Taking The Epistle: 1,2&3 John

The author of these three letters is identified in the second and third only as "The elder", and not at all in the first letter. The compilers of the NIV decided that the identification of this person is clearly the same person as wrote the gospel attributed to John, and it does seem likely given that 1 John opens with a passage very similar in language and apparent intent to the opening passage of that gospel.

1 John is the main letter here; the other two are just 20-odd verses long, and repeat one or two of the main themes of the first letter (namely, providing hospitality for travelling preachers, and being wary of false preachers or preachers of heresy). For this reason, and similar use of language, the NIV compilers say that they are probably by the same author as 1 John and, having read them, I tend to agree (although how much that is influenced by the compilers' choice of translation is open to question).

1 John has a lot in common, it seems to me, with the letter written by James. Like that letter, it seems to lean heavily still on harking back to good deeds (obeying the law) as well as faith. It is, however, a very different style. It is much more transcendental in its feel, like that opening of the "Gospel according to John", for example:

1 John 1:1-7

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched— this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make our joy complete.

This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

It also shares a theme with 2 Peter, which focussed mainly on warning against false teachers. The NIV compilers interpreted this in 1 John as referring to early Gnosticism, but from their description of that belief system, I don't really see it being criticised very strongly in 1 John (if anything, some of what I find there seems to reflect rather than counter the ideas, but what do I know?).

The other theme is the identity of God with love, and arguing that through loving others, we know God.

Need for good deeds

Whereas the author of James took a view that faith necessarily leads to good deeds as the way in which we show our faith, the author of 1 John takes a much more "theoretical" view of the situation, and the defence that I offered for James to square his writing with that of Paul simply doesn't hold water here. In 1 John, it is argued that the fact of having been saved and reborn in God makes it impossible to sin, because "...God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God." (3:9) This argument is repeated in various ways (always with that same style of poetic language as the introduction quoted above), for example:

1 John 3:4-6

Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. No-one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No-one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

An earlier passage makes it explicit that anyone who loves God will obey the laws, and it really does not seem to be possible that this can be anything other than Mosaic law:

1 John 2:3-6

We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

If we wanted to stretch it to make it fit with Paul, then we might point out that Jesus did not live by the Mosaic law, but on occasion wilfully broke it to make a point about his authority to do so (for example, healing a man on the Sabbath). But 1 John's emphasis on obeying the law and being unable to do anything else if one truly follows Jesus seems to argue against that interpretation.

To the author of 1 John, it is that Jesus not only atones for our sins, but prevents us from sinning again, so that it can be said, "And now, dear children, continue in him, so that when he appears we may be confident and unashamed before him at his coming" (2:28). Other New Testament writers explicitly or implicitly accept that we can never be fully free of sin, and that it is only through Christ's intercession that we can stand before God. Although 1 John does allude to this - "My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defence— Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." (2:1-2) but since this is followed immediately by the passage quoted above, it does not seem to stand with the same meaning as it would in the context of the other letters. Here, the author seems to be encouraging people that minor transgressions can still permit re-admittance into Christ, whereas elsewhere the sentiment is acknowledging the impossibility of staying 100% pure. 1 John, however, does not see such obedience as being hard: instead, simply by having faith one will find it easy - "This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith." (5:3-4)

The rhetoric of right-wing conservative Christian campaigners seems to be rooted in this understanding of being "born again", allowing them to claim themselves to be sinless (since they would presumably claim that "the seed of God remains in them" - I am a poor sinner, but I can't help but think of a very pornographic interpretation of that phrase!) and to pour scorn on anyone who claims to be Christian but does not conform to their interpretation of Mosaic law.

Inasmuch as there is practical advice for Christians in 1 John, it is based around the concept of love, and this is where 1 John makes the identification God = Love:

1 John 4:7-12

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No-one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

1 John does not give the simple descriptions of how Christians should show love, but rather goes for hyperbole, much like some of Jesus' reported speeches in the Gospels.

1 John 3:11-24

This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother's were righteous. Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you. We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.

This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence

In 4:18, we are told that there is no fear in love, that love drives out fear, and that fear is related to punishment (if 2 Peter did a reverse-Yoda, this almost sounds like another version of Yoda!)

If 1 John on the relationship between salvation and sin seems to support the Christian Right, then on social justice it seems to be directly against them, because they do not show love. Indeed, many of them are wealthy and yet do not show pity for those in need.

However, the final theme would seem in part to swing the balance back towards the (false) arguments of the right-wingers.

This is the theme of being wary of false teachers. The author of 1 John refers to them as "antichrists" who deny that Jesus is the Eternal Son, and therefore also deny God and "call him a liar". In 2 John, the self-identified elder warns, "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work." (2 John 1:10-11) This could be used by anti-immigration Christian Right campaigners to argue that non-Christians should be refused access to the country (thus ignoring the parable of the Good Samaritan). But this would be a misreading. The context here is of someone who is actively seeking to convert people from one's own religion to another, and most immigrants and refugees are not in that category - they just want the basic means to live and earn a living, in the main! 3 John covers the inverse - praising those who give shelter to preachers, and castigating those who do not provide shelter.

In summary, I would say that the letters of John largely comprise the worst elements of James and Peter - Peter's school prefect style (in fact, 1 John's frequent referring to the readers as "My children" suggests an even more "don't question my authority, I've been chosen!" stance than that) with James' apparent tendency to lean on Mosaic law (even though that seems unlikely if the identity of the author of James is correctly identified by the NIV compilers). 1 John is easily the most authoritarian and legalistic of the NT books I've read so far, and given Paul's background and manner, that says quite a lot! On the other hand, the author of 1 John is also much more fierce in his promotion of wealth redistribution and personal responsibility for helping the poor. The language carries that much more passion in it.