CHAPTER II.
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
WHAT is known as the First Epistle of John, though in reality it is not
in epistolary form at all but in that of a circular addressed to the
whole of Christendom, is to all appearances inseparably connected with
the Gospel. Often, as we read, we can hardly say whether we have the
one or the other book open before us. And in fact the matter on which
they differ from each other most clearly is one which, from another
point of view, serves to bring them together again.
__________________________________________________________________
1 . MAIN PURPOSE: TO OPPOSE THE GNOSTICS.
Whereas, for instance, the Gospel never says that it is opposing false
teaching within the Christian fold (except in x. 1-10: see p. 135 f.),
the Epistle says this most emphatically. But we found certain
utterances in the Gospel aimed at very definite opponents, in other
words, at the Gnostics (pp. 152-154, 160-163); and the first Epistle
likewise opposes the Gnostics. We are told (ii. 4) that the author's
opponents asserted that they knew God; and it was knowledge on which
the Gnostics prided themselves. We know further the doctrine of the
Stoics according to which the logos or rather the individual logoi were
like seeds of corn scattered throughout the world (p. 142 f.), and out
of these the things of the world arose. The Gnostics applied this idea
to themselves, and claimed that they had in their own persons the
divine seed. There is a hint of this idea in iii. 9; and in i. 8, 10 of
the Gnostics assertion that this made them sinless.
As to Jesus, the opponents of the writer of the Epistle taught that he
was not the Christ (ii. 22). And in this again we can recognise the
claim of the Gnostics, that Jesus was only a man who for a time and in
a loose way became one with the Christ who had come down from heaven.
This is seen even more clearly in iv. 2 f.; they deny that Jesus Christ
is come in the flesh, an utterance which is aimed at the same time at
that other idea of the Gnostics--that he had merely a phantom body (pp.
150, 152). And in v. 6 that teaching of theirs is opposed, according to
which the man who suffered on the cross was not really the redeemer,
that is to say, the Christ, who had come down from heaven. The author
says here that he came, that is to say, to save mankind, not only with
water through his baptism but also with blood through his death.
But, further, in iii. 4, 10, ii. 4 the author declares against "every
one that doeth sin" or "that keepeth not God's commandments," and by
sin he means opposition to the injunction in iii. 3, that every one
should purify himself. What he has in mind therefore is an unholy,
unbridled life. Now, it is hardly possible that this reproach, which is
made more than once and in the most varied forms, can apply to persons
other than those who are opposed in other passages throughout the
Epistle. And if this be so, the Gnostics with whom we have to deal here
are not, like many others, especially in the first decades of the
second century, people who adhered to the law of the Old Testament. We
already have to do with a more developed form of Gnosticism.
__________________________________________________________________
2. AGREEMENT WITH GNOSTICISM.
But it is remarkable that the man who so decisively opposes Gnosticism
agrees with it entirely on a strikingly large number of points. He also
cannot but think that there are two kingdoms very sharply opposed to
each other, the kingdom of God, and that of the world which is ruled by
the devil (ii. 16; iii. 8, 10; iv. 4-6), or the kingdom of truth and
that of lies (ii. 21) and this opposition extends to mankind as well,
the one part being from God and the other from the world, which "lieth
in the evil one," that is to say, is under the dominion of the devil
(v. 19).
We found that there is the same kind of agreement with the Gnostics in
the Gospel (pp. 158-160). But the Epistle goes a step farther. While
the Gospel only occasionally suggests that knowledge is a valuable
thing (xvii. 3), the Epistle emphasises, in a way that a Gnostic could
not excel, that the author and his party themselves possess the
knowledge of God or of the truth (ii. 13 f., 20 f., 27; iv. 7).
Further, as to the Gnostics belief that they had in themselves the
divine "seed," the author maintains again that it is really he and
those who think with him who possess it as their own. And on this point
he ventures to make the strongest statement found in his Epistle:
"Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin" (iii. 9; v. 18). By these
he means himself and his party. And this is said by the same person who
just before (i. 8, 10) has reproached his opponents in these words: "If
we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not
in us." Here we can see how great a spell the ideas of the Gnostics
exercised upon men's minds.
3. NATURE OF THE OPPOSITION TO GNOSTICISM.
But we see at the same time the peculiar nature of the attack that is
made upon them. Those who opposed them claimed as their own all that
was valuable in the things the Gnostics prided themselves on, and
denied it to the Gnostics. And upon what ground? If these Gnostics
really lived the sinful kind of life they were reproached with, this
would assuredly provide a certain amount of justification for arguing
on these grounds against the truth of their teaching, on the principle
"by their fruits ye shall know them" (Mt. vii. 16). But it is much to
be feared that the opponents of the Gnostics painted their excesses in
darker colours than was just; and it would also be reasonable to ask
whether they had as much light on their own side as (in their view)
there was of shade in that of their opponents. Unfortunately, we are
obliged to say that the New Testament writers are too prone to
disparage their opponents by attacking their morals, and often they do
so in a way that is very unpleasant. In this matter the Epistles to
Timothy and Titus (which were not composed by the Apostle Paul, but in
the first half of the second century), the Epistle of Jude from the
same period, and the Second Epistle of Peter (which was not written by
the Apostle Peter any more than the first Epistle, but is the latest
book in the New Testament, and was not written until after the middle
of the second century) offend in a special degree. It is very possible
that by employing this method of warfare, they show at the same time
that they are incapable of overcoming their opponents with intellectual
weapons. The author of the Epistle to the Colossians provides an
honourable exception; and from this we can see at the same time that
Gnostic views were not always and necessarily associated with
immorality.
As regards the First Epistle of John, we must say that in its attack on
its opponents, compared with the writings mentioned above, it has
observed a certain moderation. In form at least it is written in a calm
and measured style. We note that the author feels the necessity of
convincing his readers of the truth of what he says. Laying so great
stress on knowledge as he does, he cannot have failed to desire this.
True, his argument does not take the form of giving real proofs; he
simply gives expression to his own conviction; but the brevity and
simplicity with which he does so makes it so effective that he could
really hope to make an impression by it.
On what then, in the last resort, does he take his stand when he
opposes the Gnostics? On the Confession of the Church. People must
confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh that is to say, has
appeared with a body consisting of flesh; otherwise they are not from
God, but are Christ's enemies, and, in denying the son, they are at the
same time denying God the Father as well (iv. 2 f.; ii. 22).
__________________________________________________________________
4. THE EPISTLE NOT BY THE AUTHOR OF THE GOSPEL.
After all that has been said so far, the Gospel and the first Epistle
might very well seem to have been the work of the same person; but on a
closer view it is clear that in all probability the two writings had
different authors. A number of important expressions occur only in the
Epistle which the author of the Gospel would have had opportunities of
using as well had he been familiar with them. But, above all, the
convictions to which the Epistle gives expression bring it nearer than
the Gospel to the ordinary, simple faith of the Church.
Jesus second coming from heaven, at which he will bring eternal
happiness, in ii. 28, as amongst primitive Christians in general, is
expected to take place on a definite day as an objective event; on the
other hand, when the Evangelist speaks of a second coming of Jesus
after his death, he does so only in the sense that it will be identical
with the coming of the Holy Spirit into the hearts of believers, which
of course happens at very different times (xiv. 16-18, 26-28). The
Epistle follows the old idea closely in expecting that on that great
day in the future all men will rise from the dead and come before the
bar of judgment (iii. 2; iv. 17). In the Gospel this idea is found only
in particular passages, for example in v. 28 f., or in a clause which
is perhaps disturbing, or at least can always be dispensed with, "and I
will raise him up at the last day," vi. 40, 44, 54, 39 (on this account
perhaps added by another person, in order to make the book more
acceptable to simple believers); but his principal idea on this point
is that eternal life begins even in this world as soon as a man
believes in Jesus, and that such a one will never come into judgment
(v. 24). To the writer of the Epistle the most important redemptive act
of Jesus seems to be his death (i. 7; ii. 2; iv. 10), as was generally
thought since the time of the Apostle Paul; the Gospel gives expression
to this belief only in i. 29, 36, and perhaps in xi. 50-52; xvii. 19 b,
and assumes everywhere else that Jesus brought redemption by coming
amongst men and bringing them that true knowledge which leads to
believing in him. In the division which is made between God and the
world, the Epistle does not go so far as the Gospel. The Evangelist's
most significant train of thought is to the effect that God does not
give his gifts directly to men, but to Jesus. Jesus is the first to
bestow them upon men (xv. 9 f.); none can come to the Father save
through him (xiv. 6). There are not wanting in the Gospel, as we have
indicated already (p. 161), sayings which represent the idea, assumed
throughout the Epistle (ii. 24; iii. 24; iv. 12 f., 15 f.), that men
also can commune directly with God. But the difference is perceptible
all the same. Finally, in place of the designation "Logos," the Epistle
(i. 1) has "the Word of Life," by which one cannot perceive that Jesus
is a Being who bears the name Logos and is well known from Greek
Philosophy.
It is indeed permissible to think that one and the same person might
have expressed himself differently in two works. But the facts of the
case are certainly more easily understood if we suppose that we have to
do with two different authors; and since, moreover, the Evangelist
cannot have been John the Apostle, it is no use insisting that the
author of the Epistle can have been no other than he.
__________________________________________________________________
5. DATE OF COMPOSITION.
But when was the Epistle written? Since it represents the simpler and
earlier form of the Christian faith, it is natural to think it older
than the Gospel. But the contrary may also have been the case; and
there are many other writers who have not followed the Gospel of John,
when it diverges from the original teaching, but have betaken
themselves to this. We must therefore look for another means of
deciding the question. Let me quote here ii. 12-14: "I write unto you,
my little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's
sake. I write unto you, fathers, because ye know him which is from the
beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the
evil one. I have written unto you, little children, because ye know the
Father. I have written unto you, fathers, because ye know him which is
from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are
strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the
evil one." This can hardly be understood to mean anything else than
that the author wishes to inform his readers that what he now writes is
essentially the same as he has already written to them once before. And
thus it is very natural to suppose that he suggests that he had done
this in the Gospel. With this the external evidence would agree; the
Epistle, like the Gospel, is not used by Christian writers until after
the year 140, and when it is first used there is no mention of the
author's name.
__________________________________________________________________
6. SECONDARY PURPOSE: RECOMMENDATION OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
We must now devote a few more words to the purpose of the Epistle. We
have hitherto explained that the author is opposing the Gnostics, but
if what we have just said be correct, this does not exhaust the matter;
another purpose is to repeat in another form what is contained in the
Gospel and so to confirm it. Is there any connection between this and
the fact that in the earliest days after its publication it gained so
little recognition (p. 199 f.)? In that case, the purpose of the
Epistle would be the same as that which induced some one, as we have
already found (p. 186 f.), to add the twenty-first chapter to the
Gospel. And just as in the addition to the Gospel the ruling idea was
to satisfy the requirement that the account of Peter should be more
favourable, sq in the present case the work was carried out in such a
way as to avoid those statements in the Gospel which differed too much
from the ordinary faith of the Church. Here we may again wonder whether
this may not have been done by the author of the Gospel himself, and
whether he may not have written in this way, to set aside his original
views of set purpose. But it is easier to suppose that one who belonged
to the circle of his followers wrote it to give expression to his own
view of the matter.
We should have to assume at the same time that he wished to be taken
for the Evangelist. But, according to the ideas of the time, there
would be as little harm in this as there was in the other case where
the Evangelist (perhaps) wished to be taken for John the Apostle (pp.
183-185). We must not therefore regard it as being in the slightest
degree deceitful when we are told at the beginning of his circular:
"that which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that
which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld and our hands
handled, concerning the Word of Life (that is to say, concerning Jesus)
. . . declare we unto you also." By taking up the pen in the name of
the Evangelist, and yet writing in a rather different sense, the author
served the great purpose of gaining recognition in the Church for the
precious thoughts contained in the Fourth Gospel, knowing as he did how
to remove all that was offensive; and it is quite possible that he
helped in a real sense to achieve this purpose. He did not, however,
fulfil in any way his opening promise (i. 1). There is not the least
trace in his Epistle of anything that only an eye-witness of the Life
of Jesus could know.
__________________________________________________________________
