“personal historical reminiscence”
Paul wrote letters to churches and to individuals. Matthew and Mark each wrote one gospel. Luke wrote the historical narrative of Jesus, from the beginning in his gospel and through the continuation recorded in the book of Acts. John, the beloved disciple, wrote an even wider variety: an apocalyptic vision, a gospel describing the ministry of Jesus, and letters to churches and to an individual.
General
In our earlier study of Hebrews, we noted the unusual format. Instead of the usual first-century greeting at the beginning and closing at the end, the book of Hebrews looks more like a sermon written to be delivered and read to a congregation. First John similarly starts right into profound theological content.
The First Epistle of John neither begins nor ends like an epistle; it does not start with any indication of the identity of the writer or of the people whom he addresses, nor does it end with personal greetings.[1]
Was 1 John another sermon? Was it written to be distributed and then read to one or more churches? Was it a brief “hortatory homily”?[2] Or was it something completely different?
First John may not read like a letter, but neither does it have exactly the structure of a sermon, “being composed of a series of connected paragraphs whose relation to each other is governed by association of ideas rather than by a logical plan.”[3]
Instead, we may describe the literary genre of 1 John as that of a “paper,” which sets out to expound Johannine teaching and ideas, now preserved in the tradition and theology of the Fourth Gospel, for the benefit of heterodox members of John’s community who were also indebted to the teaching of the Gospel, but who were understanding it differently and, indeed, erroneously.[4]
Other interpreters describe 1 John as a “brochure”[5] or a “circular letter.”[6] John’s two other much shorter letters (2 John and 3 John) may have been distributed along with 1 John: 2 John as a cover letter to a church and 3 John as a letter of introduction of the bearer to another congregation. The writer that suggests that situation cautions,
While it is almost impossible to study John’s letters without imagining some such situation, any scenario must be held lightly and not allowed to dictate exegesis.[7]
Author
As is the case with most of Scripture, skepticism and even cynicism about the authority and authenticity of Biblical texts have been the “professionally obligatory outlook”[8] among liberal academics. Conservative scholars, however, agree with the early church in recognizing that the author of the gospel, the letters, and the apocalypse are the apostle John.
In line with the majority view among Christian students during the past two thousand years (though out of step with today’s majority), I think it highly probable that John the apostle wrote the Fourth Gospel and the three letters that traditionally bear his name.[9]
John’s authorship “grows out of personal historical reminiscence of the life, teaching, and abiding will of Jesus.”[10]
The testimony of the ancient church leaders (Polycarp, Papias, Irenaeus, Eusibius) provide for John’s writings “a remarkable chain of historical witnesses enjoyed by no other NT book.”[11]
John wrote the various documents, and it would be helpful to know how the letters, the gospel, and the Apocalypse relate to each other.
the Apocalypse antedated the Gospel, and came from the hand of John the apostle himself … followed by 1, 2 and 3 John (in that order)[12]
It is reasonable that John wrote the Apocalypse (aka, the Revelation According to John in many Bibles) first while he was imprisoned on Patmos or shortly after his release. Eusebius, the “Father of Church History,” [13] reported that
At this time [i.e., the beginning of Trajan’s reign, ca. 98] that very disciple whom Jesus loved, John, at once Apostle and Evangelist, still remained alive in Asia and administered the churches there, for after the death of Domitian, he had returned from his banishment on the island.[14]
Next, the gospel according to John would have been useful in the early church to give a more understandable and applicable account of the life and teachings of Jesus. In addition, John’s gospel was written perhaps twenty years after the synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.[15] Rather than simply repeating what was already circulating from those writings, he added his own perspective after decades of reflection.
The fourth evangelist probably knew, for example, that one tradition of the message of Jesus contained much information about his relation to the kingdom of God, but very little about his relation to the Father. In the Fourth Gospel the reverse is the case: Jesus speaks often about his relationship to God, and seldom about God’s kingdom…. he was assuming some parts of the basic Christian tradition, whether narrative or discourse, and emphasizing other parts – or developing them theologically – in accordance with the aims of his gospel.[16]
John’s gospel is emphatic about Jesus as fully God and fully man.
At the heart of the fourth evangelist’s theology is his balanced understanding of the person of Jesus: that he is both one with man and (in some sense) one with God.[17]
That attempt at balance (as will be discussed more below) may have led to a problem that prompted the need for the letters (1, 2, 3 John) at a later date.
However, some early Christians, as we know, went to the Fourth Gospel expressly to find support for the docetic view that Jesus was divine but not human.[18]
At least one of the purposes of 1 John “correcting a misuse of the Gospel.”[19] There was a need to clarify and strengthen the understanding of the harmony between the humanity and the divinity of Jesus the Christ.
Consider a summary of John’s writings.
-
- The Revelation to John – a vision on an island; Then as now it could be misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misapplied.
- The Gospel According to John – a more orderly, more comprehensive and more comprehensible view of Jesus as both human and divine
- The Letters of John – correction for unbalanced views of Jesus (see below); The letters have a “less exalted literary style.”[20] They are more practical and directed toward particular problems, such as “when to extend Christian hospitality (3 John) and when not to (2 John).”[21]
Recipients
John did not specify his audience, so we must be cautious with our assumptions. A few features can be inferred from what John wrote.
We cannot be sure whether it was sent to a single church or several churches in an area; what is reasonably certain is that recipients lived in some district of the province of Asia, and shortly before the sending of this message some of their most talented brethren had left them in order to form a new community or communities devoted to a specially attractive line of teaching which was represented as an advance on anything that Christians had been taught thus far. [22]
The comments above about an overemphasis on the divinity of Jesus (especially for those from a polytheistic background) could easily be opposed by an equal and opposite emphasis on the humanity of Jesus (by those from a Jewish background).
The writer of 1 John was thus addressing a community, made up of a number of house-churches in and around Ephesus … which was split in three ways. It consisted of the following: (a) Johannine Christians who were committed to the apostolic gospel of Jesus as they had received it; (b) heretically inclined members from a Jewish background: (c) heterodox followers from a Hellenistic (and/or pagan) background.[23]
An important part of John’s task is to bring both of these outlier groups together with a proper understanding of Christology.
The readers of the epistles are apparently living in fellowship with each other, albeit not a perfect fellowship, for there has been schism in 1 John 2:19, there is talk of deceivers in 2 John 7, and there is discord behind the scenes of 3 John 9.[24]
Setting
As noted above, John’s audience was likely located in and around Ephesus. Several early church fathers report that John had ministered in Ephesus in Asia Minor (modern Turkey). That area is also “the traditional context for the origin of the Fourth Gospel.”[25] There may be some similarities in content and wording between John’s three letters and the letter to the Ephesian church in Revelation 2:1-7.[26]
John’s long-term connection with the Christians in Ephesus gives his letters their affectionate atmosphere of loving concern, “the authority and yet the intimacy of a father.”[27] The letters are “rooted in doctrine and directed toward action, but still a richly and deeply felt conviction and emotion.”[28]
That conviction and emotion may have been fueled by what is hinted at through the three letters, the “disintegration” of community. The “balanced” and orthodox picture of Jesus in John’s gospel (see above) seems to have steadily separated the Jewish and pagan converts.
We see this break-up anticipated in the Gospel, initiated at the time of 1 John, continued in 2 John and completed in 3 John.[29]
The study of these letters can be a helpful preventative to that disintegration in the modern church.
Purpose
The overall tone or atmosphere of 1 John is not critical or judgmental (although he does have his moments).
In form and content it is a message of encouragement and reassurance, sent to a group of Christians who were perplexed and bewildered by recent happenings in their midst.[30]
The letter of 1 John is much different from Jude or 2 Peter which we discussed recently.
The remarkable thing about 1 John is that it does not consist of a bitter polemic against those who departed or a sustained refutation of their claims. The focus…is not on the outsiders but on those who remain.[31]
Yet John had serious business to do with those in the church who were causing the confusion because of defective views of Jesus.
That is to say, the fourth evangelist was addressing some Johannine Christians who thought of Jesus as less than God, to remind them of his divinity; and he was writing for the sake of other members of his community who thought of Jesus as less than man, to assure them of his humanity.
These two groups in John’s church, it may thus be presumed, had begun to discern the real identity of Jesus; but in neither case was the estimate of his person adequate. For some it was too “low,” and for others it was too “high.” Hence we may explain John’s christological balance. But even so friction evidently arose, with each side taking its particular theological stand; and this may account for the emphasis in the Johannine Gospel on mutual love (13:34-35; 15:12, 17) and church unity (17:11, 21-23).[32]
John may be writing to a divided church, but the center of his “target audience” is the solid core of genuine believers.
His concern was to shepherd those in his spiritual care to remain within the bounds of orthodoxy rather than to directly address the heresy(-ies) that disrupted the church(es).[33]
Strengthening those with orthodox theology was the best strategy for overcoming the heterodox or aberrant teaching.
The purpose of 1 John may therefore be summarized as primarily an appeal to the faithful: to strengthen the faith and resolve of true believers in the Johannine community by encouraging them to maintain the apostolic gospel. To this end the writer appeals to his readers to adopt a proper estimate of the person of Jesus, and to act with Christian morality. … Furthermore, John’s purpose throughout is a positive one. He does not aim to exclude, but to include; he is more anxious to correct than to refute.[34]
Significance
With this background in mind, why study John’s letters?
The documents contain theological, ethical, and ecclesiological truths which are fundamental to Christianity in every age.[35]
Then how might these writings apply to our age, to build our faith and contribute to our spiritual formation?
First, they present a non-Pauline depiction of early Christian belief. Even if we welcome every line of Paul’s writings, we can be grateful for alternate ways of construing the gospel message and for additional examples of how apostolic leaders (or their close associates) responded to the challenges of their day. Both the historical and the doctrinal contributions of this corpus of writings are vital.
Therein lies a second realm of their importance. John’s Letters document the existence of aberrant Christian belief and behavior systems within or in close proximity to the church from early times. Christians in subsequent periods need not be demoralized when deception, corruption, or falsehood arise. There are resources for offsetting these ills, because they are precisely the things that Christ came to challenge and vanquish and then to give his followers victory over as they respond to him in faith.[36]
“Aberrant Christian belief and behavior” should resonate with believers in the early twenty-first century. We are surrounded with cultural distortions of morality, personhood, sexuality, spirituality, and every aspect of truth. The church is not immune. Often, the church seems all too eager to accommodate those aberrations with compromises that “helped the heretics better adapt to their culture’s values.”[37]
The same problem existed in the first century, just with somewhat different symptoms.
The new brand of doctrine would probably be so completely in accordance with the prevailing climate of opinion that in the eyes of many thinking people this was manifestly the way in which the gospel was to be ‘re-stated’ for their day if it was to have any chance of acceptance and indeed survival.[38]
John provides the ultimate antidote to that prevailing climate, then and now.
Finally, if 1-3 John leave the disciple who studies them with any single lasting impression, it is the grandeur and centrality of God …. Part of this is the sheer volume of references to him. There is hardly a verse or even clause anywhere that does not name a person of the Godhead (Trinity), a divine attribute, or a divine work (like a command that has come from God).[39]
May our study of John’s letters continually remind us of the grandeur and centrality of the Three-Personal God.[40]
1] F. F. Bruce, The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), 25.
[2] Robert W. Yarbrough, 1-3 John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008), 329.
[3] Robert L. Plummer, E. Roderick Elledge, 1-3 John, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: B&H Academic, 2024), xl.
[4] Stephen S. Smalley, 1,2,3 John, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1984), xxvii.
[5] Deissmann, quoted in Stephen S. Smalley, 1,2,3 John, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1984), xxviii.
[6] Robert W. Yarbrough, 1-3 John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008), 16.
[7] Karen H. Jobes, 1, 2, and 3 John, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic, 2014), 29.
[8] Robert W. Yarbrough, 1-3 John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008), 9.
[9] D. A. Carson, quoted in Robert W. Yarbrough, 1-3 John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008), 5.
[10] Robert W. Yarbrough, 1-3 John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008), 5.
[11] Karen H. Jobes, 1, 2, and 3 John, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic, 2014), 22.
[12] Stephen S. Smalley, 1,2,3 John, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1984), xxii.
[13] J. D. Douglas, General Editor, The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974), 356.
[14] Eusebius, quoted in Robert W. Yarbrough, 1-3 John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008), 17.
[15] cf. https://www.biblestudytools.com/resources/guide-to-bible-study/order-books-new-testament.html
[16] Stephen S. Smalley, John, Evangelist and Interpreter (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 274.
[17] Stephen S. Smalley, 1,2,3 John, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1984), xxiii.
[18] Stephen S. Smalley, John, Evangelist and Interpreter (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 277.
[19] Stephen S. Smalley, 1,2,3 John, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1984), xxix.
[20] Stephen S. Smalley, 1,2,3 John, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1984), xxivii.
[21] Karen H. Jobes, 1, 2, and 3 John, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic, 2014), 28.
[22] F. F. Bruce, The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), 25
[23] Stephen S. Smalley, 1,2,3 John, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1984), xxiv.
[24] Robert W. Yarbrough, 1-3 John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008), 17.
[25] Stephen S. Smalley, 1,2,3 John, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1984), xxxii.
[26] Robert W. Yarbrough, 1-3 John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008), 18.
[27] Stephen S. Smalley, 1,2,3 John, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1984), 316.
[28] Robert W. Yarbrough, 1-3 John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008), 26.
[29] Stephen S. Smalley, 1,2,3 John, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1984), 315.
[30] F. F. Bruce, The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), 25.
[31] L. T. Johnson, quoted in Robert W. Yarbrough, 1-3 John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008), 21.
[32] Stephen S. Smalley, 1,2,3 John, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1984), xxiii.
[33] Karen H. Jobes, 1, 2, and 3 John, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic, 2014) 24.
[34] Stephen S. Smalley, 1,2,3 John, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1984), xxviii, emphasis in the original.
[35] Stephen S. Smalley, 1,2,3 John, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, Texas: Word Books, Publisher, 1984), xxxiv.
[36] Robert W. Yarbrough, 1-3 John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008), 25, emphasis added.
[37] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary – New Testament (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 748.
[38] F. F. Bruce, The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), 15-16.
[39] Robert W. Yarbrough, 1-3 John, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2008), 27.
[40] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis Signature Classics (New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2021) Kindle Edition location 2025, page 160.