15. - 1 John 4:1-3
"1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit [i.e., prophetic utterance, spoken under the influence of God's Spirit], but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. . ." [NIV]
...This passage tells us that in early Christian preaching, the test which determined whether a Christian apostle was speaking the truth related to the spirit which God had sent him. We might compare the Didache, chapter 11, which contains a lengthy discussion about how to judge the legitimacy of wandering apostles, both in their teaching and their charismatic activities. No part of this judgment is based upon any links with apostolic tradition; there is no question of tracing authority or correctness back to Jesus, or to a group of apostles who had known and followed him on earth.
1. Silences in passage/challenge to a historical Jesus:
The tradition that Jesus had lived on earth in the flesh goes back to the apostles who had known and followed Jesus on earth, not a belief guided by a spirit. The existence of rivalries don't invalidate this tradition.
2. Relevancy within context:
With regard to the Didache, I point the reader to 11:2-4, "But concerning the apostles and prophets, thus do ye according to the doctrine of the Gospel. Let every apostle who cometh unto you be received as the Lord." In Luke, just after sending out the apostles Jesus says "he who rejects you rejects me". And Mt 10:40-41 "40He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me. 41He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward." The reference to the gospel and similarities in teachings with those in the gospel associated with the sending of apostles and prophets seems to me to be a pretty close match.
With regard to the main passage found in 1 John, the context of the immediate passages is relevant, but the rest of the epistle enables a fuller understanding. The passage itself reveals clearly that the author believed that Jesus had come of the flesh. Is that just a belief of the author--spoken only "under the influence of God's spirit", or does the author appeal to an apostolic tradition or eyewitness testimony?
Doherty has concluded that since the author doesn't appeal to a tradition in this passage that there was no such tradition. In a review of the passage in his Solution to the First Epistle of John on his website he provides a number of arguments to that end.
I'll first list those here, with my comments. Then I'll discuss passages in the book that do appeal to a tradition. Finally, I'll end with a discussion of Doherty's theory that the book was composed in multiple layers over time.
DOHERTY'S COMMENTS REGARDING THE LACK OF TRADITION:
"Nor is there any suggestion that the dissidents are renegades rejecting a long-held view, such as would be the case with docetists."
In verse 4:3 we have "..this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world." The author's discusses antichrists in chapter 2, using the same kind of language: "..and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. 19They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us" Verse 24 "let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning ". Both groups came after the beginning of the sect, and had been predicted some time prior to their coming. They therefore could indeed have been dissidents who were rejecting a long-held view.
Another possibility is that the author was talking in both places about the same group--a group that denied that the Jesus in the flesh was the Christ, but that 4:2 was poorly worded. Note that verse 3 doesn't say "3and every spirit that does not confess Jesus has come in the flesh is not from God." This verse doesn't have the words "has come in the flesh", as one might expect if the opposing view was rejecting that Jesus had lived on earth, since it is praising the right viewpoint. The author no where seems concerned with proving through scripture or any other means that Jesus had been of the flesh, nor that he had been the Christ, so it is hard to tell for sure what the antichrists in either chapter (2 or 4) were claiming.
"Rather, they simply do not confess the belief the writer holds. These dissidents are rivals, not apostates. We cannot even be sure that a schism is involved here. It may simply be a case of competing congregations holding differing views."
No we can't be sure. The author doesn't provide details about who they were. That would be helpful to us, but was unnecessary for his readers. The group could have been a competing congregation, or it could have been outsiders who were part of no "congregation" at all. "Another thing to note is that "Jesus Christ" in the writer's mind cannot simply equal "Jesus of Nazareth", since this would make the statement a tautology: "Jesus of Nazareth (a flesh and blood person) has come in the flesh." As phrased, the Jesus Christ this writer has in mind must be the spiritual Son, the pre-existent divine figure in heaven. This is his starting point. He is making a statement about his heavenly Christ: that he has come in the flesh. In other words, he has been incarnated, simply that." Such a starting point isn't unusual for Christians, who view Jesus as having both been incarnated and living on earth as a man. Doherty is treating this in a vacuum. The epistle starts out with mentioning the incarnation in the first verses (to be discussed later). A mention of Nazareth would have been nice, but shouldn't be expected. "The writer seems to be telling us that some Christians are going about claiming that the heavenly Jesus Christ was not incarnated. Even more startling, in 4:5 the writer reveals that to these deniers of the incarnation "the world listens." In 2 John 7-11, we can see that some Christian circles welcome such "deceivers" into their houses and give them greeting. How could such a radical rejection of traditional belief and history itself gain this kind of hearing? " The writer never says that "Christians" or those within his readers group were the antichrists referred to in chapter 4. The writer of 2 John doesn't say they were welcomed. It says not to welcome such people. "What's more, this incarnation which the writer believes in: how is it known? Does he appeal to historical memory, to authorized channels going back to Jesus? How could he fail to support his position by making at least a passing reference to the record of the past, to apostolic tradition and the human witness to Jesus of Nazareth? Instead, the doctrine that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is the product of true spirits from God, namely revelation." The author does say that those who believe Jesus had come of the flesh have the right spirit and those that don't have a false spirit. However, he doesn't say that he believes that Jesus was of the flesh only because he had the right spirit. The next section discusses what the author says elsewhere regarding Jesus having come in the flesh.
PASSAGES THAT APPEAL TO A TRADITION
Some of these are clearly referring to Jesus. Others could be referring to God.
"1.1What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life--
2and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us-- 3what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ."
"1:5This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all."
"2:3By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected By this we know that we are in Him: 6the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked."
"2:13I am writing to you, fathers, because you know Him who has been from the beginning"
"2:22Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also. 24As for you, let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life."
"3:1 ..and such we are For this reason the world does not know us, because it DID NOT know Him"
"4.14And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world."
"5:6This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood"
"5:20And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ This is the true God and eternal life."
As written, though very poetic and not always clear, there is clearly a strong theme of an earthly Jesus, known from the "beginning" of the sect, by the author. We can encapsulate the above as follows:
The sect began with the appearance of Jesus on earth, in the flesh. He was a man who they saw, heard and touched, who gave a message about purity and the eternal life that comes from it. The world didn't know who he was, but the author did, believing him to have been the Christ, and God's son. Someone (Jesus, the author, others) had passed along this information (tradition) from the beginning of the sect to his readers.
DOHERTY'S THEORY OF A LAYERED EPISTLE
Given the strong theme of an apostolic tradition regarding Jesus as having appeared in the flesh on earth, and known personally by the author himself, it is understandable why Doherty would see a need for a "Solution to the First Epistle of John". I don't intend to address in detail his solution, but will respond in part.
Doherty proposes an interpretation that the epistle actually began as a Jewish writing, and over time insertions were made first to a Paul-like spiritual Son, and later to a flesh and blood Jesus. He provides the following main arguments for support: A. Evidence for insertions
B. 2 sets of dissidents
A. Evidence for insertions
"As examples of insertions which stick out like proverbial sore thumbs, consider these:
". . . and we are being cleansed from every sin by the blood of Jesus his Son" (1:7d).
"He (Jesus Christ) is himself the propitiation for our sins, not our sins only but the sins of all the world" (2:2)."
Such sentiments clash with ideas found in adjoining sentences. " I don't see such clashes.
Re 1:7d: The ideas in the adjoining sentences are ones of 1. fellowship with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ (1:3), 2. Jesus said that to have such fellowship on must walk in the light (ie, be sinless). 1:7d tells how one can be free of sin--through the blood of Jesus. This also allows fellowship with God (2:23 "no one who denies the Son has the Father").
Re 2:2: The ideas in the previous sentences are that one should not sin, but if one does Jesus is an advocate with God. This could be interpreted as an active or passive advocate. It doesn't require a "pleading with God" as Doherty suggests, but could be satisfied by one who has acted on our behalf. Then Jesus is referred to as "the righteous". Verse 2 follows by saying that this righteous Jesus is the expiation (means of atonement) for our sins.
"In 1:9, the earlier layer told readers that "if we confess our sins, he (God) is just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from every kind of wrong." At this earlier stage, the Son was apparently not perceived as involved in forgiving sin. 2:1 presents a Jesus in heaven "pleading our cause with the Father", but as an advocate, not as a blood propitiation. This is not the only anomaly on the subject of sinfulness. At several points, the writer seems to hold the view that the true child of God is without sin, that he is incapable of it (as in 3:9); yet at others he speaks of forgiveness for sins committed, as in 2:1, and even cautions that claims to sinlessness are "self-deception" (1:8)." There is nothing contradictory in the idea of Jesus' pleading for God to forgive sins of those who confess, and the idea that the forgiveness is made possible through Jesus' sacrifice. The advocacy (assuming it is active--though it may be passive) may seem unnecessary, but it is not a concept foreign to many Catholic Christians, who though they believe God hears all prayers still ask the saints to bring their requests to God.
John repeatedly tells his readers to not sin. Obviously he doesn't think they are incapable of sin. The reasonable interpretation of 3:9 is that one born of God doesn't make sin a practice of his life. Jesus is righteous and pure. There is no anomaly on the subject. "Two prominent references to Christ in the epistle also seem to interrupt the flow and context: "Whoever claims to be dwelling in him (God) ought to conduct himself as Christ (ekeinos) did (literally, ought to walk as Christ himself walked)" (2:6).
"It is by this we know what love is: that Christ (ekeinos) laid down his life for us" (3:16).
Both disturb the flow of passages which speak of the believer's relationship to God or to his fellow sect member." Re 2:6: As is reads there is no interruption. 2:6 is only an interruption when one assumes the earlier verse (2:1-2) is also an interpolation. They refer to Jesus' righteous conduct and atonement, and before that his message of purity. His example of conduct seems a fitting reference to follow the previous verse calling those who want to know and love and abide in God to keep God's commandments
Re 3:16 3:16 flows just fine, providing a counter example to Cain's murder by Christ's sacrifice. Fellowship with Christ is also a theme in 1 John (1:3, 2:24) "Christ seems to have been added as an enlargement on the basic ideas in both passages quoted above, as well as several others, Christ is referred to obliquely by the pronoun "ekeinos", meaning "that one". This is peculiar, and no one has provided a convincing explanation for it." I cannot speak to the Greek, but it is clear who the author is referring to. "The latest stage (which probably included some evolution in itself) would comprise those views which speak of "cleansing by his blood" (1:7d), "a propitiation for our sins" (2:2 and 4:10), the Son "who appeared to undo the Devil's work" (3:8b). It would have begun with the idea that "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" (4:2) and include the verses looked at above, that Christ had conducted himself in a certain way which was exemplary, and had "laid down his life" in some fashion. Strangely, this is never specified as crucifixion, nor does a resurrection ever appear in the ideas of those who contributed to this letter." Notice that those references are in each of the first four chapters. This reconstruction has to show the out of context character of the alleged insertions. So far, I don't see a strong case for them. As far as the crucifixion and resurrection is concerned, surely Paul's message of crucifixion would have been well known to this writer. To have knowledge of Paul's message and refer to Jesus laying his life down and shedding his blood without addressing the issue would imply that there was no controversy over the alleged method of death. As for the resurrection, the author refers to Jesus as though still alive, so there is an implied belief that Jesus had lived again after laying down his life. "A curious effect is created by the concluding section of the epistle. Following the dramatic dispute of the third layer over whether Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (4:1f), the rest of the letter gradually loses sight of it and the final block from 5:13 to the end reverts entirely to the middle stratum. Here ideas of incarnation and propitiation are definitely lacking." It's only 9 verses and Christ is mentioned twice, including a reference again to his appearance (the Son of God has come and given us understanding).
B. 2 Sets of Dissidents
"Moreover, the two are incompatible, especially if given the conventional interpretations. It is not uncommon to find a commentator seeing docetism as involved in chapter 4 and the denial of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah in chapter 2. Yet how can the same group which earlier has rejected the historical Jesus as being the Christ go on to concern themselves over whether this non-Christ was a real human being?"
The epistle seems to repeat similar ideas frequently and throughout. Twice the author says there were many antichrists, so it isn't that surprising to me that he mentioned 2 separate groups as examples which his readers would be familiar with and didn't explain why he would do so! It is possible that we have a couple of different letters combined since we do see repeated themes. Or, as I stated above the groups may have been one and the same, just denying that Jesus in the flesh had been the Christ.
Since the alleged inserted passages seem consistent with the main themes throughout and do fit within their contexts, and since there is little evidence of contradiction, I see little basis for determining which parts came first and which came later other than a creative imagination. Doherty's first layer has no Christ. The second has just an intermediary Son. The last has a Son in the flesh who dies for sin. But, his analysis of the construction of each layer is limited in detail to a claim that 1:1 through 2:17 is theocentric, as long as one can remove the 4 references to Christ. However I've shown above that such references do tie in with the contexts just fine. Doherty uses as further justification the following: "Now we can address the puzzling question I asked about this earlier stage of the letter. How can there be a faction which declares both the Father and the Son indispensable, and a faction which apparently denies the very existence of the Sonand yet both claim to be legitimate representatives of the sect, both claim to be holding to the truth and call the other faction "liars"? Both groups have passed through the rite referred to as "chrisma." This "anointing by the Holy One" (i.e., God) is the mark of membership in the sect, no doubt from the beginning. Through it, God has imparted "all knowledge" (2:20), "all you need to know" (2:27). Both groups underwent it, and both are currently appealing to it.
It follows, then, that the doctrine that "Jesus is the Christ" cannot have been part of the "knowledge" laid out at the anointing." With regard to the first group (Ch 2) Doherty has failed to show that were still claiming to be "legitimate representatives of the sect". Doherty uses as support the idea that maybe these antichrists were calling the author a liar, since he refers to them as liars. That seems quite weak. Also, he has failed to show that they denied the existence of Jesus on earth. He uses as support verse 2:23 "No one who denies the Son has the Father.", but this ignores the implication from 2:22 that such denial is not of Jesus' existence but that of the claim that Jesus is the Christ. The lack of detail leaves open the very real possibility that this group went from originally believing in Jesus as the Christ to believing him to have been something less that the Christ, perhaps a wise man or a prophet. It may also be that as the years went by they lost faith entirely in who he was--perhaps due to having put too much confidence in his imminent return. As a result, they no longer believed he was the Christ. They no longer "abided in him". Note that just a few verses later the author writes "and now, little children, (implying years since the beginning?), abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming."
3. Related information in other early writings:
As stated in previous questions, 1 Clement attributes the appointment of apostles to Jesus, and each of our early writings reference Jesus as though he had been a man made of flesh who lived on this earth.
In the "authentic" epistles Paul actually refers to Jesus as a man 10 times (Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15), having a body 4 times, made of flesh 4 times, and made of blood 3 times. He refers to him in dozens of ways that sound like he is referring to a human: In addition to the few possible references to teachings, Paul mentions to Jesus' death 28 times, his burial 2 times, the crucifixion 7 times and cross 6 times, including nailing associated with the cross. He says he was born of a women, descended from King David (twice), had brothers, had a brother named James, was Jewish, and became poor (metaphorical?), implies that Jesus referred to God as his Father using the Aramaic term "Abba", and he was crucified by rulers.
The authors of 1 Clement and Hebrews, as noted previously also both explicitly refer to Jesus as having been in the flesh (Hebrews 2:14-17 clearly says Jesus partook of the same nature of flesh and blood, "made like his brethren in every respect"), and the writings of 1 Peter and the Didache both strongly imply that Jesus had been a man.
There are some references that appear to attribute the belief in the man Jesus to known tradition:
Paul, as mentioned earlier, includes a creed which sounds like an apostolic tradition of Jesus in the flesh. In 1 Cor 15:3 he says "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received." He is saying he is passing along what was passed along to him, which begins with "Christ died" and "he was buried". Both sound like references to a man on earth, supported by a tradition.
The author of Hebrews makes a reference that sounds like it could be to a tradition stemming from Jesus: 2:2-4 "This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him."
He refers to Jesus as Lord elsewhere : 7:14 "For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests."
And 13:20 "May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep"
The author of 1 Peter refers to himself in 5:1 as "a fellow elder and a witness to the sufferings of Christ"
4. Conclusion
Both the Didache and 1 John passages appeal to traditions which appear to link back to a historical Jesus. The Didache references the gospel--which it previously connects to sayings of the Lord which match those of Jesus in the gospel, and 1 John references the beginning of the movement and those that saw and heard the Son sent by God.
Although the epistle of 1 John is not always clear, it is consistent in its message with regard to Jesus as having been a person on earth about whom traditions quickly developed. As it reads the epistle is highly repetitive regarding a number of themes (abiding in God by being pure from sin, love your neighbor, believe in Jesus) and Jesus' role is also stressed throughout. Doherty's objections to the passage he has chosen are answered sufficiently by the entire context of the epistle. The attempt to deconstruct the epistle into earlier layers is an interesting one, but the arguments to support those layers and the many required additions are not strong. Doherty could be correct, but he hasn't provided strong evidence to support his theory. As such, we are left with an epistle that frequently references Christ as a man who lived on earth and set an example for others, and that appeals to a tradition of these events from the beginning of the sect of believers, which included the author himself.
There are a number of other early writings which suggest that belief in Jesus of the flesh was based on either personal witness or an apostolic tradition known to the authors. The number of references in these writings call out for an explanation for why a gospel they say was based on a man about whom traditions developed wasn't really based on a man.
|
