CHAPTER II.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.

  WHAT is known as the First Epistle of John, though in reality it is not
  in epistolary form at all but in that of a circular addressed to the
  whole of Christendom, is to all appearances inseparably connected with
  the Gospel. Often, as we read, we can hardly say whether we have the
  one or the other book open before us. And in fact the matter on which
  they differ from each other most clearly is one which, from another
  point of view, serves to bring them together again.
  __________________________________________________________________

  1 . MAIN PURPOSE: TO OPPOSE THE GNOSTICS.

  Whereas, for instance, the Gospel never says that it is opposing false
  teaching within the Christian fold (except in x. 1-10: see p. 135 f.),
  the Epistle says this most emphatically. But we found certain
  utterances in the Gospel aimed at very definite opponents, in other
  words, at the Gnostics (pp. 152-154, 160-163); and the first Epistle
  likewise opposes the Gnostics. We are told (ii. 4) that the author's
  opponents asserted that they knew God; and it was knowledge on which
  the Gnostics prided themselves. We know further the doctrine of the
  Stoics according to which the logos or rather the individual logoi were
  like seeds of corn scattered throughout the world (p. 142 f.), and out
  of these the things of the world arose. The Gnostics applied this idea
  to themselves, and claimed that they had in their own persons the
  divine seed. There is a hint of this idea in iii. 9; and in i. 8, 10 of
  the Gnostics assertion that this made them sinless.

  As to Jesus, the opponents of the writer of the Epistle taught that he
  was not the Christ (ii. 22). And in this again we can recognise the
  claim of the Gnostics, that Jesus was only a man who for a time and in
  a loose way became one with the Christ who had come down from heaven.
  This is seen even more clearly in iv. 2 f.; they deny that Jesus Christ
  is come in the flesh, an utterance which is aimed at the same time at
  that other idea of the Gnostics--that he had merely a phantom body (pp.
  150, 152). And in v. 6 that teaching of theirs is opposed, according to
  which the man who suffered on the cross was not really the redeemer,
  that is to say, the Christ, who had come down from heaven. The author
  says here that he came, that is to say, to save mankind, not only with
  water through his baptism but also with blood through his death.

  But, further, in iii. 4, 10, ii. 4 the author declares against "every
  one that doeth sin" or "that keepeth not God's commandments," and by
  sin he means opposition to the injunction in iii. 3, that every one
  should purify himself. What he has in mind therefore is an unholy,
  unbridled life. Now, it is hardly possible that this reproach, which is
  made more than once and in the most varied forms, can apply to persons
  other than those who are opposed in other passages throughout the
  Epistle. And if this be so, the Gnostics with whom we have to deal here
  are not, like many others, especially in the first decades of the
  second century, people who adhered to the law of the Old Testament. We
  already have to do with a more developed form of Gnosticism.
  __________________________________________________________________

  2. AGREEMENT WITH GNOSTICISM.

  But it is remarkable that the man who so decisively opposes Gnosticism
  agrees with it entirely on a strikingly large number of points. He also
  cannot but think that there are two kingdoms very sharply opposed to
  each other, the kingdom of God, and that of the world which is ruled by
  the devil (ii. 16; iii. 8, 10; iv. 4-6), or the kingdom of truth and
  that of lies (ii. 21) and this opposition extends to mankind as well,
  the one part being from God and the other from the world, which "lieth
  in the evil one," that is to say, is under the dominion of the devil
  (v. 19).

  We found that there is the same kind of agreement with the Gnostics in
  the Gospel (pp. 158-160). But the Epistle goes a step farther. While
  the Gospel only occasionally suggests that knowledge is a valuable
  thing (xvii. 3), the Epistle emphasises, in a way that a Gnostic could
  not excel, that the author and his party themselves possess the
  knowledge of God or of the truth (ii. 13 f., 20 f., 27; iv. 7).
  Further, as to the Gnostics belief that they had in themselves the
  divine "seed," the author maintains again that it is really he and
  those who think with him who possess it as their own. And on this point
  he ventures to make the strongest statement found in his Epistle:
  "Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin" (iii. 9; v. 18). By these
  he means himself and his party. And this is said by the same person who
  just before (i. 8, 10) has reproached his opponents in these words: "If
  we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not
  in us." Here we can see how great a spell the ideas of the Gnostics
  exercised upon men's minds.

  3. NATURE OF THE OPPOSITION TO GNOSTICISM.

  But we see at the same time the peculiar nature of the attack that is
  made upon them. Those who opposed them claimed as their own all that
  was valuable in the things the Gnostics prided themselves on, and
  denied it to the Gnostics. And upon what ground? If these Gnostics
  really lived the sinful kind of life they were reproached with, this
  would assuredly provide a certain amount of justification for arguing
  on these grounds against the truth of their teaching, on the principle
  "by their fruits ye shall know them" (Mt. vii. 16). But it is much to
  be feared that the opponents of the Gnostics painted their excesses in
  darker colours than was just; and it would also be reasonable to ask
  whether they had as much light on their own side as (in their view)
  there was of shade in that of their opponents. Unfortunately, we are
  obliged to say that the New Testament writers are too prone to
  disparage their opponents by attacking their morals, and often they do
  so in a way that is very unpleasant. In this matter the Epistles to
  Timothy and Titus (which were not composed by the Apostle Paul, but in
  the first half of the second century), the Epistle of Jude from the
  same period, and the Second Epistle of Peter (which was not written by
  the Apostle Peter any more than the first Epistle, but is the latest
  book in the New Testament, and was not written until after the middle
  of the second century) offend in a special degree. It is very possible
  that by employing this method of warfare, they show at the same time
  that they are incapable of overcoming their opponents with intellectual
  weapons. The author of the Epistle to the Colossians provides an
  honourable exception; and from this we can see at the same time that
  Gnostic views were not always and necessarily associated with
  immorality.

  As regards the First Epistle of John, we must say that in its attack on
  its opponents, compared with the writings mentioned above, it has
  observed a certain moderation. In form at least it is written in a calm
  and measured style. We note that the author feels the necessity of
  convincing his readers of the truth of what he says. Laying so great
  stress on knowledge as he does, he cannot have failed to desire this.
  True, his argument does not take the form of giving real proofs; he
  simply gives expression to his own conviction; but the brevity and
  simplicity with which he does so makes it so effective that he could
  really hope to make an impression by it.

  On what then, in the last resort, does he take his stand when he
  opposes the Gnostics? On the Confession of the Church. People must
  confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh that is to say, has
  appeared with a body consisting of flesh; otherwise they are not from
  God, but are Christ's enemies, and, in denying the son, they are at the
  same time denying God the Father as well (iv. 2 f.; ii. 22).
  __________________________________________________________________

  4. THE EPISTLE NOT BY THE AUTHOR OF THE GOSPEL.

  After all that has been said so far, the Gospel and the first Epistle
  might very well seem to have been the work of the same person; but on a
  closer view it is clear that in all probability the two writings had
  different authors. A number of important expressions occur only in the
  Epistle which the author of the Gospel would have had opportunities of
  using as well had he been familiar with them. But, above all, the
  convictions to which the Epistle gives expression bring it nearer than
  the Gospel to the ordinary, simple faith of the Church.

  Jesus second coming from heaven, at which he will bring eternal
  happiness, in ii. 28, as amongst primitive Christians in general, is
  expected to take place on a definite day as an objective event; on the
  other hand, when the Evangelist speaks of a second coming of Jesus
  after his death, he does so only in the sense that it will be identical
  with the coming of the Holy Spirit into the hearts of believers, which
  of course happens at very different times (xiv. 16-18, 26-28). The
  Epistle follows the old idea closely in expecting that on that great
  day in the future all men will rise from the dead and come before the
  bar of judgment (iii. 2; iv. 17). In the Gospel this idea is found only
  in particular passages, for example in v. 28 f., or in a clause which
  is perhaps disturbing, or at least can always be dispensed with, "and I
  will raise him up at the last day," vi. 40, 44, 54, 39 (on this account
  perhaps added by another person, in order to make the book more
  acceptable to simple believers); but his principal idea on this point
  is that eternal life begins even in this world as soon as a man
  believes in Jesus, and that such a one will never come into judgment
  (v. 24). To the writer of the Epistle the most important redemptive act
  of Jesus seems to be his death (i. 7; ii. 2; iv. 10), as was generally
  thought since the time of the Apostle Paul; the Gospel gives expression
  to this belief only in i. 29, 36, and perhaps in xi. 50-52; xvii. 19 b,
  and assumes everywhere else that Jesus brought redemption by coming
  amongst men and bringing them that true knowledge which leads to
  believing in him. In the division which is made between God and the
  world, the Epistle does not go so far as the Gospel. The Evangelist's
  most significant train of thought is to the effect that God does not
  give his gifts directly to men, but to Jesus. Jesus is the first to
  bestow them upon men (xv. 9 f.); none can come to the Father save
  through him (xiv. 6). There are not wanting in the Gospel, as we have
  indicated already (p. 161), sayings which represent the idea, assumed
  throughout the Epistle (ii. 24; iii. 24; iv. 12 f., 15 f.), that men
  also can commune directly with God. But the difference is perceptible
  all the same. Finally, in place of the designation "Logos," the Epistle
  (i. 1) has "the Word of Life," by which one cannot perceive that Jesus
  is a Being who bears the name Logos and is well known from Greek
  Philosophy.

  It is indeed permissible to think that one and the same person might
  have expressed himself differently in two works. But the facts of the
  case are certainly more easily understood if we suppose that we have to
  do with two different authors; and since, moreover, the Evangelist
  cannot have been John the Apostle, it is no use insisting that the
  author of the Epistle can have been no other than he.
  __________________________________________________________________

  5. DATE OF COMPOSITION.

  But when was the Epistle written? Since it represents the simpler and
  earlier form of the Christian faith, it is natural to think it older
  than the Gospel. But the contrary may also have been the case; and
  there are many other writers who have not followed the Gospel of John,
  when it diverges from the original teaching, but have betaken
  themselves to this. We must therefore look for another means of
  deciding the question. Let me quote here ii. 12-14: "I write unto you,
  my little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's
  sake. I write unto you, fathers, because ye know him which is from the
  beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the
  evil one. I have written unto you, little children, because ye know the
  Father. I have written unto you, fathers, because ye know him which is
  from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are
  strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the
  evil one." This can hardly be understood to mean anything else than
  that the author wishes to inform his readers that what he now writes is
  essentially the same as he has already written to them once before. And
  thus it is very natural to suppose that he suggests that he had done
  this in the Gospel. With this the external evidence would agree; the
  Epistle, like the Gospel, is not used by Christian writers until after
  the year 140, and when it is first used there is no mention of the
  author's name.
  __________________________________________________________________

  6. SECONDARY PURPOSE: RECOMMENDATION OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

  We must now devote a few more words to the purpose of the Epistle. We
  have hitherto explained that the author is opposing the Gnostics, but
  if what we have just said be correct, this does not exhaust the matter;
  another purpose is to repeat in another form what is contained in the
  Gospel and so to confirm it. Is there any connection between this and
  the fact that in the earliest days after its publication it gained so
  little recognition (p. 199 f.)? In that case, the purpose of the
  Epistle would be the same as that which induced some one, as we have
  already found (p. 186 f.), to add the twenty-first chapter to the
  Gospel. And just as in the addition to the Gospel the ruling idea was
  to satisfy the requirement that the account of Peter should be more
  favourable, sq in the present case the work was carried out in such a
  way as to avoid those statements in the Gospel which differed too much
  from the ordinary faith of the Church. Here we may again wonder whether
  this may not have been done by the author of the Gospel himself, and
  whether he may not have written in this way, to set aside his original
  views of set purpose. But it is easier to suppose that one who belonged
  to the circle of his followers wrote it to give expression to his own
  view of the matter.

  We should have to assume at the same time that he wished to be taken
  for the Evangelist. But, according to the ideas of the time, there
  would be as little harm in this as there was in the other case where
  the Evangelist (perhaps) wished to be taken for John the Apostle (pp.
  183-185). We must not therefore regard it as being in the slightest
  degree deceitful when we are told at the beginning of his circular:
  "that which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that
  which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld and our hands
  handled, concerning the Word of Life (that is to say, concerning Jesus)
  . . . declare we unto you also." By taking up the pen in the name of
  the Evangelist, and yet writing in a rather different sense, the author
  served the great purpose of gaining recognition in the Church for the
  precious thoughts contained in the Fourth Gospel, knowing as he did how
  to remove all that was offensive; and it is quite possible that he
  helped in a real sense to achieve this purpose. He did not, however,
  fulfil in any way his opening promise (i. 1). There is not the least
  trace in his Epistle of anything that only an eye-witness of the Life
  of Jesus could know.
  __________________________________________________________________