I John in the lightot theDebateon Orthodoxy and Heresy in EarliestChristianity
by
:Kri s t a Gregory
Athe sissubmittedto the Schoolot Gra duateStUdies in partial fUlfilmentof the requ irements for thedegreeot
Ma sterof FacuLtyof Arts
Departmentof Religi ousSt.udi es MemorialUn iversityof Newfoundland
August 1995
st. John's Newfoundland
1+1
NatiooalLJbrary olcanada AcquisFtionsand Bib~ograptricservicesBranch 39SWel'ngIo'lSlrgel~0N40nw.0
Bjbliol~que nal ionale
occerece
Direc~onde s ~cquis~~et desseoeesblbhographrques
395,Ml W~1ingIon
~~.nol
THEAUTHORlIASGRANTED AN IRREVOCABLENON·EXCLUSlVE LICENCE ALLOWING THENATIONAL LmRARYOF CANADA TO REPRODUCE, LOAN,DISTRIBUTE OR SELLCOPIESOFlflS/HER THESISBY ANYMEANSANDIN ANYFORMOR FORMAT,MAKING THISTHESIS AVAJLABLE TOINTERESTED PERSONS.
TIlE AUiHQR RETAINSOWNERSHIP OFTHECOPYRIGHT INHISIHER THESIS.NEITHERTIIE THESlSNOR SUBSTANTIALEXTRACTS FROM IT MAYBEPRINTEO OROTHERWISE REPRODUCED\\'ITHOUTmSfHER PERMISSION.
ISBN0-612-06122- 1
Canad~
L'AUfEURA ACCORDEUNELICENCE ffiREVOCABLE ETNONEXCLUSIVE PERMETTANT A LABmUOTHEQUE NATIONALE DUCANADADE REPRODUlRE, PRETER, DISTRIBVER OUVENDREDESCOPIESDE SA THESEDEQUELQUEMANIEREET SOUS QUELQUE FORME QUECESOIT POURMETTREDESEXEMPLAIRESDE CETTETHESEA LADISPOSITIONDES PERSONNE INTERESSEES.
L'AUTEUR CONSERVE LAPROPRJETE DUDROITD'AUTEUR QUIPROTEGE SATHESE.NI LATHESENI DES EXTRAITS SUBSTANTIELSDECELLE·
cr
NE DOIVENTsras
IMPRIMES OU AUTREMENT REPRODUITS SANSSON AUTORISATION.Tableof Contonts
Abstract .000.000• • •0.000000 0. 0• ••000• •000000••00•••0 0 0.00 i Acknowledgements.00• •00000••••••••'" • • ••0•••• • ••• • •0•• ••ii Abbrevi a tions••••• •• • •0• •••• •••00.0.00•••0•• •• •00••0••0
o .
iii Introdu ct io n•00 00000000• •00.0 .00•00•••0•0••0•000• •0••0•o .
1 Ch a pte r One' The Ort hodoxy/HeresyDebat eA.TheClass ical Vi e w of EarlyChristia nDevelopment.00" 4 B.The TheoryofWa l t e rBa u ero '000o.0. 00•••0• ••0•••0• ••00 11 C. TheTh e oryof H.EoW.Turner ••• •o'0••0.0••0 .0 .00 0 .o.0•• 17 Cha p t e r Two:The FirstEpistle of John
A.Con fl i c t Within the community ofI Joh n .0.00 0•••
o .
0• •• 27 B. The Argument of IJohn•••0.0 . 0 000 0 0 000 0••0.0.0• •• •000.30 CoThe StructureofIJohn00 .00.00.00••0. 0 .00••00••0•••0036 D.Christology •• •0••••••0000 0.00••00• ••00• ••0 0•• ••••••••047 EoEthicso.0••••00• •••••0 000.0 00.00 0•• •000. 0. 0•••••0••00053 F0Eschato logy.0•0•0••0•000 0 ••00•0•00000 .000••0 00••00000060 GoConc l usions.0••000.0.0.00.0 00 .0 0. 0 0 0 00 000• •o.000.00.0.63 Chap te r Th ree: I John and TheQrthQdoxy/HerA.2.~A.aeuer osNOn- Deve lopmenta lThes is
o .
000••0" 0.0000•••••• 67B.ACommonTr ad ition 0 . 00.00.0• •00• •0 0 00.0.0.000••••0• •0071 C. The De velo pme nt of TheTradition0. 0••••00••0•••0••••0077 D. The Fi xe d andTheFlexibleElements .•.00••• •• ••0••••••83 EoThePe numbra••0••••••0• ••0••• • ••• •••••••0• •0000•••••• •91 (I) Ethic s •• ••••0•••••••0.0 0• ••0•••••0••• •••••0.0.00 93 (I I) Chrl stolo gy .0o'00••••••000. 0• •0••000 00••••0• ••••010 6
(I II )Eschato logy•.••••••••••••••••• •••••• •• ••••.•• • • • •11 2
conc l us ion ••• • •• •• .••••••••••• ••••• •••••••••• •• ••••••• •• • 115 Bibl iography••• ••• •••••••.•••• • •.•••••• • ••••••••• • ••• ••••119
A1:Istract
Tbisthesisexa mine s I John in the ligbt of the debate on orthodoxy and he r e sy in earlyChr i s t i a n i t y. I arguethat the theory of H.E.W. Turn e r , withitsfixed andfl e x i bleel eme nta , is the Dost accurat e exp l a na tio n at the example of early Chri s tia n i t y thatwese einIJohn.InIllyatt empt topro ve tho validityof Turner 's thesis I look attheclassica l vi ewand Walte r Bauer 's theory of the development of early Christianity,examin ingthe inaccuraciesconta i ne d in both of the s e views whencomparedto Tur ne r'stheory.A study of the Johanninecommu n ityofI John and the polemicco n ta i nedwi thi n provides a valua bl e opportunit y to look into an early Christiangroup.Tbedebatethatta kesplacein I John lDirrors thegrowth of the fa i th atthi s earlyperiod .An application of Tur ner 's the si s to I Jo h n will further demonstrate the va l u e of 'I'ur ne r ' s the ory in helping readers to a greater unde r s t a ndi ng ofthe complexi tyof earlyChristiani ty.
Acknowledgements
I wouldlike tothankmy supervisorDr. D.J. Hawkinfor all of hi s help and advice throughout the writingat this thesis. I am gratefulfor hispatience and kindness.
I wouldal s o like to thankmy famil y for their constant support and encouragementand I wishto rnakoil:a special note of Vernon and Buffy.
FinallyI would li keto thank Memorial universitySchool of Graduate Studie s for their much appreciated financial as s ista nc e.
11
Abbrev ia tions
I John The Firs t Epist le of John ExT ExpositoryTimes NovT Novum Te stame nt u m
iii
Int r o 4 uc tion
Thi s the si s will ar gue that I John se rve s as a us e f ul paradi g mfor the discuss i o northeorthodoxy/heresydebate . In I John we se ethat confl i ct exists inthis earlyChristia n commun i ty. This sho ws re a de r s that at its beginning Christ i anity was not aswell definedaswe have oftenbeenle d to belie ve. However it also demonstratestorea d ers thatth e early fa ithhad abas ic , yetdistinct,understandingof what it meanttobe Christian.Thisletter provides anexampleof an ea r ly Chr ist ian group in the earliest stages of de velopment.It the r eforeprovidesa usefulparadigmby which to te st va rious the ories on earl y Christian devel opment, especi all ythe so-called"classical view" and thoseofWalte r Ba ue r and H.E.W.Tur ne r .Suchast ud y wil l in tur n demonst rate that'rurnc- rrsthesi s , wi t hits concept of fixedandflex i ble elemen tswithintheear lyChur c h, titsth e datawhic hwefind inI John muchbetter theneither th ecla s sic al view or tha t of WalterBauer.
In this stU dy my methodology is bo t h diale c t ical and hi stor ical , for both aspects importa nt to th e.
unde r s t and ing of the te xt. On the one ha nd , the purpos e of usingdialect i cmethod ology "i s to invi te there a der to an encounter, a persona l encounter, with th e originating and tr aditionaland inte rpretingand history- wr i t i ng pers ons of
the past in thei r divergencies ."IOn the other hand, historica l methOdol og y ' s aiD is "to settle, not wh a t one author wasinte nding , butwhatwa s going fonrar din agrou por commun i t y.,,1
I am undertakinga detailed examination of the argument of r John with a view to seeing how it illustra tes the orthodoxy/heresydeb ate.But I amalsousingthe illust ration of th e debateon orthodoxyandheresyinearlies t Christ ian ity asthe context inwhic h to understand a fr u i tf u l discuss ion of I John . By creatingsuch a "herme ne utica l circle" betwee nthe text ofI Johnand thebroade rcontextof theor thodoxy/he resy debate I hope, 4S Lonergan puts it, to "spiral" int o the deeper Ileaning ofthete xt.Through th i s met hodo logyI inten d to folloW'a "process oflearni ngtha t spira lsint othe Ileaning of thewh ol e byusingeach new part to fill out andqua lif y and correctthe und erst and inq reach ed in readingthe earlier parts . "SLonergan'sreferenceto "e arlier parts"ex pr e s s e s the ch an q i ng interpretationstha t evolveasthe readerspendsmo re time st Udyi ng thete xt. A fullerIle a ning is re a c hed as the varic.us parts of the letter are understood individua llyand
IBer nard J.F. Lone r gan, Me thodzn Tbeol og y (London:
Univ ersity of Toro ntoPress , 197 1 ),p.16 8. 2Lonergan ,H. t hOel, p , 168.
JLone r g an , Method, p.159.
broughttoge the r incomprehend ing thewhole.
With re ga r d to the sc ope of my thesis, i t is afec impo r t;a nt tonotetha t in this st udy ot"I Johnit is necessary to realize the limi t s to the unders ta ndi ng that may be reache d . It is difficu l t:today to lookbac k int o history and accurately jUdge what the autho r of I John meant to communicatetohi s readers.Co ns ide r at i o n mus t be madeot hi s audLe nc e , oppo nen t s andtheperiOd in whichhewrote.At best one canmerely tr yto und erst a nd, for
to jUdge the co r r e ctne s s of one 's understanding of a te xt raises the proble m of cont.e xt , Of the he r men e ut i c a l c Lr-cLe , of th e rela t i v i ty of the tota lity of relevant data, of the pos s ible rele van c e of mor e remot e inq ui r ies, of the limi tat i ons of the scope of one' s interpret8tlon.~
Thoughfaced wit h these li mitat i o ns , I fe elthat through a study oftheevi de nc e we are ,resen ted withinthQ Epi stleand thr oug h an appl i c a tion of Turner' s th e s i s , wecan cometoa greater understandi ngofthe growt h ofea r ly Chr i stianity .
4Lone rg an , Method,p , 155.
ChapterOne
Theorthodoxy/ HeresyDebate
TbeCla s sic alView of EarlyChris t ia nDeYel op ment
The"cl a s s ical vi ew"of earlyCt.ristiandevelopment sees the ei!r ly Ch ur ch as be ing purely ort hodox , wi t h no fals e tea ch ing or beliofs.Heresywa s not pre sent with i n the early Chu r c h, but was a later de v e lopment asChris t i anity became expose dto falseoutside bel i ef s.
Th is cla s s i c a lthe oryhas a"unif ormviewofthe nat ur e and ris eof heresywhich evolved inthe ear lyc~ntur ieB."I It is chara c t er iz e d byH. E. W. Turner as th e beliefthat the Church "originallykept unS Ull iedandunde f il edthe te a c h i ng of our Lor d and the tradit i o n of the Apestles...,,1 st. Irenaeus, oneofth ech i e f propon ents of theclass ic al vie w, as sumes"t h atheresy onl ytookits ris ewh enthechurch was in mid-co urse, subsequent notonlyto theApestles, butals oto tho se whom theyhadcou it tedthe chu r c hes . "l The classical viewse e s he r esyas anoffshoot fr om.ortho doxy. The root of
IH. E. W. Turner , The Pa t t e r nof Christ i an Truth (Lond on:
A. R.Mowbra y andCo., 1954) ,p, J.
I Turne r ,Patte r n, p,J. , Turne r,Pat t e r n, p.4.
here sy is in the per s o na l choice s thatindi viduals make in matter s to which such choice s should not apply. Irenae us presents this understa nding of the develop me nt of early Chris tia n ityin his wri ting. Hesa ys,
The Lord of allga v e to His Apostles the powe r ec pr eac h the Gospel. It is th r ou ghthemthat we have come to know the truth, that is, the doctrineof the Sonof God... Firs t of all, the yprea c hed the Gospe l; then, byth e wi llofGod,theytra ns mitted it to us inthe Scri pt u r es to be the founda t i o na l pill a r of our faith .•. Af ter our Lord had ris en from the dead, and afte r the Holy spiritha dcome upon the)!" inve s t i ng themwit hpowerfr omon hig h (cf. LK24:49),they werefilledwi t hallHis gifts andpos s e s s e d perfectknowl edge(gnos i s).The ywent tothe ends of the earl. h , proclaimi ngthegood news of the good th ings which come from God, and announcing heavenly peace to men. Al l of them tog ethe r andeachof themon hisown poss essed the Gos p el of God... Theyhave allpas s ed on tous this teac h i ng: tha t there is one God, the creator of he a ven and earth, whowaa annou nc edbythe Law and the prophets, and one Ch r ist , the Son of God. Anyone whore f us estoasse nt to thesetruths shows conte mptfor the 'parta kers of the Lord ' (cf . Heb 3:14), indeed for the Lord Hi ms elf and for the Father;such a person condemns hims e l f, be c a usehe resists and opposeshis salvation--thatis wha t all thehe r e t ics do.·
Ir en a e us , sees himself as defendi ng the mains t ream of Ch rist i an fa i th agains t its ene mies. Accordingto Ire na...·.1s there is onlyone standardof co rrectint e rp r e t a t ion,Which1s the rul e of fai th that wa s prese rved in church e s in th e apost ol ic succession. "Ir enaeu s is ceally the father of
• Iren a eus , The Scan4al ofthe Incar nation : Irenaeus Aqa inst TheHeresies, trans.JohnSaward (san Francisco : Ignatius Pre s s, 19 9 0) ,p. 78.
aut ho ritat iveexeqes Lsinthe chu rch. In his opin i o n truth is to be fo und onlywithinthe church.'" Irenae us says that:
....e do no t need toseek the truth elsewhe re ; it is easy to obt a i n it fr om the Church. In the most tho r ou g h way, the apost les ha v e amassed in the Church, as in a treasurechest, al l thatpertains to the tr ut h, so tha t everyonewho so desires ma y dri nk the wate r of life (cr, Ap oc 22:17 ) .•. We must , the r efo r e, re fl e c t them, but love with the greates t teal everything to do wit h the Church and la yhold ofth etr a di tion oftruth.6
Eusebius, an early Church historian , re cord ed the development of early Chr i s t i a n ity in hi s Ecclesiastical History. In viewing the Christianit y of the Apostolicage Eusebius says,
th e Church had remained a virgin, pure and un c orrup t e d , sinceth os e Wh oweretrying tocor r up t th e wh ole s ome standa rd of the saving message, if suc h there were, lurked somewhe re under cover of da r kn e s s.But whenthe sacredbandof theapos tles ha din variousways re a ch ed the end of their lif e , and the generation of those privileged to li sten withtheir own earstothe divinewisdom had pas s e d on, then godlesserror beganto takeshape , throu gh th e deceit of re.reete a ch e rs,wh o now tha t noneof the apostles was le f t thr ew off th e mask and attemp ted to counter the knowledg e falsely so called .7
Eusebius, li ke Irena e us, upho lds the Class ica l view in hi s
S Robert M.Gr a nt , A ShortHistory of the Interpretationot The Bible(Philadelphia : Fort ressPress, 19 8 4) , p, so.
6Ir e n a e us , Scandalof The Incarnation, p. 8l.
7Eusebius, The Hi storyof 'rhe Church Prom Christ to constantine, trans .G.A. Willia mson (Minneapolis:
Augsbu r gPub. House,19 65) ,p. 143.
account of the development of earlyChristianityandthela t e r rise of heresy.
According to theClassical view, as theheretics began their work with i n the Churchthose who maintaine dthe tr ue Christian faith were left responsi blefor the purete a ch ings ofthe Church. Eusebius reports Bishop Th eoph ilus' ac c ount of the heretics' actionsin Ant ioch. Eusebi us pr o v i de s a view of the Churchin the processof defendingitse lf fromthe at tacks of non believers,sayin9:
At thatti mehe r e ti c s were asbu e y as ever spoil i n9 like tares the pureseedof the apostolic te a c h i ng ; so the pastors of the churches everywhe re, as though driving away savage beasts from Christ's sheep,strove to keep them at bay, now by warnings and admonitionstoth e i r congrega tions , now by more militant action,by SUbject ingthe heretics to oral direct questioning and confutation,and fina lly by written polemics in which the y employedthe most unanswerable proofs to demolish their erroneous ideas. '
[usebius presents orthodoxy as the domina nt belief tha t existed before heresy, a belief strong enough to oppose the heretics. Eusebius wished to showthat the general rej ection of falsebelief could be found inthe very ea rliest Christian lite r a t ur e .9
IEusebius, Historyof The Chur c h, pp. ~8 5- 1 8 6 . 9 Wal ter Bauer,Orthodoxy anc! Heres y in Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia:For tressPress, 1971). p , 15 0.
Tr a ns l ate d from the German RecbtqlKublqke1tundlCe t ze r e l 1m liltesten Chr i sten t wn (TUbingen : Mohr/Siebeck , 1934).
Eusebius ' wri ting shows readersthe tr ue fa i th of the Chur c h dominat ingover allher e sies. He says,
Tr ut h assertedherself, and with the march of time shone with increasing light. For by her activity th e machinationsof her foeswerepromptlyshown up and extinguished, thoug h one after anot her new he r e s i e s were invented, th e ear lieronesconstant l y pa s s i ng away anddisappearing, in different ways at different times, into forms of every shape and character. But the splendour of the Catholicand only true Church , always remaining the same and unchanged,grew steadilyin greatnessandstr e ngt h , sheddingon everyra c e.. .Thus the passage of time extinguished th e calumniesagai ns tthe wholeofour doc t r i n e, and our te a c hin g remai ned alone, everyw herevictoriousand acknowledgedas supreme in dignity and sobriety , indivine an d phi l osoph i c doctrines so that no one today could dare to subject our Faith tovile abuse or to any such mis repre s e ntat i o n as inth e past th os e who conspired against uswere Inthe habitof usin9. 10
As a true manof the Church, Eus ebiusholds up theclassical view as the correctinte rp r e t a t i on of Christian development even when wri ti ng a historyof earlyChrist iani ty.
Tertul lian,anot herearlyChurchFather ,seestheroot of heresy in the personal choicesmade by individuals where personalchoice shouldnot be applied.liThepersonal systems of th e heresiarchs are contrasted with the te a Ch i ng of tho Apostleswho had 'no faithoftheir own ' anddid notchoose what theybe Heved;"! 'Th e Churchplaceditself in a position
InEusebius, Hist.o ry of the Church, p.16 0 . II Turner,Pat.t ern , p. 6.
of authority;throug hthe "class ical vie w" it placedblamefor the existence of false belief with those who disobeyed the Chur ch, and thus disobeyedGod. Anotheraccount for heresy withinearlyChristianityistha t itar osefromthe mixt ure of orthodoxy withpagan philosophy.Tertul liansays:
I have often wished tha t the cla r i fi c a tion of approved doctrines did not, in a sense , demand the existence of heresies. For we thus would have no need of arguments about the soul with the philosophers , those patr i arc hs of the he r eti cs.
Evan in the time of the Apost les,St.Pau lforesaw th e r e would be troublebetween philosophy and the truth.12
The views of the philosophers were seen as a thre a t tothe Churchand itsauthori ty ;thereforethe i r views were li nke dto those of the hereticsorth os e who hel d falsebeliefs. Th e motives of such heretics were presented by early Church fa t her s who felt that many heretics were"i nsp iredby a spirit at faction, or a restless questfor novelty."uUn l i ke thos e who wrote the scripture the y were not inspired by div i ne revelation.
The Church claimed support for the "cla s s i c al view "
through th e script u re 's prophecy of heresy.14 Ear ly Church
12Tertullian , "Apo l oget i calWorks: Onthe souI,ninThe Fathers of The Churc h, tr a ns . RudolphArbesmann (WaShingtonD.C.: Ca t hol i c university of AmericaPress, 19 50 ) , p.185.
U Turner, Pattern, p. 5.
14Turner , Pattern, p,5.
ic Fathers li k e Tertu l lianfel t thatth e Sc r i p ture fr omGod wa s paradoxicallytheca useof theri seof heresy.Tert u l liansa id thathere s i e s cannot ex i st wit ho utScr iptures.The scri ptu res
"wer e so disposedby thewill of God astosupplymat te r for heretic s."IiThe existenceof he r e s y inturnwas suppo r t for th e truth of scriptura. The ma j or su p port of the "class i cal view " was the authorityandpos i tionof the Catho licChu rch . Evi dence for th edomin an ce of orthod o xywa s the beliefthat
"Heresy isre str i cted to rel ati v ely fe wplace s, where a s the Catho licChurch , asthe name implies, is worl d wide.lt 16
InsummarythQ"cla s s i c al view"heldbythe earl yChu rch conc erni nq the heretic s andth e i r doctrine holds four main poi nts , or steps in the processof spreading the fai th. To be g i n, thepure doctrine of Christ i an i tywasre veale dtothe apost l es byJe s us,partly befo re hi s deat h andpart l yduring the forty days before his asce ns i on. Secondl y, aft erJe su s·
final departure eachof the apost les tookthepure wordofthe gos pel to a different part of the world. The third ste p occurre d afterthedea t h of theapos t les; the gospelcontinue d to spread; ho we ver, it met wit h obstacle s. Thede vilbe ganto blindthepure Christiansandca used the mto leavethefa ith .
UTertull ian , uApo l oge ti c andPrac t ica l Treatie s ,It in Lillraryot Fathers, trans .Rev C.Dodg s o n(OXford :John Henry Pa rker, 1842) , p,474.
16Turn e r, Pattern, p. 6.
11
"'This develop ment tak es plac e in th e followi1"lg' sequence:
un b e l i e f , ri g ht belief ,wro ng belie f ••.wherethereis heresy, or thodoxyDust ha vepre ceded.-nThefo ur than d final point, theon e that spellsout theund e r l y i ng beliefof theChurch, istha t the truthdominate s,andriqhtbelief is invincible.
Th ouqh the dev il trie s, he cann ot stop the pure ChristIan belief asit continue s tospr e a d.
8 The Theory 0fWa 1 torBauer
In contra stto theclassicaltheorythere isth e viewof Wal ter Bauer co nc erning- orthodo)C}' Ilon d heresy. In his book Ort hodoxy and Here s y in Ear lie st Chr istianity Bauer "h a s called into questi on ina fu nd amental way the tr a dit i o n a l understandi n9 of th e dev elopmentof Church history and the hist o r i ca l founda ti o n of eccles i a st ical -- orthodox self"
understand ing••• •11Bauer challe ngesthe as s ump tio n inh e r e n t inthe clas sical view that orthodo xy prec ededheresyinthe periodof earlyChurchdevelopment.
Bauer se e s the beginning of formal orthodoxy....ith i n groups that were se pa r a t e, possibly mino rity groups that slow ly rea ch e da domi nant inf luenCe in Chri s tia n i ty . "The
IfBauer, orthodoxyand Heresy, p.xxiii.
II Bauer,or tbodoxy and Heresy , p.xi.
12 aeverc pn e rrc trom little qrcupa of the faithfu l toth e free patternofCa t hol i c or t h odoxy was not the workof a moveme nt and might proceed at differen t ratesinthelife ofindividual churches .,,19 Bauor fe els that in ear l iest Christia ni ty, orthodoxy £Ind heresydo not sta nd in re l ationto one ano t he r as primary to secondary , but .1.nJtlany regions here sy is the 2d.9in.U...1!l5lDitflHt at.tOD of Christ ianity .20 Bauer's th eo r y re p r e s ent s the pos sibility that aspects of earl y Christian life that the churchrenounc es as heresies:
originally had notbee n such at all, but at le a s t here andther e vez-e the onlyform of ne w religion- - tha t is , for those regions the y were simp ly Christianity. The pos s i bi lit y also exists that the i r adherentsclonstitutedthe majori ty ,and that they looked down with hat r E!d and sc o rn on the orthodox whoforth em 'Wer.;! the false bel i e v e r s.'1 Walter Bauer's th e si s ma y be viewed as a thr e at to traditional ways of thi nk i ng and to the Church . Ba ue r insistedon a"s c i e nti fic "appro a chtohi sto r y. Hecontrasted the proponentsofthe"c l ass i c a l view" , such asIr en a e us,who showed anobvious di s l i ke fo r natural science. forthroug h such methods Ir e na eu s feels that tr ue answers may not be found. As Grant explains,in natural Science
many thi ngs escapeour knowladge, and we entrust
19Tur ner, Pa t t e r n, p, 40.
20Bnuer,ort bodo]tyan4 He r esy. p.xi.
21 Bauer , orthodo]t)'an'" Heresy, p,xxii.
13 themto God ;for he must excel over al l. Whati fve trytoset forth th e causeotthe ris ing NIle ? We say manyth in gs, some perhaps persuas i ve, others perhaps not persuasive: wbat is true and certa in and su relieswi th God.n
The classic a lviewsou g htonly divineexplan ation.
Baue r'scommitment to keeping ascient i fic approach leads him, he believes, to beingope n to bot h sid e s of t~ tdeba te con cerning thena tu r eofear lyChris tia nity.He feelsthat we must ta ke all sides into conside rat i o n before we make a jUdg e men t. Bauer realizesthat wecannotblindly follow the words of the ear lyChurc hfathe rs whohe ld an anti-heretical view. for theyarejust one sideof thedebate, one party .He says:
i fwe fol l owsuch a pr oced u re, and simpl y agree with the jUdgement of the ant i -her e t ica l fa thers for the post-New Testament pe r i od , do we not all tooqufckLy become depe nde nt uponthe vot e of but one pa r t y -- tha t party whic h perhaps as mu c h thr oug h favourable ci rcumstances as by its own merit eventually wa s thrust into the foreground, and which possibly had at i ts disposa l tod a ythQ more powerfUl, and thu s the more prevalent voice, onlybec a u s e the choru s of others has been mut e d?
Mus t not the hi sto rian, like the jUdge, preside over the par tie s and main ta i n as a pri mary pri nciple thedi c t umaudia tureealt era pars (let the othe r side alsobehe a rd] ? 23
The object of Baue r 's study is th e appro ximately hundredye arsfollowingtheapostol ic age . Bau eraeea Eusebius
22Grant, xnterpretation of The Bi!)le,p, 50.
~JBa u er, OrthocS0XY and Heresy, p. xxi. Baue r ma k e s a good pointherethatcan betransferredtoour studyof IJohn .
14
as an unreliable source for th e re c ou nting of earl y Christian ity .Heinter pretsEusebius 'workasthat of a fourth centurychurchman whosee s the individual communitychurches
foldsin whichth e shepherd guard s and protec ts the sheep.The hereticsroam aboutoutside likewolve s , intent on gaining prey. But the caref u l ly pla nn ed measures taken byth e 'shepherds 'have made it very di f f i c ul tfor theheret ics.Nevertheless,according to everythingwe haveascertained, the sit uation1n the second centu rysimplywasnot that way. It was by no means the rule at that time that heretics wereloc a t e d"outsi d e . " Itis,however ,completely crediblethatalreadyat that timethele a d e r s of the orthodoxwere using the tactics me nti o n e d by Eusebius, so as to safeguard the i r own people againstcontagion.But we must quicklyadd that the par tyopposingthe orthodox worked inthe sameway and with corresponding goals. .•.Al r e a dy in the second cent'lry we hear of direct discussions between the representatives of ecclesiastical Christianityand their opponents, and can easily find the bridge to an evenearlier perfod.24 He concludes that the classical view, as represented by Eusebiusandothers,simplydoes not stand up toth e scrutiny of history.Con trary to what Eusebius wouldhave us believe, Bauerpointsouttha t orthodoxyprevailedonly"very gradually wi thgr e a t diff i c ulty .illS
InBauerIs view,th a t whichtri umph s as "orthodox"is the Ch r i s t i a n i t yof Rome.Roman Christianity dominatedfor several reasons, the most importantbeingthe affluenceofthe Roman
'l-tBauer, OrthodoxyabdHeresy , p•131.
'l'Bauer , ortbodoxy Ilbd Here!lY, p, 43.
15 Church.He says:
If weask towhat deg reedonationsof moneyshou l d be of importancein the welfareofthesp i rits,our imagina t i o nwoul d haveno difficulty in suggesti n g all kinds of ways... Th e encomium of Eusebiu s teaches us tha t Rome viewed i t as an al t o gether le g i t i mate practice inrel i g i o u s cont rove rsies to tipthe scaleswith goldenwaights .:M
The Roman Church al o ng wi thitsfinancial we al t h also held "a ehre we ne e s, energy and communa l unit y ."27 These charac teristicsof le ad e r s hip further al lowed the Chur ch to exert its power. Bythe end of these condce nt u r y the Roman Church was well organized and strict ly governed by the monarchica l bishop,it was readyto extendoutin t otheworl d andfu r t her establish itself.
Ba ue r focuse s on EusebiusI concern wi t h esta bl ishinga bodyof ecclesiasticall i ter atu r e that is
as old as possible and as exte nsive as possib le, but a tee treasured as much as possib le in the pr ese n t , and just as widelydispersed. [Eu s e bius]
wa nt s toshow that thege ner a l re j e cti on of false belief can also be found from earliest times in Christian literature.11
Ba ue r feolsthatEus e bi us isunsuccessful in his attempts at pr e s e n ti ng an abundanceof or t hodox lit e ratur e inthe first
16Bauer, orthodoxy and Heres y, pp,122-1 23.
v Bauer, orthodoxyand Heres y, p. 12 3 . n Bauer, Or thodoxy and Heresy, p,15 0.
cen turies.
According to Bauer , the views of the opponents wer e distorted. When the orthodox par ty gai ned co ntrol , they supressed as much of the heretica l literature as po s s i bl e. The reforethe canonicalwrit i nqmustbe scrutinized, fo rthe y are the end result of the struggle between ort hodoxy and here s y, andarechosenby the or thodox. It provide d limi ted valu e in opposing the heretics because ofthe possibility of dif f ering inte rpretatio nsevenamongthe orthodox .For example the Gospel of John began i ts courseas a heretica l Gospel. With this in mind I John may have been an attempt by the Chu rchto includeJohn as partof theop pos i t ion against th e hereti c s , makingJohnmore ecclesiasticallyviable .
Bauer best sums up his position conce rni ng the esta blishmentof ear lyChristianity:
The form of Christian belief and lif e whi ch was successful was that supported by the strongest organizatio n -- that form which was the most uniformand best sui tedforma s s consump tion-- in spiteofth e fact that, inmy jUdgement, foralong time afterthe close ofthe post-apostolicage the sum tot al of consci.ously orthodox and anti~
heretica l Christians was numerica lly inferior to that of th e 'heretics '.19
Fur thermore:
[It ] appears no less self-evident that the Roman
19 Bauer, orthodoxyandBer e s y,p. 231.
17 gover nment final ly carne to recoqnize that the christ ian!ty eccles iastica lly organ ized from Rome 'Was flssnof its flesh , callis to unity with it,and the r e by actually enabled it to achieve ultim ate vict o ryover unbel ievers andhe r et ics."JO
Throughout his stud yot early Christ iani ty Baue r gi ves the Lmpre e e Icn ofstrict .wel l defined positions thatwe r ein opposition to one anot h e r.Bu t he isforcedtoad mi t thatin at le ast oneinstanceth i s does not seem tobeth e case:
The religious discussio n wh Ich brought abou t the split in Rome bet wee n Ma r cie n and orthodoxy was of a special sor t.At least attheoutset ,it wasnot thoughtof a a strugg le for the souls of Roma n Christians fough t from al r ead y esta b lish ed posit ions , butas an effort to ascerta i n whatthe true meaningand content ofth e Christian reliqion really is, and to that extent it was somewha t comparable to the aposto liccouncil (Acts15).J!
Bauer,thro ughhisstudy,has givenrenewed fo r c e tovi ewing Christian originsfrom the standpoi nt of div ers i ty.
C, TheTheoryof H.EW Turner
H. E. W. Turner inhis book The Pattern of Christian Truth:AStUdyl.nthe RelaHongbetweenorthoc2oxyand Heresy in the EarlyChu rch re s ponds tothe "cla s s i calvi ew" and the the s i s of Walte r Bauer. Tur ne r st r ongly di sagrees wi t hbot h
)UBauer,Orthodoxyand Here s y, p.232.
)1 Bauer ,ortbodoxyandHeresy, p, 132 .
18 the orie s
or
early Christia n development. Thecla s s ical viewin Turne r'sopinionis wrong in its "assumptiontha t orthodoxy re pres e n t s a fixed andunyieldingdepositoffai th.Itmod e rn inves cigato r finds it difficu lt to acce pt the static concep tion of orthodoxy which the classica l vi ew pr e suppo s e s."nSuch a view,according toTurner, ignor e s the existe n ce offacto rs that are pecul i arto here sy aaddoes no t present a full pictur e of orthodoxyintheearl~centur i e s of Chr ist iani t y.It seems morelikelyth at dur:i.r.g "thefo r ma tive periods ofthe Ch r lB thi n Churchort hodo xyre s embl esasymp hon y composedof variedelements ratherthan a sIngle melodI c theme.liDTurner doe snotth InkthatBau er lsun d e r stand ingof the developmen t ofChr i s t ia nityisaccurateeither.He objectsto Bauer'svie wbecausehe fe e l stha t th e evidence is not strong enough to support a theory as clear cut as the one he presents . Moreover Bauer 's "scepticis. on .any poin ts or detail appears excessive, and his te nde nc y to post pone the deve l o pmen t of re c ogn i zably orthodoX lif e far from co nclusive .,,:W
Turnor SU9'9QlIlts thatBauer is more con cernedwith "t he
n Turner,Patt ern, p.B.
»Turner,pat t er n, p.9.
:MTurner,Pattern, p,45 .
19 hi storicalrelati o nsbetweenthos e who con sideredth e mselv es tobe orthodox and those whom they conde mned as he re tical."
Bauer wo uld ha ve done betterto be more concerned with the natureof here syoror t h od oxy."Forthena t u r eof orthodoxyia ric h e r andmoreva r i e d than Bauerhi mselfallow5.0I" Turner 's critique ofBauer Is cap t ure d in th e followin g excerpt :
his fatal weakne ss appears to be a pers i ste nt ten de nc y to over-simplify problems, combine d with the ruthlesstrea tme nt of suc hevide nceas tai ls to support his case. Itis very dou b tfu lwhethe r all source s of trouble in th e earl y Church ca n be redu c e d to a set of variatio ns ona si ngle theme.
Nor is itlikely that ort hodoxy it s e lf evolve d in a uniform pattern,th oug h at dIfferent speedsin the main centres of the universal Church. Thefo rmula
•splinter mov ement, exter nal inspira tion or assistance, domin at ion gratitUde to those who assisted initsdevelopment' representstoo neat a ge nera liz a tio n to fit the facts. History seldom unfoldsits elfin so orderlya tashi on.M
Though Turn erdoesnot entirelyagr e e with Bauer'sviews he does see sOllie va l ue in his theory. Bauer's the o ry, while extreme,presentsamore realisti cvi ewcr earlyChri sti ani t y thandoesthe cla ssicaltheory. It pro vid esre a d ers with
ma n y val uabl e su g gesti ons wh ich de serve further exploration . Itisprobable th a t orthodG.y may have been more hard-pressedin certain churche s du ri ng the early periOd th an it has been customa r y to admit. Orthodo xy and here s y certainly la y side by
JSTurne r ,Pattern, p.80 . l6Turner , Pattern, p, 79.
20 side during the period.J1
Turner viewsthe evolution of orthodoxytaking plac eat differi ng rate s in different part s of the wor ld. It appeared in di f f e r ent forms at di f f e r e nt ti me s, "withou t los s of cont inuityof life and unity of the me."ll Turne r goeson to conclude in his study of the development oforthodo xy tha t
"orthodoxy was a richer and more comp lex ph en ome no n than ei the rtheclassica lviewor its modernriva lswas disposed to al low.IIJ9
WhileBauer,a Church historian,devotedhis study tothe persona li ties and events invol ved in the deve lopment of Christ ia nity , th e r e are ot h e r mode rn al terna ti ves to th e classicaltheorythat concentrateonthe historyof Christian ideas and the formulation of doctrine and which draw conclusio ns similar to those of Bauer. Turner'sstudy briefly reviews thr e e such modernviews of orthodoxy. tbose of. A.
Harna c k ,M.Werner,andR.Bultmann . Similarlyto Bauer,each of the s e stresses the divers i ty and flui d ity of early chris tian tho ught ,in opposit iontot.hefi xed and stablenorm of the classica l view.The s e tbeories seem to suggest thattb e
"orthodoxy"wbichwas eventual lyvictor iouswasa tra ve sty of
11Tur ne r, Pattern, p , 79.
KTur ne r , Pattern, p, SO.
)9 Turner , Pattern, p, 473.
21 theorigina l Christianfait h.
AdolfHarnack"e mphasi z ed the fact tha t atthe outs etthe Church offeredtothe wor lda message of sa lv atio n towhich th e appropria teresponsewa s ali v ing actof fai t h."However as the CatholicFaith unfo l ded duringth e earlycen turies it took on a different appearance from th e message of the New Test ame n t .40The Pauline savi ngfaith expressed ina new way of life "a ppe a r s differen t from assent to a formulated doctri ne and th e concept of Chris tianityas the Ne wLaw.,,41 Harnacksaysthat religionbecamea doctrinewhose cont en t was onl y in part derived from the Gospel.
Mar t in Werner's thesisstates th at with th e hope of a ne a r Parousiathe Churchha dno choice butto completel y re- establishits life and thought. Wernerdescr ibes this cha nge
"a s Enteschatologisierung or 'De-eschatologizi ng.' Lat e r orthodoxyisvirt ua lly an ersatz produc tionwith li ttle or no continuitywith thefa i t h of the New Te sta me n t.,,·2
Rudolf Bu ltmann fi nd s the beginningofthe evolution of th e message of Christian faithat an evenearlier poi nt tha n
.wTurner, Pattern, p.17. See AdolfVonHar nack , Dag Vesen 48S Chris t e nt ums. ET:Whatischristianity?,tr an s.Thoma sBaile y Saunders (New York: Harper,1957).
•1Turner, Pattern , p. 17. SeeDa!l Wesen•
•2Tur ner, Pattern, p. 20. Se e Martin Werner , The FormatioD of Chri stianDoqma; anHi s t o ri c a l StUdy of its Problems (New York: Ha r pe r , 1957).
22 weso e inth eth e or i e s of HarnackandWern er. Bultmann sees
"fl uidi t y and variety wit hin the thought of the Ne w Testament. ,,43 Bu ltman nfe els tha t the r e aresigns of ten s i on wlthin Christiani ty "b etwe e nthe relig i o n ofthe Church and theterms inwhichi twa s expressed...44
These t.hreeviewsofthe relati onbetwe en ort h od oxy and heresy share four main po i nt s. To be gin the y cont rast the classica lview's opinion of a fixed and stableorthodoxy by st ressi ng the diversity and flu i d i t y of early Christian tho u ght. Another common point is their view of "a marked difference betweenthe developedCh ristia ni ty of the fourt h century andthe primitiveli f e and thought of th e Churc h." A thir d point of similarity is the ir accepta nce of "the admixture of th e origina l Hebrew and Christ ian st ock with alienelements "as the root ofth i s "s e a-c hang e" experienced by the earlyChurch.45The fourth common poi nt is the que stion of whether this deve lopment is "a translat i on of Chris t ian re alit i e s into a Greek setting . "46
Turner sees such mode rn views on the or t hodoxy/heresy
43Tur ne r, Pattern, p. 23. See RUdolfBultmann , Theology ot The New Te stament , vol. I (London: SCM Press, 1952),p,164 - 18 3 .
44Turne r , Pattern,p. 24. Se eTheology, p. 164 • .sTurner, Pattern , p, 24.
46 Turner, Pattern, p, 25 .
"
debate as too extreme. While the classica l notio nof a fixed and staticdoctrinal norm is toosi mp l e , th e vi e w thatsees there s u l t a nt vi c t o r iou s faIth 85 a trav est y at its toner self is too severe. These al te r native1DOdern views imp l y too hi qh adeg r e e of op e nn ess or flexibi l i ty .
It the clas sica l th e ory andBauer'stheory are viewe d as extreme s of one anothe r, the n Turne rIs thought on the de velop me nt of orthodoxyand her esyappearsto bea compromI s e be t we e n the s e two extremes. Turner interprets Christian developme ntas an "i nteraction offixedandflexi b l e elements, bothofwhich areequal l ynecessary for th ede terminationof ChrIstian trut h in thesetti ng'of apa rticular age.-"
Turne r used th e terJl. lex orand I to re f ertoChr i s t i an CODonsense that gaveCh ristiansa "relativelyfull gra s p of whati tmea n t tobeChr is t ian ." This lexorand! "enabledtha Church tore j e c t interpretations of herfa i t h and dilutions of her life even before she possessed formal sta nd a r d s of belief .·...According to Turner , these fixedelement s areth _ re lig iou s fac ts or basic beliefs of Christianity. Fi r stand foremost is the be li ef in God as Fa t her of creation , and Chr i st as a divineand historical redeemer ; second, is the beliefin the Creedand Rul eof Fait h.The Churchhad a grasp
n Turne r, Pattern, p. 26• .. Tur ne r, Pattern, p. 28.
24 of th e s e rel i g i ou s facts in th e ear ly cen tur i e s of Ch ristianity lon g before the y createda coherent formula of faith. Ac c or di n g to Turner, fo r example, "Ch r ist ians live d Trinita rianly lon g before th e evolut ion of Nl c e n e orthodoxy.n~9
As wellas fixed elements,Turner acknowledges that ea r ly Christianity contained some flexibility. These flex i b l e elements were differences in "Chr i s t i an idiom" incl uding varyinglit e r a r y genre,as wellas differences in metaphysical and eschatological interp retationsof Chris tianity . Turner, however, maintainsthatthe"Chr i s ti a n depositof faithis not wedded irrevocably to either id i om but is capable of expressionbothontologicallyandescha toloqica lly . "
Th e selection of a distinctivetheological idiom, whethe r i t be eschatology. ontology, or even in mo rerecentti me s existent ialism, illustra tesone possible element of flexibility in Christian think ing.~
Flexibleelementsalso lie in theind i v i du al personalit i esof th e the olog i a n s themselves. Such flexible elements did not meanth a t fol lowersheldfals e beliefs.Thefle xibi lit ywithi n Christiani ty allowed for Christians to ind ivi dua li ze th ei r bu l1 e f s, to make Chris tianity belonginthe ir liv e s. It wa s impor tant,eventotheaa rly faith,that Chris tia nsbe allow ed
4'Tur n er ,Pattern, p. 28.
50 Tur ne r,Pattern, p. 31.
25 toexp ress the mselv e sthroughdiffer e ntme answIthoutfear of be i ng viewed asnon Chr istia n heret ics.
Turner 's theo ry also suggests a penumbra or a fringe bet....eenor t hodoxy andhe resy.Thispenumbra was a so r t of grey area , a shad owi ngI betwe en what is orthodox and what is he r et.LcaL,Tu r ne r reer ethatthisfringebetweenorthod oxy and heres yhe lps to expla in more ade qua telymany of the varying idea s between Christi an gr o up s and in turnth e si t ua t i o n that Bauer de s cribe s,fortheline ofdivision betwe enthe two was no t near l y as sharpas Bauer at t ests. Inea r l y time sthere was not al ways distinc t group s clai ming to be heret ical or or thodox.Gro upsco u l d notalwa ys st a nd in di r e ctoppos it ion tooneano t he r, forit wasnot alwayscle arwhich beliefs were correct and\-°h ichwe r e fals e.
H. E. N. Tur ne r's view of the dev e l opmen t of the e~rly Church and hi s tho ughts conce r ning oth e r the ories of thi s dev elop ment, such as thos e held by the classical vie w and WalterBa uer , isbe st summed up throughhisown words. Turner feels that:
orthodo xy re s e mblesno t somuchastream as a sea, nota sing le mel od i c th eme but a rich and varied ha r mony, not a sing le cl os e d syst e m but a rich man ifold of thou ght and life. And that is, after all , whatwe sh ould expect , for it isessentially the human exp ress i o nfr omag e to age of the truth of the One God , Father , So n , and HolySpiritWho in co-equa l glory and co- eternal majesty livethand
2 .
re ignethunt oage s of ages .~l
Tur ne r recogniz e s the need to take in to cons i d e ra t i o n the complexity of th e development of Chri stianity and the relationship and gro wt hof bot hor thodoxy and here sywithin the fai t h .Itisuponthispoint thatTurnerbase shistheory and it is th b complex ity thatbe c ome s evi de nt in the next chapter as we st udy the early Chur c h through the example provide dby IJo h n .
51Turner ,Pattern,p, 80.
CHJ.PT ER TWO
The Firs t Epistle ot John
COnflictWithinthe CommunityofI John
The Johannine tradition , aspresentedin the Gospel of John and thethr e e ep istle s attributed to John, is forlIIany Chris tians a window throug h which to se e the life of th e Johanni ne community . In a stUdyof I John we ar e pre s e nted with the exi stence of a groupwithintheJoh a nn ine community in a per i od approximate ly five gen erations away fr om the pre senc e of Jesus. Theauthor of the Epistle offers to his followers aninter preta t ionof thecOlIIJDunity'stradi t ion, and forreaders todayinformation co nc erningthe co nditionswithin thatgroup.Though the Epistlerev e alstousthepresenc eof oppositio nand secess io n withinthe communit y, our acces s to this di sputeis limited, for in order toget a grasp of the vie ws ofth e s e·s e c e ssion ist s"one must seethe mth roug h the words and arguments of the auth o r. Li ke the auth or the opp one nt s claimto love and follow Godandhis Son, Je su s. However ,be caus eof differencesintha ir viewsconcerni ng the trad i tio n , theEpistle condemnstihem,
A study of the seo.:essionist 's posi tion , against the backdropof theJoh ann inetr ad i ti o n ,sugge sts thepo s sib ility tha tma ny oftheir oppos ing cl aims,condemned inthe Epistle ,
2.
are logical ded uc tionsfro na commontradition .A studyofthe arqu mentsof the author ofI John and theopponentsbr i n gsthe understandi ngthat asre aderswe shouldbe carefulnot to draw conc l usion s that ar e tooabs o l ute.PrecautionsllIu s t be tak e n , forwe cannotar gu eabs olut ely thatthe Gosp el inevitably le d ei t h er to th epositionof the authoror tothe views of his opponents.Neithercan we argue that eitheror the gro ups he l d positions that were to t al distortions of th e trad i tio n.
Instead we shouldreali z eth atth etr ad i tio n containedin Joh n was rece i v e d originallyby bo th the opponentsand the Ep i stle write r andwasquiteunclear on manypoints tha t later came into dispute.
Though we must be careful in taki ng inf o rmati on fo r granted, withouttrying to evaluate its worth, therear e a number of impo rtant assumptions that must be .ada before starting astud yof theconflict containedwithinthe Epistle otI John.Such assumptionswill help to clarityour study.I t will be asaua e dthat I, II and III John werewritten by the same authorand that they were compos ed -after the situation envisaged by the eva nge list in theGospel._I Italsoseems necessary to assume that the EpistloIs pre sentatio nof the views o! the Johanni ne community and thQ beliefs ot the
1Raymond E. Brown,The community of TheBelove!!Disciple (Mahwah:Paul1s t Press ,197 9) , p, 97.
29
opponents is rea sonably accurate. Brown recogniZQ8 the difficulty of re c o ns truc t i ng the arguments ot' the se ces s i o n ists, sa y i ng that, "we must view themmirror-wise throughthe polemicaffirmat ionsof the author of the Epistle , as he refutesthe cl a i ms that Isomeone' might make."2In such ca s eswhen wevie.... individuals through the eyes of thos/'!who oppose them problemsarise, "for it is exceedingly raretha t people think themselves re pr e s en t e d fairlyor accuratelyby hostile opponents.")Neverthelesswe may, as Bogart says:
reasonably trust the author of I John; he is obv iously giving us only what he thinks his opponentsI claims were asserting, but his impress ions, characterizationsor paraphrasing are reliable for this reason: The re can be no doubt that hisopponentsI claimswere actuallyupsetting the community,and causing such a disturbanceamong the faithful that the author felt obliged, as a pastor, to write his congregation(s)and set them st ra i gh t. We hypothesi ze that it would be incredible that such a rtistu rbance among the fAithful could ha ve come about merely by a mis unde rst a nd i ng of whatthe opponentswerere all y teaching and as s erti ng. The intensity of the disturbance (measured by the intensity of the author 'sresponsel) indicatesth a t thedistur b a nc e in the community was caused by no phantom thr e a t, but rather a clear understanding of what the
2Raymond E.Brown, "The relationshipto the FourthGospel shared byth e author ofI John and by his oppone nts,"in Textand Interpr etati on, eds,Ernst Best andR. WIlso n
(CambrIdge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1979), pp. 58 - 5 9. JRaymond E. Brown, Tbe Ep ist lesotJohn(Garden city:
DoubledayCo. Inc . , 19 8 2 ) ,p. 47.
'0
op ponents we r a actua lly procla im ing.·
Ina studyofthe con flict , eviden t in 1 John , we must also assume th at the opponents ofth e authorwere a united group. As schnackenburg ....rites, "e ve n th ough th-ar e may be di f f erent groups among th e many antic hris ts (2:18) or fa l s e pr o phets , th e y are united in the ir de nial of the church 's christologica l confession (2:22; 4:2-3)".'As well we must realize that as Brownsuggests, "both the adversaries in I Joh n and the author knew the achcnntne proclamation of Christianityandprofessed to accept it.,,6
The Argume ntof I John
Tobe g in our stUdy of the Epist leof I Johnwewll1 tak e a general loo k at the letter. The epistleIs pervade dby the autho r 'sclaimsthat he has the correct interp re t a tio n ofthe Joh a nni n etra d i t io n and those he speaksofas"lI lIr l XPla,. O&"or th e "rb :va
,.ou
S'Clt16>"ou"have incorrect views on what the tra d i t i on is saying.4Jo h n Bogart , Orthodox andHeretical PerfeotionisDl (MiSSO Ula: ScholarsPrass, 19 7 7 ) , pp. 28-29.
, Rudol f Schnacke nbu rq, The Johannine Epistles (New York:
Cros sro a dPu b . Co.,1992), p. 17.
6 Brown, "Re l at i o ns h i p to The Four t hGospel,"p, 58.
31 The writerexplainswhyheiswriting I John in chapter one verses 1-4. The letter, he informs readers, is meant to tell them of the truth that his select community of belie'/ars have seen and heard for themselves. The author establishes his authority by infornd.nghis audience of the close relationship that he and the community have had with God the Father and his Son Jesusfrom the beginning. It is their mission to inform believers of the message they have heard from him."08e.or;r/lwr;
£C1HP(at,,/Cor-[ah Q!lf"or;, OUK~ar&P ou6EP[a" (1:5).The author
and his followerswish to be in fellowship with readers, this fellowshipis communicated through the form of a commandaenb , a new commandment, thecommandment to love the "brethren."If believers love God and follow his commandments,or walk in the light, then they must love the brethren. If they share fellowship with one another then they will benefit from the death of Godlg son, Jesus . Through the special relationship thatthe author'scommunity shares with God, if they sin they can be forgiven for their sins through Jesus, for Jesus is their advocate with God and "atoTo~ lXaa.u6, EOTl.!' "Epi fW"
a,UapT'/;''' 11/1-/;'''''(2:2). The author thus sets up the problem within the community from the beginning of the letter. His call for fellowship indicates to readers that the community is having problems in thisve r y area.
The author goes on to argue that believers should not love the world or the things within the world.Those who Love
32 the world do not loveGod and are not part of the community of believers . In 2:15 "0 «00'/.'0(''', it appears, is that which 1s outsidethe author' s group. Aswe read on it seems that Borne community members have left and the author feels that their leaving is an indication that they love the world more,-h a n they love the community of the author. The former mambers become referred to as "lUlflxPtaro&". These antichrists, according to the author," EE~j.JwJ' Et~>"8l1l1, &).X' o!nc ~O'a/l l"t
~IlW"" (2:19). It ap pe a r s that theyare no longer welcome in
the group, for these former members may be returning, pt!rhaps trying to share their interpretation of the Johannine tradition with members of the author's group, for I John says,
lf
a
P'r l XP U7r O&1fo>">"oi 'Y"''Y6I1aa~1'.08","-ytllwa"o/-l"'1' OTt lox6rIJwpa Earll'" (2:18). The last hour may refer to the end ot: their community because of dispute from within. If more members leave the community maybreak up. The author may fear that these former members are lookingfor converts, causing more members to leave his community, jeopardizing his authority and the life of the group. The author warns followers not to be swayed or deceived by those who have left, for he says,"Ta&ra l'Ypal/Ja u/-lill 1upi rwl'l'I'>"QIIWII1'bv v/-Iat;" (2:26).He feols that this is such a serious matter that it might even be the slgnal for the beginningot: the end at the world, or "luXlr.,.,/ wpa."In contrast to these "antichrists"the author claims that he and his followers must have the correct interpretationat
33 thetra di ti on be caus e theyhave been anoi n t e dbythe Ho lyOne, and theyknow the trut h, he says, "olra'l'Ypa 1J'aulli. 01'"1 OUK OU CI'r f1~"lr~~ hla ,. &).). ' 01"1 oU arEalrnj ...1;01OTt
"fl,
-;,rv60t;£Krill;l!)."S ( i at;olr. b u," (2:21 ). TheAnt i ch r i s t s deny·"'0' ft'o",l:pa.,, 1TtU ulch" (2: 22).Th isshows that ar e not onewi th God, and the ydo not kno w God and hi s Son.
The commun ity of I JohnknowsGod. Theyare the children of God,
"'Il'a,
bIJ.~7l'Ot W" ouatooLi,,'J"OIlKtauI'h !"OUhou.Kal o~iJO:')'Ol'll'WP101'6:0£).410"."Suchare "16:1l-.. "a To b 6'0 /36).011'"(3:10). In the eye s of the author. the leaving of the se c e s s i o nis ts ind i ca t es that they do not love the breth ren;
thereforethe y chooseto lIov eaway fromGodto be childrenof the de v il.
If the cO\llllluni t yconti nu es to followGod. andlisten to the author then they will have nothing to tear or to be ashamedof when Jesu s comes.As the letter SIlYS, "$£I:.."u·ta, autlf!, hai:h"~a,ll(p1lJ8i1OXW$£U'."app" a t a,Il:a,$£~alaxu ,, 8w~f"lalT' aut oil h Til'firpOI/O;" aUuLr . Hr, d&~t"
ou
SCIC a t Or; htl" , 'Y1WaICf: U OTt rat nor; (, 'Il"Ot (;u' T~" 6tICalOoli""" !E autoLr 'Y€1'lv v" rat" (2:28-2 9.).Thos e who havelett do not know God, for if they knew God theywouldhaveatec knownthe community members and they would have sta ye d with the au tho r's gr oup . Theauthor write s ,"-I oh:u ",o'l'a.,,~v&1'6:11''11' SUIiJ/CEV~$£lv0lI'ar~p"va rhl'a 8f:OiI r}..'16w$£ f:J', Kat !op i:v. 6,h uho (,Il:oajlor; ou 'Y1J'WaHI ~par;, aU OUK l'YJ'waurov" (3:1). LikeJe s us , the
34 community aschildre n of God is den ded andmIst rea t ed.
Accord i ng to theaut horof I Johnhating thebrethre nis like murde ring them. Hedo e s not want the relationsh i p s of community members to be like tha t of Cainand hi s brother.
Howeve r, by le a vi ng the commun i ty the se cess i o ni s ts have becomeevil lik e cain , fors akingtheir righteous ur e t h r e n of theaut horIsgroupwhoJIIthe Bu t h o rse e s asre pre s entingcai n'IS mur dered brother. Acc ording to I John , "01't aLr'1 €u 'fl " ~ Q')''')'e}..£a11'"4ltOUUO fflm' apxii~ ,tva:a"{a1twlJ." "Q>.J\~AO V" · 01.0"a OiA"
Klr t" h 1'0 £1'lfOl' '1POV~I'/Cal !a4I1]1EEIIfbI'aOEAq!lOPaurau '"(3 : 11 ~ 12)•
In contrastto his re fer encetoCain , the au t h orfeels that, just as Jes u s thesonof God la iddown his life for those who bel i e ve , suchas thoseofthe communi t y ofI Joh n , thenthe commun ityshou l dinturnla ydo wntheir live s for the brethre n.Th isiswhat God as ksof bel ievers, "Il:alaVT1j l"a'l'"l , 11 t:,.r o>. ~ aUTo u iva 71'1aHiiaw#EP TGJ ;'"oJLa u ToU ul.ou aUHi.!
•11jaou Xp t aT OV Il:a i. a1a Jrw#EP a">'l1Aou<;ll:a8wr; Uwu v t:PTOA",
~#i.,,, (3:23). If wefollowGod'scommandments we wi l l rec eive all that we askforfro mthe Fa t her. The love of God for believersas seenin hi s sacrif i ceofhison lySon, shou l d be rewarded bybel i eversthrough their loveof the brethren.
Fr o m the letterof I Joh n th e pri mary conclusionthat we canar r.t ve at isthatthereis st r ife in the community. The conf lict wi thi nthi s commun i ty ha s cha nged fromthatreflected
35 Inthe pagesof theFourth Gosp el . It seemsthat the dispute in thelette r is more difficultfor it is nowbetween members of thesame gr o u p. I t isno lo nger IIbe liefversus un be l i ef bu t correct beliaf versus inc orrect belie~It is ha r d at thi s poi ntto decide whichof theopposi ng grou ps iscorre ct and whi ch isfalse.Boththe follo wers of the author and the se cess ion istshave come toa point where theirdisagreements lJr e v en t them from bei ng able to exist tog etherin the sa me community. I tseems atthis point that the group has sp l i t bothge ogra phically andide Ologica lly.Such a division within the group indi c atesthatthelifeof theJohanni necommun i t y is threate ne d. The extent of this thr eat may be seen in the writi ngof thelette r bythe aut ho r in re s pons e to the claims of the oppo nen ts . He may fe el theneed to try to keep the re maining member sof hisgrou ptoge t her, to he l p theJo hannine faithand/ o r to ensurehisauthor ity , whic hhe fe e ls isbeing threa t en e d by thegrowing numb er of sece ss ioni s ts.Whether the auth o r' sde s c ription of the disputeis entirelycorrect, or his inte r pretat ion ofthe traditi on on whi c h he bases his opi nions isac cur a t e, wedo notkno w. At thi s pointall that wecan real l y deducefrom the existenceof commu ni tyst r i f e is that there are dif f e ring interp retati o ns of theJohannine
7UrbanC. von Wa hlde,The Jobanuine Commandments (New York; Pauli stPress , 1990) , p,92. (Emph a s e s added).
as tracs'it ion.
We hav e indicatedIn broad terms whatI Jo hnis abou t.I t Is now necessary to examinethe argument o~the ep I stle in acr-e detaIl. Before we do this, howev er, it isneces saryto say somet h i n g about the st ruc t u re, for the organiza t ional designof any text givesus ade e p e r insightin t othemean i ng.
Unfortunately ,however,fIndIng a clear st r uc turein I Jo hn is very pro ble ma t i c.
TheStructure ofI John
Usu a lly . powerful and insightt'ul arguments are only ef f e c tiv e if theyare setout in a clear systematic wa y. I John, however, seeNS to be anexceptionto that rule. In I Johnthe r e seemstobe little or no true st ruc t ure. In tact -t h est ru ctu reof I John, or lack ofit,has beenthe subject ofmu c hdi s c ussio n . Each passage Is cl e a r en ough in itselC, but th ere isno clearprogressionot thoughtthr oughou t the bccx, ", This having been sai d, there have been no la c k ot attempts to find a cle ar structureinI John.Rob e r tLa'"dre w attentionto what hecal le dth e Ispiral· dev elo pmen t ot th e argumentwit hin th ele t ter.Lawsaw evi denceotHebraic poe tic
•John Painter, Johnl Wit.nessand 'rbeologian (London: SPCK.
191 5 ), p. 10 9 .
31 style, that showed some similarityto wi sdo mlite r ature' s paralle lism.He brokeI Johndownint o an intr o duction thatis followe d bythree cycles. "In the cycles, the claImsotthe he r etic s are testedbythestandardso~ (l) r i g hteollsneSB (2) lo ve (3) belief. '" La w' s analysis oftha str u ctureof I Joh n ma y be summarizedas follows ,
I. Prologue (101 - 4) .
II. FirstCycle:The Christian lif e as walkin gin thelight (1.5-2.28)•
(a) Introduction (1.5-7).
(b) Testedbyri ght e o u s ne s s (1.8-2.6). (e) Testedb:r'lov e (2.7-17). Cd) Teste d bybelief (2.18 -28) .
III. Second Cycle:TheChristianlifeas Di vi ne so nsh lp (2.29-4.6)•
(a) Tested byri g hte o u s n e s s (2.29 -3.10a)• (b) Testedbylo ve (3 .10b-24a). (e)Testedbybelief (J.24b-4.6).
IV . Third Cyc le:Co rrelat ionofrighteousness . lov e and belief(4 . 7-5.21 ).
1. Love (4.7-5.3a).
(a) The genesisoflove (4.7-12 )
9 pa i nt e r, John, p, 109. See Robertr.ew, ~h. T6StS of Lite (Ed i nbu r g h: T&T Clark, 19 09).
