention to ethics in the second edition. While we may speculate about the significance of this feature, it is only when we read in 1 John that the opponents held to a theory of ethical perfectionism that we see the full meaning of the absence of ethical material in the second edition. At the same time, it is only when we realize that the author of 1 John argued that ethical instruction is still necessary that we can understand the importance of the love commandment for 1 John and for the third edition of the Gospel.
When we understand 1 John's insistence on keeping the word of Jesus and on remaining faithful to what was "from the beginning," we are able to see that this is a reaction to the lack of attention to the "historical" words of Jesus (the so-called revealer without a revelation) in the second edition. In addition, once we see that the second edition had a one-sided understanding of the role of the Spirit, we are able to see the significance of the description of the Paraclete as "not speaking on his own" but only reminding the believer what Jesus had said. Thus, 1 John confirms not only the understanding of the crisis put forward here but also indirectly confirms the editorial analysis of each edition of the Gospel.
D. THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE THREE LETTERS
1. A Statement of the View Put Forward in This Commentary
The author of 1 John is the same as the author of 2 and 3 John. He is the person who identifies himself in those Letters as "the Elder." He is an eyewitness to the ministry and the foundation of the community's traditions. He is the person identified by the author of the third edition as "the Beloved Disciple." The reasons for proposing this view are explained in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
2. Is the Author of 1 John Also the Author of 2 and 3 John?
Brown quotes statistics showing that 70 percent of the "significant words" of 3 John are found in either 1 John or the Gospel. Also 86 percent of the significant words in 2 John are likewise found in either 1 John or the Gospel. These similarities are impressive — so impressive that some scholars have argued that they are due to imitation. One cannot completely disprove such a theory but the fact of variations in wording suggests that the similarities are probably not due to imitation since an imitator would have sought to achieve even greater similarity.
However, some more substantive differences do appear. First is the obvious fact that the author identifies himself in 2 and 3 John but not in 1 John. However, 1 John is not a true letter as are 2 and 3 John. This may explain why the author does not identify himself in the first of these documents.
In 1 John, tekna refers to the "children" of God or of the devil, whereas in 2 John it refers to the members of the community as children "of the Elect Lady" rather than children of God. Moreover, in 1 John other terms (such as teknia and paidia) are used besides tekna.
The fact that the title "the Elect Lady" appears only in 2 John is striking but this is the only Johannine letter to a group. The Third Letter of John is a letter to an individual and, as has been said repeatedly, 1 John is not a letter at all.
Some have argued that 2 and 3 John do not manifest the apocalyptic dualism of 1 John. However, the lack of explicit development of this dualism in the Letters is due precisely to the fact that they are occasional letters rather than a tract like 1 John. At the same time, while apocalyptic dualism is less overt in the Letters, the language used is that which was used apocalyptically in 1 John, and the context of the Letter presumes that worldview. This will be discussed in the Introductions to those Letters.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from THE GOSPEL AND LETTERS OF JOHN by Urban C. von Wahlde Copyright © 2010 by Urban C. von Wahlde. Excerpted by permission of William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Contents
A. The Greek Text of the Letters....................1B. A Comment on the Translation....................2
C. The Crisis That Divided the Community at the Time of 1 John....................2
D. The Authorship of the Three Letters....................6
E. Date of Composition....................11
F. Place of Composition of the Three Letters....................14
G. The Format of the Commentary....................15
Introduction to 1 John....................17
A. An Overview of the Purpose of Composition....................17
B. The Genre of 1 John....................18
C. Worldview....................18
D. The Structure of the Letter....................19
E. How the Author Refutes His Opponents....................20
F. Style....................21
G. Literary Techniques of the Author....................23
H. The Author of 1 John....................27
I. The Date of Composition....................27
J. The Place of Composition....................27
Commentary and Notes on 1 John....................28
1:1-4 — Witness and Fellowship....................28
1:5–2:2 — The Proclamation That God Is Light....................36
2:3-11 — The New Commandment: To Keep the Word....................56
2:12-17 — Exhortation to Children, Fathers, Young Men....................70
2:18-27 — The Antichrists: Those Who Deny the Son....................82
2:28–3:10 — Sin, the Children of God and the Children of the Devil....................101
3:11-18 — The Proclamation to Love One Another....................118
3:19-24 — The Commandment to Correct Belief and the Commandment to Mutual Love....................127
4:1-6 — The Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Deception....................140
4:7-12 — God's Love and Love of One Another....................152
4:13-19 — The Spirit and Abiding....................160
4:20–5:5 — Loving God and Loving One Another; Loving God and Correct Belief....................172
5:6-12 — Having the Son and Having Life....................182
5:13-21 — Prayer for Sin and Conclusion....................200
Introduction to 2 John....................217
A. The Genre of 2 John....................217
B. Worldview....................218
C. The Structure....................219
D. The Circumstances of the Community....................219
E. Literary Techniques....................220
F. The Author of 2 John....................222
G. The Date of Composition....................222
H. The Place of Composition....................222
Commentary and Notes on 2 John....................223
Notes to 2 John....................224
The Interpretation of 2 John....................233
Vv. 1-3 (The Opening of the Letter)....................233
Vv. 4-11 (The Body of the Letter)....................235
V. 4 (The Transition and Expression of Joy) and Vv. 5-7 (The First Request)....................235
Vv. 8-9 (The Second Request)....................241
Vv. 10-11 (The Third Request)....................243
Vv. 12-13 (Conclusion to the Letter)....................244
Introduction to 3 John....................247
A. The Genre of 3 John....................247
B. Worldview....................248
C. The Circumstances of the Community....................248
D. Literary Techniques....................249
E. The Author of 3 John....................251
F. The Date of Composition....................251
G. The Place of Composition....................252
Commentary and Notes on 3 John....................253
Notes to 3 John....................254
The Interpretation of 3 John....................268
V. 1 (The Opening)....................268
V. 2 (The Wish for Well-Being)....................270
Vv. 3-12 (The Body of the Letter)....................271
Vv. 3-4 (The Transition and an Expression of Joy)....................271
Vv. 5-6 (The First Request)....................273
Vv. 7-8 (Background to the Request)....................276
Vv. 9-10 (The Actions of Diotrephes)....................278
Vv. 11-12 (The Second Request)....................287
Vv. 13-15 (Conclusion)....................290
1. Quotations of the Old Testament and Their Introductory Formulae in the Gospel....................295
2. The "I Am" Statements in the Gospel....................324
and 10:22-39)....................333
4. The Crisis That Divided the Johannine Community at the Time of 1 John....................339
5. The Johannine Commandments in the Letters and in the Third Edition of the Gospel....................386
6. Formal Elements in Greek Letter Writing and in 2 and 3 John....................402
7. John the Son of Zebedee and the Authorship of the Johannine Literature....................409
8. The Elder and the Elders....................416
9. The Beloved Disciple....................423
Authors....................435
Scripture and Other Ancient Literature....................437