what do we know about the probable author of the letters
1. In all likelihood it was John the author of the gospel of john - the apostle john probably the most beloved of the disciples John seems to me to be the most allegorical of the disciples. He is first mentioned as one of the fishermen who is recruited to be a fisher of men (Matthew 10:2). John was also responsible for the authoring of the book of revelations. John was in attendance at the transfiguration of Christ (Mark 9:2). John asked for the right to sit at the right hand of Jesus and was rebuked for it along with all the disciples. John is identified as the beloved disciple via a process of elimination
- John, James and peter were present at the transfiguration
- John, James and peter are in attendance at the garden of Gethsemane
- James is killed by Herod and peter is captured and imprisoned (Acts 12:1-3)
- Peter sees the beloved disciple (John 21:20) thus ruling him out
How is the moral background against which he wrote the letters portrayed
In johns eyes it is clear that John is concerned about the moral nature of the church within the city in particular it is clear that John is concerned that Christians lead lives of value and worship if they are to be counted as authentic and respectful. John sets out to challenge the nature of permissiveness that existed at the time from the limited information given in the book. Based on the words shared by David MacDonald it seems clear that John is dealing with fake or counterfeit Christianity. I think this threat exists today in many ways - probably the most obvious way is the heretical movements that challenge the church (Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses) and the movements which claim a church based legitimacy but in truth have no such connection (i.e. church of Scientology). I think the second tier are those that claim a connection to the main stream but either strip Christianity of its core truths (some of the more conservative movements do this by ignoring the nature of Christ's calling to us and the more liberal movements which strip Christianity of its core message of salvation).
What were the main elements of the heresy that John was writing to combat in the words of the gospels
1. gnostic beliefs that all matter is evil - this leads to the innate separation of the body and the spirit and therefore destroys the principle of the bodily resurrection this undermines the principle of suffering but also separates Christ from Jesus the man.
2. sin does not matter - it is not important and that it has no significance in our own lives - it undermines the importance of the work of Jesus as the redeemer. it works on the principle that once you are enlightened you will not need to be worried about sin as somehow your new enlightened state will make you immune to the risks of sin and the dangers of the flesh. Unlike other heresies it seems this one worked on a principle that sin and its impacts had no hold on you - you could however indulge in carnal activities they just had no impact on your salvation. This differs from other heresies which worked on the principle that all fleshly activities should be ignored or resisted (especially true of the perfecti under the cathar heresy)
David Jackman argues we need to approach the letters differently to Paul's letters
John is not trying to argue a point he is simply building a series of messages, unlike Paul there is a lack of structures approach and the heavy use of allegory seems to confuse and at times mask the approach to the letters. Where as Paul's agenda is often clear at the outset of a letter - John relies on allegory and descriptive language to help him get his message across. John also frequently works to place the message in a loop coming back to the key issue or point repeatedly.
Prologue (1 John 1:1-4)
Verses 1-2 - what does John mean when he refers to the word of life - how does it assist in unlocking the meaning of the prologue itself?
1That 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. 2The 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.
Clearly the first verse refers to John's ability to represent himself as an apostle specifically he evidences that he has seen, heard and touched the word of life which was from the beginning. Logically the only inference one can draw from this strong claim is that john is laying claim to his apostolic authority as one of the original if he first followers of Christ. The second verse and the beautiful way he covers it can also only be seen as a reference to Christ as he is the bringer of the word of life incarnate. he also draws down the nature of Christ as eternal at this point by linking that which was from the beginning with the word of life. you can see the importance of this when you compare the heresy John was addressing in his words - after all he creates a nature of Christ as both physical (seen, heard and touched) with the metaphysical (from the beginning). Linking with his already strongly worded claim to a special apostolic nature is the following phrases in verse 2 of which draws not only his personal experience of Christ but goes further in linking his activities post his personal time with his experience of Jesus as he says "we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the father and has appeared to us.
Verses 3-4 think of the way we often use fellowship in christian circles what does this verse tell us about what it believes we should see as the meaning of the word
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. 4We write this to make our[a] joy complete.
John here refers to the nature of the fellowship he and the other disciples had with Jesus the Christ, this therefore draws to a personal and very intimate relationship which those who follow the teaching of the apostles are invited to experience. The particular word used for relationship here is used in Greek to refer to a marriage style relationship, this clearly indicates the strength of the relationship on offer. What is also clear is the importance in the teachings of the original apostles in helping bring people into this relationship with god. As the relationship in question has such a strong bind it is also clear that the only way for Christians to build this sort of intimacy is via a relationship with god. Fellowship is clearly intended to be done in such a way that places god at the centre and our fellowship with other Christians draws from our relationship with god.
Walking in the Light (1 John 1:5-7)
Verse 5 what is the deeper meaning to God is Light
This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.
God was the creator of the universe and with his first words created light and brought life to the universe. He was and is both the bringer of light and is made of light continuing the logic of the incarnate nature of god. God can have no darkness within him and is therefore the pure and perfect god who exists above all things. His nature also illuminates the world with his light allowing us to see and understand the universe in a much greater way than we could without him. We are also as all living things are given life by the presence of light, we can not exist without it. Gods nature is also displayed through the use of the allegory of light as a metaphor for good and truth, with the reference to shadow attached to the concepts of evil and lies. Overall it seems clear that God as light is a theological construct with a number of implicit meanings all of which could be seen as displaying the many faceted nature of god.
Verses 6-7 what are the tests we can apply to those who claim to have fellowship with the Lord
If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7But 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.
Clearly the simplest test is too see whether a person claims a relationship with Christ but lives a life that walks in darkness as opposed to light, that is to say as has happened with a number of leaders in all denominations. Case in point is those leaders who have fallen into sexual immorality which is a terrible form of sin but still stood at the front of their congregations and led services. Some of the greatest TV Evangelists have also displayed a behaviour close to this with their strong materialist bent. Considering the nature of John's concerns it is also clear that john is concerned about those who would seek to redefine the nature of god and its relationship with us as people. Any effort to redefine sin and to reduce its importance is critical to understanding the nature of the risk those people bring to a fellowship with god as it can only be a deeply flawed or even illusory one if you have turned from the teachings of the Apostles and Christ himself. Finally I think that john seeks to return us to the focus of his works which in this case to reiterate the importance of the fellowship with Christ as the saviour and how that fellowship is what drives christian relationships - any attempt to displace this fellowship would be seen as a direct attack on the church itself.
3 comments:
You said: John is identified as the beloved disciple via a process of elimination
Interestingly, the first two items that you cited as supporting of your argument FOR this claim (the transfiguration and the prayers of Jesus at Gethsemane) are actually items that strongly argue against the idea that John was the beloved disciple.
Jesus’ transfiguration, his prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane, and his raising of the daughter of Jairus are NOT in the fourth gospel. Only three disciples were present at each of these events and John was one of them. Thus John was able to give eyewitness testimony when it came to these key incidents and yet there is no mention of these events in the fourth gospel, because the author, “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, was not John. And the missing ‘John testimony’ is just the tip of the iceberg.
Unlike John, who repeatedly identified himself by name in the Book of Revelation, we can see that the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" repeatedly used cryptic terms to conceal his identity, even though we see that he included himself in the text at key moments in the ministry of Jesus.
Those who say that John was the unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved", are misled by the traditions of men because the truth is that there is not a single verse that would justify teaching that John was the unnamed "other disciple, whom Jesus loved" (the unnamed man who wrote the fourth gospel) and that is why non-Bible sources must ALWAYS be used to sell the John tradition (a telltale method indeed). While non-Bible sources may say that John was “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, what happens when one subjects that claim to biblical scrutiny, will it hold up? No it will not because two things are true:
1: You cannot cite a single verse of scripture that would justify promoting the idea that the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved” was anybody named John — not the Apostle John, nor any other John. Moreover, the reason you cannot do is that no such verse exists, which is the reason that no such verse is ever cited by those who put forth the unbiblical John tradition.
2: The facts in the plain text of scripture can prove that WHOEVER the unnamed “other disciple, whom Jesus loved” was he could not have been John — because that idea forces the Bible to contradict itself, which the Bible cannot do if it is true. (A presentation of the biblical evidence on this topic is available at BelovedDiscipleBibleStudy.com).
Two good rules of respect for the authority of God’s word: A) One should not be presenting an idea AS IF IT WERE BIBLICAL if they cannot cite a single verse that would justify teaching that idea – and – B) If the facts in the plain text of scripture prove that an idea is false, then those who love the truth will reject that false idea — no matter how many people believe it, no matter how loud some may shout it, no matter if a big-wig so-and-so believes it, no matter how long the false idea has been around, etc.
One can surely find a NON-Bible source to cite if they want to justify their belief in the idea that the unnamed “other disciple whom Jesus loved” was John. But what no one has ever done is cite a single verse that would justify teaching that the unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved” was John — not those who originated the unbiblical John idea and not those who repeat their error to this day.
The Bible urges the readers of scripture to “prove all things”, therefore, I hope you will be willing to receive the following note of biblical correction because, your superficial arguments notwithstanding, what IS eliminated by a thorough and complete examination of the scriptures is the unbiblical hand-me-down idea that says John was the unnamed "other disciple" who wrote the fourth gospel despite the overwhelming biblical evidence to the contrary.
Sorry,
I tried to respond to your email late last night always a mistake when it comes to writing.
I guess the most important thing to recognise is that the core message of the letters and the gospel are the same. God Redeems us and without his word we would walk in darkness. My reading of the work of some very fine biblical scholars seems to support the assumption that both the gospel and the letters were written by John. I have been to the website you provided in your comments and believe that it is mostly irrelevant to this core truth. I am happy to be corrected and to discover that in truth it is vital to our understanding of the message in the text, if you are able to provide such an arguement to me
Post a Comment