Tag: Love Command

Studies on the Spirit: The Flesh, the World, and the Devil (Study 19)

The Flesh, the World, and the Devil

Study 19: The World (Part 14)

The conflict with “the world” which defines the identity of believers in Christ—especially the distinction between true and false believers—was a key theme in 4:1-6 (discussed in the previous study), presented in terms of Christology (i.e., the nature of one’s trust in Jesus Christ). In the major section that follows (4:7-5:4a), the focus shifts from trust to love—and, correspondingly, the conflict with “the world” is presented in terms of the fulfillment of the duty (e)ntolh/) to show love to other believers. False believers (that is, the ‘antichrists’ of 4:1-6) do not fulfill the duty of the true believer (3:23): they do not have a genuine trust in Jesus Christ, nor do they show love to (true) believers.

1 John 5:1-5

The primary ko/smo$-reference(s) in the remainder of 1 John occur in 5:4-5. I tend to agree with the commentators (such as Brown and Strecker) who view verse 4 as a transitional ‘hinge’ between the two sections 4:7-5:4a and 5:4b-12. At the same time, there does seem to be a certain chiastic structure to 5:1-5 (as illustrated visually by von Wahlde, p. 172f), and so it might be preferable to treat vv. 1-5 and a transitional unit between 4:7-21 (on the theme of love) and 5:6-12 (on the theme of trust). The focus in vv. 1-5 on the theme of fulfilling the ‘commandments’ (i.e., the two-fold e)ntolh/ of 3:23) as a fundamental characteristic of the true believer would tend to confirm the transitional character of these verses—that is, blending together the twin duties (e)ntolai/) of love (4:7-21) and trust (5:6-12). Note the highlighting of the dual e)ntolh/ in verse 1:

    • “Every(one) trusting that Yeshua is the Anointed (One) has come to be (born) of God
      and
    • every(one) loving the (One) causing to be (born) [also] (loves) the (one) having come to be (born) of Him”

The transition continues in vv. 2-3, by shifting from the thematic emphasis of loving one’s fellow believer to that of loving God. We see this shift occur in the statement of v. 1b, emphasizing how the person who genuinely loves God (“the [One] causing [offspring] to be born”) will also love believers who are the offspring of God (“the [one] having come to be born of Him”). In vv. 2-3 a true love of God is further explained as being demonstrated through the fulfillment of both duties (e)ntolai/)—trust and love. The noun e)ntolh/, often translated flatly as “commandment”, properly refers to a duty which (in this context) God has given to us (lit., placed on us) to complete. The use of the plural (e)ntolai/) here indicates that there is more than one duty required of believers. Some commentators have (mistakenly) interpreted this as a reference to the Torah regulations, or a subset of them (e.g., the ethical commands of the Decalogue, etc.), or to the teachings of Jesus. However, within the Johannine religious and theological worldview, this use of the plural (which occurs interchangeably with the singular) can only refer to the double-duty of trust and love (3:23, etc). If any other ‘commands’ are in view, they are subsumed under these two duties; by fulfilling the two e)ntolai/, the entire Law of God will properly, and effectively, be fulfilled by believers.

This helps to explain the statement in v. 3b, that “His e)ntolai/ are not heavy [baru/$] (to bear)”. It is no burden for the true believer to fulfill the twin duties of trust in Jesus Christ and of showing love to fellow believers. This thought should be understood against the eschatological background of early Christianity, which drew upon certain key traditions from the restoration eschatology of the exilic and post-exilic Prophets—most notably, the expectation whereby God, in the New Age, would ‘pour out’ His Spirit onto (and into) His people, an effect of which would be the enabling of them to fulfill the Law of God completely and without fail. For more on this background, see the set of notes (on the relevant passages) in my earlier series “The Spirit in the Old Testament”. For early Christians, the presence of the Spirit allows God’s people (believers) similarly to fulfill the Law of God completely, the various commands and regulations of the Torah now being subsumed under the command of love (cf. Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:14; James 2:8). Within the Johannine tradition, this ‘love-command’ has been expanded into the form of the dual–e)ntolh/ of trust and love.

The ability of believers to fulfill this duty is further expounded here in verse 4, in terms of the conflict with “the world” (o( ko/smo$):

“(For it is) that every(thing) having come to be (born) of God is victorious (over) the world” (v. 4a)

The implication is that “the world” exerts a negative influence that might otherwise hinder or keep believers from fulfilling their duty. In this light, it is important to note the earlier ko/smo$-references in 4:7-21, in which the aspect of the world (i.e., the inhabited world of human beings) as the mission-field for the Gospel is emphasized. The three references present this aspect (discussed in the earlier studies) according to a dynamic theological sequence:

    • The Son comes into the world, alluding to the incarnation (i.e., born into the world of human beings) and to the purpose of his mission on earth:
      “…the love of God was made to shine forth on/among us, (in) that He sent forth His only Son into the world, that we might live through him” (4:9; cf. Jn 3:16f)
    • The Son fulfills his mission in the world, acting for the salvation of humankind (i.e., those who trust in him, believers):
      “And we have seen and give witness that the Father has sent forth His Son (as) Savior of the world” (v. 14)
    • With the Son have departed back to the Father in heaven, believers now take his place, continuing his mission “in the world”:
      “…just as that (one) is, (so) also we are in this world” (v. 17)

The world does not only represent the field of the mission for believers; it also represents a domain of darkness and evil that is opposed to God, and which is hostile to believers. Even as “the world” was hostile to (i.e., hated) the Son, so it is also hostile to the other offspring of God (i.e., believers). This negative (and antagonistic) concept of “the world” includes non-believers and false believers (cf. the previous study on 4:1-6) but also all kinds of other negative influences that hinder the fulfillment of believers’ duty and mission (cf. the earlier study on 2:12-17).

Yet, it is declared in v. 4a that believers “are victorious over the world”. It is worth noting a significant grammatical detail in v. 4a. The substantive perfect passive participle (of the verb genna/w), along with the prepositional qualifier e)k tou= qeou= (“of God”), which is regularly used as a way of designating believers, occurs here in a neuter form: “the (thing) having come to be (born) of God”. Thus, the emphasis is not on the specific person who has come to be born of God, but, rather, on the fact of his/her so coming to be born. It is specifically because the true believer is the offspring (te/knon, a neuter noun) of God, that he/she is able to be victorious over the world.

The nature of this victorious ability is further explained in v. 4b:

“and this is the victory (hav)ing been victorious (over) the world: our trust”

The aorist participle of the verb nika/w (“be victorious [over]”) is a bit difficult to translate. In English, one is more or less forced to choose between rendering it as a present (“being victorious”) or as a perfect (“having been victorious”). The latter is preferable in that it preserves the past aspect—viz., as an event or condition which occurred in the past (and the force of which continues into the present). Cf. the discussion by Brown, pp. 570-1.

It is specifically the believer’s trust in Jesus Christ which brought about this victory and which enables the believer to be victorious over “the world”. This is best understood in terms of the believer sharing in the victory which was accomplished by the incarnate Son (Jesus) through the fulfillment of his mission on earth. In particular, it was the sacrificial death of the Son which brought the victory. This can be seen from the only occurrence of the verb nika/w in the Gospel, at the climax of the Farewell Discourse (just prior to Jesus’ death), in which the Son declares to his disciples (believers): “I have been victorious (over) the world!” (16:33). In that same context there are statements which indicate that the fulfillment of the Son’s mission specifically led to victory over the Devil (“the chief/ruler of this world”) and to the breaking of the dominating power of evil over the world—12:31; 14:30; 16:11. The same point is made, but with different terminology, in 1 Jn 3:8, in which the author states a primary purpose of the Son’s mission:

“for this (reason) was the Son of God made to shine forth: that he should loosen [i.e., dissolve/destroy] the works of the Devil”

The verb nika/w occurs more frequently in 1 John than it does in the Gospel. In 2:13-14, it is stated twice that believers have been victorious over evil (and the Devil), echoing the language used by Jesus in Jn 16:33. The substantive use (with definite article) of the adjective ponhro/$ (lit., “the evil”) can be understood personally as “the Evil (one)” —that is, a reference to the Devil, the “chief/ruler of this world”. In 2:14, the source of this victory is explained as the “word [lo/go$] of God” that abides within the believer. In terms of the Johannine theology, as I have discussed, this is principally a reference to the presence of the Son within the believer, with whom the believer is united, and who continues to guide and instruct (and protect) the believer (see below on verse 18). This union is realized through the abiding presence of the Spirit, and it is thus through the Spirit that the believer participates in the victory which the Son achieved over the forces of evil—i.e., over the world and the Devil. The abiding union with the Son, and the presence of the Spirit, is experienced when the believer comes to trust in Jesus (as the Son of God). It is at this moment (symbolized by the baptism ritual) that the believer comes to be born as the offspring of God.

The emphasis on the defining aspect of the believer’s trust in the Son is stated (by way of a rhetorical question) again at the close of the unit (v. 5):

“[And so] who is the (one) being victorious (over) the world, if not the (one) trusting that Yeshua is the Son of God?”

The use here of a present participle of the verb pisteu/w (“trust”) may indicate the need for the believer to continue trusting in Jesus—that is, in terms of the message and rhetoric of 1 John, to continue holding the correct view of who Jesus is, the nature of his identity as the incarnate Son of God. This correct view is in direct contrast to the false view(s) of the ‘antichrist’ opponents (4:1-6); the Christological issue is further expounded and clarified in 5:6-12. Note, in particular, the emphasis on the role of the indwelling Spirit in proclaiming and affirming the truth of who Jesus is and of what he accomplished (as the incarnate Son) during his mission on earth—vv. 6-8ff.

1 John 5:18-19

The final occurrence of the word ko/smo$ is in verse 19, at the close of 1 John, where it is stated that:

“the whole world lays/lies in the evil”

As in 2:13-14 (cf. also Jn 17:15), the articular substantive use of the adjective ponhro/$ probably refers to the Devil (“the Evil [one]”), in which case the clause would be glossed as “the whole world lies in the (hand/control of) the Evil (one)”. This statement holds, in spite of the fact that Jesus subdued the Devil and destroyed his evil power over the world. This eschatological event is only realized in the present for believers in Christ—it is only they/we who have been set free from bondage to sin and evil, and who are victorious over the world and the Devil. This is clear when both components of verse 19 are read together:

“We have seen that we are of God, and that the whole world lays in the evil.”

Believers are currently in the world, but are not of the world; rather, they/we are of God, having been born of God (as His offspring). The world, for the time being, continues to be dominated by darkness and evil, and yet believers are able to be victorious over it, and are protected from its harmful and destructive influence. This specific theme of protection is emphasized in the prior verse 18:

“We have seen that every(one) having come to be (born) of God does not sin, but (rather) the (one hav)ing come to be (born) of God keeps watch (over) him, and (so) the evil does not touch him.”

This verse is fraught with textual and interpretive difficulties, which I have discussed in a set of recent notes. My view is that the aorist participle in the central phrase (“the [one hav]ing come to be [born] of God”) refers to the abiding presence of the Son within the believer. This Christological interpretation does not diminish or negate the validity of the ethical-reflexive interpretation, which emphasizes that the believer (“the [one] having to be [born] of God”) keeps watch over himself, i.e., guarding himself from sin. As I discussed in the aforementioned notes, the parallel with John 17:15, as well as earlier in 1 Jn 3:9, argues strongly in favor of the Christological interpretation as being primary. As mentioned above, it is through the Spirit that we as believers experience the Son’s abiding presence and, with it, the protection that he provides. Through the Spirit, the Son gives us victory over the world and protection from its evil influences.

*     *     *     *     *

In the next study, the final study in this arc dealing with “the world”, we will summarize the main characteristics and attributes of “the world”, along with a summary of the most important points of emphasis regarding the conflict between believers and “the world”.

    • References above marked “Brown” are to Raymond E. Brown, S.S., The Epistles of John, Anchor Bible [AB] vol. 30 (1982).
    • Those marked “Strecker” are to Georg Strecker, Die Johannesbriefe übersetzt und erklärt, Meyers Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: 1989). English translation, The Johannine Letters, transl. Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia Commentary Series (Fortress Press: 1996).
    • Those marked “von Wahlde” are to Urban C. von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John. Volume 3: Commentary on the Three Johannine Letters, Eerdmans Critical Commentary (2010). 

Studies on the Spirit: The Spirit and the Death/Resurrection of Jesus (Study 12)

Study 12: The Spirit and the Communication of Jesus’ death to Believers (John)

In the previous study, we examined how the power and effect of Jesus’ death is communicated to believers through the Spirit, looking at the issue from the Pauline standpoint. Now we turn to the Johannine writings (Gospel and Letters). As with many issues involving the role of the Spirit, there is much common ground between Paul’s letters and the Johannine writings. However, there are also important differences. Indeed, the Johannine writings evince a very distinctive theology, with aspects of the Johannine theological idiom and mode of expression—vocabulary, style, points of emphasis, etc—that are quite unique, even when the writings themselves are rooted in traditions shared by other early believers.

There are two particular aspects of the Johannine theology, in relation to the idea of Jesus’ death being communicated to believers through the Spirit, that I wish to highlight: (1) sacrificial imagery, and (2) believers fulfilling the type-pattern established by Jesus’ own sacrificial death.

1. Sacrificial imagery

Many early Christian authors and theologians drew upon the imagery and legacy of ritual sacrifice, inherited from the ancient Israelite and Jewish Temple cult and associated Torah rituals. The author of Hebrews, as one particularly notable example (see esp. chapters 5-10), deals extensively with the typology of sacrifice, explaining how Jesus fulfilled the type-patterns of the sacrificial offerings and priestly ritual. The Gospel of John does much the same thing, though expressing the matter in a different way.

Jesus is introduced (in 1:29, 36) as the “lamb of God”, alluding to the sacrificial offerings (and to the Passover lamb); this reference is discussed further below. Then, in chapter 2 (vv. 13-22), Jesus is effectively identified with the Temple and (by extension) its entire cultic (ritual-sacrificial) apparatus; even more so than in the Synoptic Tradition (Mk 11:15-18 par; cf. also Mk 2:23-28, esp. the Matthean parallel, 12:1-8 with the statement in v. 6), the Temple is portrayed as being fulfilled in (and superseded by) the person of Jesus (with specific allusions to his death and resurrection, vv. 19-22). According to the Johannine narrative, this episode took place at the time of the Passover festival; and, similarly, a number of the great Discourses that follow (in chaps. 3-12) are set on the occasion of, or in connection with, the festivals.

In various ways, Jesus is depicted as fulfilling, in his own person, important elements and aspects of the festivals, involving a wide range of Scriptural and Israelite/Jewish tradition. For example, the Bread of Life Discourse in chapter 6 (cf. below) is set around the time of the Passover, and, in connection, Jesus fulfills the type-pattern of several key Moses-traditions—most notably that of the manna (“bread out of heaven”), which is central to the Discourse. The Discourse-complex in chapters 7-8 is even more closely associated with a festival (Sukkot/Booths); Jesus’ identification with light (8:12) and water (i.e., living water, 7:37-39) are almost certainly intended to be seen as the fulfillment of ritual details and images connected with the festival. Finally, Jesus’ own Passion and death took place at the time of the Passover festival (12:1; 13:1, etc), according to the common Gospel Tradition. However, the Gospel of John is unique in portraying Jesus’ death on the cross as occurring on the very day of the Passover Eve, at the time when the lambs are slain for the festal celebration (19:14); thus, the Gospel writer implicitly identifies Jesus with the slain Passover lamb (cf. also the detail in vv. 31-33, with its interpretation in v. 36).

If we are to apply this line of Christological interpretation by the Johannine Gospel writer, there are three passages or references which should be spotlighted. Let us consider them, briefly, in turn.

a. The “Lamb of God” (1:29)

In his function as a witness to Jesus Christ (1:7-8, 15, 19ff, 32-34), John the Baptist declares in 1:29 (echoed in v. 36) that Jesus is “the lamb of God, the (one) taking (away) the sin of the world”.

Commentators have struggled to determine precisely the origins and significance of the expression “the lamb of God” (o( a)mno/$ tou= qeou=), which occurs only here (being repeated in verse 36) in the Scriptures. A number of sources of influence have been proposed and discussed, with commentators differing on their relative plausibility. There has, however, come to be something of an emerging consensus that the two main sources are: (a) the figure of the Passover lamb, and (b) the reference to the Servant-figure in the Isa 52:13-53:12 Servant Song as a lamb (53:7).

The relatively recent article by Jesper Tang Nielsen, “The Lamb of God: The Cognitive Structure of a Johannine Metaphor” (published in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language, eds. Jörg Frey, Jan G. van der Watt, and Ruben Zimmermann, WUNT 200 [Mohr Siebeck: 2006], pp. 217-56) discusses the conceptual blending of these two specific background-aspects of the expression.

While some would argue that the Isaiah 53:7 reference is primary, in my view the Passover lamb represents the principal point of reference. This seems to be quite clear, based on two points of evidence. First, we have the specific identification (noted above) of Jesus with the Passover lamb in 19:14, 36, where the lamb-identification is made in the context of Jesus’ death—being ‘lifted up’ on the cross. Second, the foreshadowing of this moment in the reference to the ‘bronze serpent’ tradition (Numbers 21:9) in 3:14-15 strongly suggests the parallel of the lamb, once it has been ‘lifted up’, giving life-saving healing to all those who look at (i.e., believe in) it.

And yet, as many commentators have noted, there is no indication, either in the Old Testament or in later Jewish tradition, of a direct connection between the Passover lamb and sin. In particular, there is no evidence that the Passover lamb (or the ritual as a whole) was ever thought to take away sin (see on the verb ai&rw below). I have discussed the Passover tradition in several recent articles, and will here only mention three aspects of its significance that seem relevant to the sin-association in Jn 1:29:

    • The apotropaic function of the Passover lamb’s blood in the original Exodus-tradition (Exod 12, esp. vv. 7, 13, 22-23), as protection against death.
    • The idea that those participating in the ritual must purify themselves in preparation—represented primarily through the symbolism of the leaven that is removed (see vv. 14-20, and compare Paul’s interpretation in 1 Cor 5:7); note also the purity regulations in Numbers 9.
    • The symbolism of the historical context of the Passover—the Exodus as freedom from bondage (in Egypt).

One can see how each of these aspects could be related to the removal of sin (and its effects). Philo of Alexandria, in his allegorical interpretation of the Passover tradition, blends together the second and third aspects in a unique way. In his work On the Special Laws, in the section on the Passover (2.145-149), the festival is interpreted as figuratively representing the purification of the soul, explaining the Passover as symbolizing the “passing over” of the soul, away from the body and its passions (2.147). Similarly, Josephus, in his brief discussion of Passover in Antiquities 2.311-14, shifts the meaning of the lamb’s blood somewhat. Instead of its apotropaic function (see above), with the blood being applied to the house of the Israelite family (thus protecting the people inside), a spiritualizing ethical interpretation is given, whereby the blood actually purifies (vb a(gni/zw) the individual who faithfully observes the ritual. This concept of the purification of the devout/faithful Israelite by the lamb’s blood is not that far removed from the Christian idea of Jesus’ blood cleansing the believer from sin (1 John 1:7, see below).

Already in the Exodus tradition (Exod 12:27), the Passover (lamb) is referred to as a sacrificial offering (ze»aµ)—that is, an animal that is ritually slain as an offering (to God). In Israelite and Jewish tradition, the Passover would increasingly be recognized as a kind of sacrifice. It clearly is not an offering for sin; it has much more in common with the šelem offering (Leviticus 3), in which the worshiper eats the meat of the animal as part of a ritual meal. Even so, the traditional conception of the Passover as a sacrifice may well have led early Christians to connect it with other aspects of the sacrificial offerings, such as the offerings for sin—including the expiatory offerings of the Day of Atonement festival (Leviticus 16), which involved the ritual/symbolic removal of sin. That early Christians did, in fact, associate the Day of Atonement offerings with the person of Jesus (and his sacrificial death) is clear from Hebrews 8-10. It would not be unreasonable for an early Christian to blend this sin offering imagery together with the motif of Jesus as a Passover lamb that is slain, bringing life and salvation to those who believe.

The specific idea of the removal of sin is found throughout the Johannine writings, most notably in 1 John 1:7, where it is stated that the blood of Jesus (i.e., through his death as the slain ‘lamb’) cleanses the believer from sin. Perhaps the strongest argument for this meaning of the verb ai&rw here in Jn 1:29 comes from 1 John 3:5, where it is indicated the purpose of Jesus’ appearance on earth was to “take away” sin (“…that he might take away [a&rh|] sin”). But how does Jesus’ “blood” remove sin from the believer? Clearly, a confession of one’s sin is involved (with an associated repentance being implied), as is stated in 1:9, yet such confession is only a precursor to the actual removal of sin. How does the removal take effect? This is best understood (and explained) in terms of the Johannine theological principle of the believer being “in” (e)n) Christ (2:5f)—that is, in union with Christ (the Son). And how is this union with the Son (and the Father) realized and experienced, except through the presence of the Spirit?

This is altogether confirmed by the entirety of the Johannine witness; but, in particular, compare the specific wording in 2:5 with that of 3:24 and 4:13. Like Paul, the Johannine author(s) understand believers’ union with Christ (“in Christ”) as a spiritual union, realized through the Spirit. Thus, it is through the Spirit that the cleansing and life-giving effects of Jesus’ death (his “blood”) are communicated to believers. This involves both cleansing (i.e., removal of sin) and the communication of the Divine life (i.e., eternal life) to the believer. This latter aspect is particularly in view in the Bread of Life Discourse (chap. 6)—especially with the eucharistic language in vv. 51-58.

b. The “Bread of Life” (esp. 6:51-58)

As virtually all commentators recognize, there is eucharistic language in the climactic section (vv. 51-58) of the great “Bread of Life” Discourse in chapter 6 (vv. 22-58). The parallels with the Synoptic ‘words of institution’ by Jesus (at the Last Supper), Mk 14:22-24 par, are quite apparent. Significantly, there is no comparable eucharistic tradition in the Johannine version of the Last Supper scene (chap. 13); instead, the corresponding eucharistic language and imagery is incorporated as part of the Bread of Life Discourse. As with the Passover lamb (cf. above), Jesus’ death is portrayed as a sacrificial offering that one consumes (i.e., eats/drinks). In the Synoptic Tradition of the Last Supper, the sacrificial imagery alluded to is not the Passover (in spite of the Passover setting), nor the sin offering, but the sacrifices made at the establishment (ratification) of the covenant, between God and His people, at Sinai (as narrated in Exodus 24). It is a šelem offering (Leviticus 3), in which the worshiper eats the meat of the animal as part of a ritual meal, while, according to the Sinai-covenant tradition, the blood is poured/sprinkled upon the people (Exod 24:8). Both ritual aspects are combined in the Eucharist-symbolism: (a) believers eat/drink the body/blood of Jesus, while also (b) the blood is poured “over” believers (note the use of the preposition u(pe/r in both Mk 14:24 par and Jn 6:51), confirming the unifying covenant-bond between God and His people.

These two ritual aspects are conceptually related, as symbolism that represents the union of believers with Christ. However, whereas the covenant aspect is emphasized in the Synoptic Tradition, it is the ritual meal (i.e., eating/drinking a šelem offering) that is primarily in view here in the Bread of Life Discourse. The emphasis is certainly on eating Jesus, with the corollary of drinking him as well. Within the eucharistic language of vv. 51-58, the “bread” of Jesus’ person becomes both his body (which one eats) and his blood (which one drinks). This dualism effectively brings together the thematic emphasis of the ‘Living Water’ Discourse (chap. 4) with that of the Bread of Life Discourse; there is a clear and obvious parallel between drinking the living water that Jesus offers (4:10-15; 7:37-39) and eating the living bread which he gives.

The main difference between these two thematic symbols is that the living water is identified with the Spirit (vv. 23-24, and explicitly in 7:39; cf. also 1:31-33; 3:5-8), while the living bread is identified with the person of the Son (Jesus) himself. And yet, even in the case of the Bread of Life Discourse, the Spirit is closely connected with the bread-motif, even if there is no explicit mention of the Spirit in the Discourse proper. How does one eat/drink the body/blood of Jesus, if not spiritually, through the Spirit? Three points make clear that the focus of the eucharistic language is 6:51-58 is spiritual rather than ritual/sacramental:

    • The parallel with chap. 4 and the “living water”, which clearly involves the presence/activity of the Spirit; if ‘drinking’ this living water involves the Spirit, then it stands to reason that the ‘eating’ of the living bread does as well.
    • The wording in verse 57 seems to echo 3:34-35, with the giving/sharing of the Spirit understood as central to the relationship (and bond of unity) between Father and Son. Moreover, the life-giving aspect of this bond naturally connects v. 57 with the presence of the Spirit.
    • The statement in verse 63, which, in the literary context of the narrative, unquestionably relates back to the Discourse, confirms that the life-giving power of Jesus’ death is communicated (to the believer) through the Spirit.

This is not to say that the Gospel of John eschews any sacrificial or ritual aspect to the Eucharist, but, rather, that the emphasis on the Spirit is primary. For more on verse 63 in relation to vv. 51-58, see my earlier article (and notes) in the series “Spiritualism and the New Testament”.

c. The Death of Jesus on the Cross (19:30ff)

The Johannine theological and Christological understanding regarding the sacrificial nature of Jesus’ death, and the communication of its power and effect to believers, is, in the Gospel narrative, manifest in the climactic account of the death itself. The symbolism of Jesus as the slain Passover lamb (19:14, 36) was discussed above. Here I wish to focus on the account of his actual death, focusing briefly on two key details: (a) the description of the moment of Jesus’ death (v. 30), and (b) the “blood and water” that emerged from him after his death (v. 34).

The Johannine account of the moment of Jesus’ death (in 19:30) follows the common Gospel Tradition (cf. Mk 15:37; Matt 27:50; Luke 23:46), but gives to it a new and distinct interpretation, in accordance with the Johannine theology (see above). I have discussed this development of the tradition in earlier notes and articles (see most recently, in Study 6 of this series). Here it is important to point out how the wording in v. 30 likely contains an allusion to Jesus’ giving of the Spirit to believers, conveyed through a simple bit of allusive double-meaning wordplay:

“…he gave along the spirit [i.e., his last breath]”
understood/interpreted as:
“…he gave along the Spirit”

With regard to the curious (apparently physiological) detail of the emergence of “blood and water” from Jesus’ side after his death (v. 34), there is almost certainly a similar allusion—viz., to the giving of the Spirit (after Jesus’ death, 20:22), but also to the communication of the life-giving power of his death (“blood”) through the Spirit. The association of the Spirit with water is traditional, and clear enough in the theological context of the Johannine narrative (cf. again 1:31-33; 3:5-8; 4:10-15, 23-24; 7:37-39); similarly, the connection between the Spirit and Jesus’ blood (as something which one likewise drinks) is established by the context of 6:51-58, especially in connection with v. 63 (see above). The miracle of the Cana episode (2:1-12) may also provide a foreshadowing of this symbolism (i.e., water and wine = water and blood), the association being all the more likely in view of the eucharistic imagery in 6:51-58 (i.e., “blood” symbolized by wine which one drinks), and by the fact that the Cana episode (at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry) matches the scene of his death (at the end of his ministry). In this regard, it is perhaps relevant that Mary (Jesus’ mother) appears in both episodes (2:1ff; 19:25-27)—her only appearances in the Gospel.

Thus, these two details present a dramatic manifestation, at the conclusion of Jesus’ life/ministry, of: (i) the fact that Jesus’ would give the Spirit to his disciples (believers) following his death, and (ii) that the life-giving (and cleansing) power of his death would be communicated to believers through the Spirit.

For more on the water-blood-Spirit triadic parallelism, in relation to the death of Jesus, see 1 John 5:6-8ff, which I have discussed in some detail in earlier notes and articles.

2. The Type-Pattern (for Believers) of Jesus’ Sacrificial Death

In the Johannine writings, the sacrificial nature of Jesus’ death is not only communicated to believers through the Spirit—it is also realized in believers through the Spirit. This involves more than our receiving the cleansing and life-giving power of Jesus’ death (discussed above); it also entails that we, as believers, will manifest that same manner of self-sacrifice, in our own lives and persons, which Jesus demonstrated for us.

This conceptual parallelism is present at a number of points in the Gospel of John, most notably evident by a comparison of Jesus’ statements in chapter 10 with those (to his close circle of disciples) at the beginning of the Last/Farewell Discourse. The theme of self-sacrifice is expressed at the beginning of Jesus’ expository application (in v. 11) of his “Good Shepherd” illustration (vv. 1-6ff):

“I am the Good Shepherd—the Good Shepherd sets (down) his life over [u(pe/r] the sheep.” (cf. also v. 15)

The longer explanatory statement in vv. 17-18 is particularly noteworthy for its use of the verb ai&rw, the same verb used earlier in 1:29 (also 1 John 3:5, see above). The context of Jesus’ death, as a self-sacrifice, is clearly indicated:

“Through this, the Father loves me, (in) that [i.e. because] I set (down) my soul [i.e. lay down my life], (so) that I might take it (up) again. No one takes [ai&rei] it away from me, but (rather) I set it (down) from myself; I hold (the) authority to set it (down), and I (also) hold (the) authority to take it (up) again—this (is) the charge (laid) on (me) to complete (that) I received (from) alongside my Father.” (10:17-18)

The verb ai&rw is used in the sense of Jesus’ life being “taken away”; however, when he speaks of his actual death, as a self-sacrifice, he uses the verb pair “set/lay (down)” (ti/qhmi) and “take (up)” (lamba/nw). No one “takes away” his life; rather, he himself sets it down (dies) and takes it back up again (returning to life).

This same language, in connection with Jesus’ death, also occurs at the beginning of the Last Discourse (13:31-16:33), framed in terms of the e)ntolh/ (mission/duty) required of Jesus’ disciples (the same noun used in 10:18): to show love to one another (i.e., the so-called ‘love-command’), vv. 34-35. The Johannine version of the traditional exchange with Peter (cf. Mk 14:29-31 par) that follows in vv. 36-38 illustrates the self-sacrificial nature of this love, as Jesus asks Peter, “Will you set (down) your soul over me” —using the same wording from 10:11ff. This language occurs again, in the further exposition of the love–e)ntolh/ by Jesus in 15:12-17. The disciples (indeed, all believers) are to show love to one another in the same manner that Jesus himself demonstrated love in ‘laying down his life’ on their behalf.

The point, which also was illustrated by Jesus in the earlier foot-washing scene (vv. 3-12ff), is repeated in various ways throughout the Last Discourse (and the Discourse-Prayer of chap. 17): such sacrificial love is a manifestation and demonstration of the bond of unity between believers and Christ. This ‘love-command’, which is intrinsic to the historical Gospel tradition, becomes a central point of emphasis for the Johannine churches, and features prominently in the Johannine writings (especially 1 John). It is a component of the great dual (or two-fold) e)ntolh/ that all true believers will obey and fulfill (see esp. 1 John 3:23-24): (i) trust in Jesus Christ as the Son of God (which includes faithfulness to his word[s]), and (ii) love toward other believers according to the example shown by Jesus himself.

All true believers will be faithful to this e)ntolh/; fulfilling this duty/mission (which is a continuation of the incarnate Son’s own mission) is an indication that the Spirit abides within the believer, as is stated, for example, in 1 John 3:24 and 4:13. The person who is united with Christ through the Spirit, and who (further) allows him/herself to be guided by the Spirit, will manifest the same sacrificial love that Jesus demonstrated (through his death). In this way, the death of Jesus is realized in the life and person of the believer. Paul conveys something of the same idea through his important principle of the participation of believers in the death of Jesus (see the discussion in the previous study). By sharing in his death, we receive the benefits and blessing conferred by it, but we also are able to act and live out that death, on a daily basis—dying to sin (i.e., being cleansed from it), and manifesting the life-giving power that is communicated through death (paradoxically, life coming by way of death). The proclamation of the Gospel (by word) is one key way that we as believers live out and communicate the power of Christ’s death; but we also communicate the Gospel, and fulfill Jesus’ own mission, the mission which he bequeathed to us after his death, by demonstrating love. It is a love which is directed first (and primarily) to other believers, but which then, as a result, and naturally, can be extended to embrace the entire world.

In the next study (Study 13), we return to the letters of Paul, to examine how (and in what ways) the resurrection of Jesus is communicated to believers through the Spirit.

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 119 (Conclusion)

Psalm 119, conclusion

Summary

Having now carefully examined all 22 stanzas of this great Psalm, it will be worth making certain summary points, in conclusion.

Let us begin with a reminder of the acrostic format and structure of the composition. The 22 stanzas correspond to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet. There are precisely eight verses in each stanza, and the first line of each verse begins with the corresponding letter of the acrostic-pattern. While the verse structure of the stanzas is consistent throughout, the meter is not. While a 3+2 couplet format tends to prevail, there are other 3+3 couplets, as well as occasional 2-beat couplets (2+2) and tricola (2+2+2); in a few instances, a different irregular meter (e.g., 2+3) is used.

As we have seen, this Psalm makes thorough use of features from the lament– and prayer-Psalms, but applies them within a distinctive context, influenced by Wisdom tradition, that emphasizes faithfulness to the covenant and Torah observance. The Psalm contains many petitions, drawn from these traditional genres, in which the protagonist requests help and protection from YHWH. He makes this sustained prayer for deliverance on the basis of his loyalty to the covenant (meaning his faithfulness in observing the Torah requirements, which represent the terms of the covenant, cf. below). The setting of the traditional prayer-for-deliverance implies that the protagonist is in distress, facing danger and affliction, which includes attacks by hostile adversaries. Our Psalm preserves many such details, but blends them together into the broader theme of covenant-loyalty and Torah-observance.

A particular aspect of this thematic application is the way in which the Psalmist, repeatedly, interprets the prayer for salvation/deliverance in terms of obtaining help from YHWH for the express purpose of remaining faithful to the covenant, fulfilling the Torah requirements with greater devotion, and with a better/deeper understanding of its precepts. In particular, the verb /yB! (“understand, discern”) features prominently in the petitions (vv. 27, 34, 73, 95, 100, 104, 125, 130, 144, 169), along with the verb dm^l* (“learn”, causative “make/help learn”, i.e., “teach”, vv. 7, 12, 26, 64, 66, 68, 71, 73, 99, 108, 124, 135, 171). This is the main significance of the “help” (i.e., vb rz~u*, vv. 86, 173, 175) that YHWH is asked (and expected) to provide. Even when traditional rescue-verbs are used (e.g., lx^n`, “snatch out [of danger]”), they refer primarily to the danger of going astray from the path of God. Similarly, the “salvation” (i.e., hu*Wvy+) that is repeatedly referenced signifies, principally, faithfulness to the covenant (and the Torah). This is also the significance of the requests for life—i.e., for YHWH to give (and preserve) the protagonist’s life; cf. the repeated use of the verb hy`j* in the petitions and affirmations (vv. 17, 25, 37, 40, 50, 77, 88, 93, 107, 116, 144, 149, 154, 156, 159, 175).

There are, of course, many references and allusions throughout the Psalm to adversaries that attack or threaten the protagonist. However, I regard these as reflective of the genre that the Psalmist has appropriated; they are not part of an authentic dramatic scenario that governs the Psalm. The main purpose of the adversary-references has to do with the Wisdom-orientation of the Psalm, which utilizes throughout the traditional contrast between the righteous and the wicked. On the surface, it may appear that the protagonist is requesting rescue and protection from certain hostile adversaries, but the principal danger facing him is the possibility of going astray from the path of God—that is, lapsing in his faithfulness to the covenant and Torah. The figure of the wicked adversary represents unfaithfulness (and thus disloyalty to YHWH), in marked contrast to the righteous (represented by the protagonist)—who is faithful and devoted, and longs only to become more so.

This dualistic righteous/wicked contrast is expressed in the Psalm through certain traditional juxtapositions—one of the most notable being the contrast between love (vb bh^a*) and hate (an`c*), cf. (love) vv. 47-48, 97, 113, 119, 127, 132, 140, 159, 163, 165-167, and (hate) vv. 104, 113, 128, 163, etc. Similarly, the protagonist loves the “rightness” (qd#x#) and truth (tm#a#) of YHWH and His Torah, while he hates all that is opposite—viz., the “falseness” (rq#v#) of the wicked, cf. vv. 29, 69, 78, 86, 104, 118, 128, 163. Another key contrast is between remembering the covenant and forgetting it. This is expressed primarily by the verb jk^v* (“forget”): the wicked forget (i.e., neglect and violate) the Torah of YHWH, while the righteous do not—cf. vv. 16, 61, 83, 93, 109, 139, 141, 153, 176; cf. also the verb rk^z` (“have/keep in mind, remember”) in vv. 49, 52, 55, while the idea of remembering is alluded to in many other verses (e.g., through the verb j^yc!, “ponder, meditate”, etc, vv. 15, 23, 27, 48, 78, 148).

Much of Psalm 119 is governing by the traditional ethical-religious motif of walking along the straight path—viz., that YHWH has laid out (in the covenant and Torah) for His people to follow. There are many such references, occurring in virtually every stanza, beginning with the initial beatitude in verse 1 (cp. Ps 1:1), where the key noun Er#D# (“path”, i.e., on which one treads) and the verb El^h* (“walk”) are both used. The noun Er#D# occurs 13 times in the Psalm, and is used (more or less interchangeably) with jr^a) (“pathway”, vv. 9, 15, 101, 104, 128); there are various other related terms and allusions as well.

The imagery is sustained over the length of most of the Psalm, utilizing a range of traditional metaphors, including the idea of going straight or having one’s feet set firmly (on the path)—i.e., so that one does not trip—and of being ever guided rightly, so that one stays on the path. This theme of guidance is expressed a number of ways, as, for example, with the idea of bending/turning (vb hf*n`) so as to remain on the right path (vv. 36, 112); there is also the famous reference in v. 105 to YHWH lighting up the path so that one can see it clearly (cf. also v. 130). The verb hf*n` can also be used in the negative sense of bending/turning away from the path (vv. 36, 51, 157), part of a broader motif of going astray—i.e., straying from the path, or going down other false side-paths. This key image is expressed by a number of terms and phrases, including the verb hg`v* (vv. 10, 21, 118). There are other dangers on the path, such as traps/snares set by the wicked (e.g., vv. 61, 85, 110); in addition, there are evil ‘side-paths’ (vv. 101, 104), and obstacles over which one might trip or stumble (vv. 133, 165, and cf. the context of vv. 105ff). The many references and allusions to attacks by the wicked should probably be understood within this framework of imagery—that is, of the wicked laying in wait along the path, looking for the opportunity to ambush and attack (cf. verse 95) the righteous.

It is clear from verse 1 that the “path” on which the protagonist walks is identified with the Torah. Actually, the path-image has various aspects of significance in relation to the Torah: (1) the Torah is the path, but (2) it is also the goal of the path, and, in addition (3) it also is the means for keeping one on the path. All three of these aspects are utilized, at numerous points, throughout the Psalm. Ultimately, however, remaining on the path, and thus walking straight and firmly upon it, means faithfully observing the precepts and regulations, etc., of the Torah. This ethical-religious dimension of Israelite covenant-loyalty is expressed primarily by two nearly-synonymous verbs:

This is thoroughly traditional terminology, found throughout the Scriptures, with a special emphasis in the Wisdom-tradition.

The term Torah is a simplified transliteration in English of the Hebrew hr*oT (tôrâ), which occurs in verse 1, and then 24 more times throughout the Psalm (vv. 18, 29, 34, 44, 51, 53, 55, 61, 70, 72, 77, 85, 92, 97, 109, 113, 126, 136, 142, 150, 153, 163, 165, 174). It is perhaps best translated “instruction”, denoting the direction and guidance (vb hr*y`) given by YHWH for His people, instructing them on what they must do (according to the covenant), and how they should conduct themselves. Collectively, the Torah is included under the broader reference to YHWH’s word. In the Psalm, the nouns rb*D* (“word, thing spoken”) and hr*m=a! (“saying, thing said”) are used, more or less interchangeably, with little or no difference in meaning, occurring both in the singular and the plural. The precepts and regulations, etc, of the Torah are certainly included among YHWH’s “sayings”, and are thus part of His word, but His word is not limited to the Torah. The noun rb*D* occurs 24 times in the Psalm (vv. 9, 16-17, 25, 28, 42-43, 49, 57, 65, 74, 81, 89, 101, 105, 107, 114, 130, 139, 147, 160, 161, 169), and hr*m=a! 19 times (vv. 11, 38, 41, 50, 58, 67, 76, 82, 103, 116, 123, 133, 140, 148, 154, 158, 162, 170, 172).

In addition, there seven other nouns used regularly throughout the Psalm to designate the specific words/sayings of YHWH in the Torah. They can be grouped as five distinct terms, which bring out specific attributes and characteristics, as well as distinct nuances of meaning. These have been discussed throughout the notes, and will be summarized here. For the most part, they occur in the plural, usually with a second person suffix (“your”) referring to YHWH. In virtually every stanza of the Psalm, one finds most (or all) of these terms used.

    • hd*u@ (“witness”), vv. 2, 22, 24, 46, 59, 79, 95, 119, 125, 138, 146, 152, 167-168; the related noun tWdu@ is also used, with no real difference in meaning, vv. 14, 31, 36, 88, 99, 111, 129, 144, 157. In this context, the plural denotes “things witnessed to”, i.e., by the parties to the covenant. This refers to the Torah regulations, etc, as representing the terms of the covenant, having been solemnly witnessed to by both God and the Israelite people.
    • dWQP!, vv. 4, 15, 27, 40, 45, 56, 63, 69, 78, 87, 93-94, 100, 104, 110, 128, 134, 141, 159, 168, 173. The noun dWQP!, like the root dqp as a whole, can be difficult to translate, with much depending upon the context. The basic denotation is of something that a person is required/obligated to “take care of” (i.e., deal with, attend to). In the context of the covenant, the plural here refers to the duties in the Torah that the people are required to carry out. The plural would well be translated as “required duties”, but, for poetic concision, I have translated the suffixed plural regularly as “your charges” —viz., things that YHWH has charged the people to do.
    • hw`x=m! (“command”), vv. 6, 10, 19, 21, 32, 35, 47-48, 60, 66, 73, 86, 96, 98, 115, 127, 131, 143, 151, 166, 172, 176. This refers to the Torah regulations, etc, as things which YHWH as ordered or commanded (vb hw`x*) His people to do.
    • fP*v=m!, vv. 7, 13, 20, 30, 39, 43, 52, 62, 75, 84, 91, 102, 106, 108, 120-121, 132, 137, 149, 156, 160, 164, 175. The noun fP*v=m! is often translated “judgment”, but, in the context of the Torah, the plural is better rendered as “just (ruling)s”. That is, the Torah precepts and regulations, etc, represent decisions and determinations (i.e., rulings) made by YHWH in His role as Sovereign (King and Judge). The covenant is an agreement made between a subordinate (Israel) and a superior (YHWH).
    • qj), vv. 5, 8, 12, 23, 26, 33, 48, 54, 64, 68, 71, 80, 83, 112, 117-118, 124, 135, 145, 155, 171; the related noun hQ*j% is also used (with no difference in meaning) in v. 16. This term signifies an authoritative decision or decree that has been inscribed (or engraved). Like the noun fP*v=m! (above) it alludes to the Kingship of YHWH and His Sovereign authority. It also suggests the binding power of His decrees, with the implication that the authority of the covenant (and its terms, the Torah) will endure far into the distant future (<l*oul=).

A Final Note:

Christian Interpretation and Application of Ps 119

For Christians, it may be difficult to appreciate the heavy emphasis on Torah-observance in Psalm 119; this specific religious dimension of the Psalm also creates certain barriers for interpretation and application. Protestant readers are likely to focus on the repeated references to the word (rb*D*/hr*m=a!) of God, and to then interpret the Psalm from a sola Scriptura standpoint. Verses 11 and 105, for example, are often read in this way, being perhaps the two most frequently memorized verses of the Psalm.

However, such a Protestant reading of the Psalm, as emphasizing the need to devote oneself to the Scriptures, essentially obscures covenantal orientation of the work. The “path” on which the protagonist is walking must be understood in terms of the covenant established between YHWH and His people (Israel). Walking firmly on this path of God means faithfulness to the covenant, with the precepts, regulations, and required duties of the Torah representing the terms of the covenant (cf. the discussion above).

A more fruitful line of interpretation for Christians is to apply this covenant-language, and its manner of expression, in relation to the new covenant. In place of the Torah regulations, the terms of the new covenant, for believers in Christ, are now realized through trust in Jesus, which leads to our union with him and the abiding presence of the Spirit. The external witness (cf. on hd*u@ above) of the old covenant (in the Torah), is now experienced as an internal witness through the Spirit (cf. John 15:26; Rom 8:16; Heb 10:15; 1 Jn 5:6-7).  As Paul frames the matter, in 2 Cor 3:6ff, the decrees of the old covenant, originally inscribed in stone (cf. on the noun qj) above), have been replaced by the writing of the Spirit in the heart of the believer. Insofar as one walks about in the Spirit, being guided and directed by the Spirit (recall the literal meaning of the word hr*oT noted above), the Law of God is fulfilled, without recourse to, or dependence upon, a written code. For this new Christian application of the path-walking idiom, see esp. Gal 5:16ff; Rom 8:4; 1 Jn 1:6-7.

All the “commands” (cf. above on the term hw`x=m!) of the Torah are now encompassed under a single command—that is, the so-called ‘love-command’, the command to love (Jn 13:34-35, etc; Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:13-14; James 2:8; cf. Mark 12:30-31 par). Actually, this is presented as a dual-command, particularly within the Johannine tradition: (i) to trust in Jesus (as the Messiah and Son of God), and (ii) to show love to other believers, following the example of Jesus himself; cf. 1 John 3:23, and throughout the letter of 1 John. In the Johannine Gospel, the command to trust in Jesus is expressed in the traditional language of guarding and keeping watch over his word (8:51ff; 14:15, 21ff; 15:10, 20; and cf. 1 Jn 2:3-5; 3:22ff; 5:3). This is the very language used throughout Psalm 119 (cf. on the corresponding verbs rm^v* and rx^n` above). In the Johannine message (and its theology), the “word” (lo/go$, rh=ma) of Jesus refers primarily to the truth regarding his self-identity—viz., as the Son of God sent from heaven by God the Father, and all that this entails. Of course, this same word also encompasses the second aspect of the dual-command: the directive he has given, to show love to fellow believers, according to his own example.

The use of the term “command”, in this regard, is not especially accurate. The Greek word e)ntolh/, particularly as it is used in the Johannine writings, is better translated as “duty” —that is a duty placed upon believers, which they/we are obligated to fulfill. This corresponds precisely with the Hebrew term dWQP! as it is used in the Psalm (cf. above).

Thus, there is a new covenant corollary to nearly every component of the covenant-idiom utilized in Psalm 119. The Christian reader can—and should—interpret and apply the Psalm along these lines. Such an interpretation, of course, must be viewed as secondary, and is not to serve as a substitute for careful exegetical and poetic study of the composition. For, as with every piece of Scripture, the text must be understood and explained, first and foremost, in its original grammatical and historical-cultural context.

Notes on Prayer: Thy Kingdom Come (Heb 12:28; 2 Pet 2:11; James 2:5)

“May your Kingdom come!”
e)lqe/tw h( basilei/a sou

Having now explored all of the key Kingdom-passages in the Synoptic Gospels and Pauline Letters, it remains to examine the most relevant references in the remainder of the New Testament.

Hebrews 12:28

“Therefore, receiving alongside an unshakable Kingdom, we should hold (to the) favor (of God), through which we might perform service in a well-pleasing (manner) to God, with good reverence and fear” (12:28)

This is the main reference to the Kingdom of God in Hebrews. It builds upon the common theme, examined in prior studies, regarding believers in Christ as the ones who will inherit (and enter) the Kingdom. Here, the verb lamba/nw is used, to express the idea of believers receiving the Kingdom (i.e., as an inheritance). Actually, it is the compound verb paralamba/nw (“receive alongside”) that is used; the verb often carries a reflexive sense—i.e., take/receive to oneself. This implies something that comes into a person’s possession (such as an inheritance). A present participle is used, which, in the eschatological context of the passage, suggests an impending event—viz., something that is in the process of happening, or is about to take place.

The Kingdom is characterized as “unshakable” (without shaking, adj. a)sa/leuto$). This refers to the coming end-time Judgment, described in vv. 25-27, when God will shake (vb saleu/w) the entire world—everything in both heaven and earth. This shaking may be seen as a ‘sifting’ process, tied to traditional motif of the end-time Judgment as the harvest that occurs at the end of the Age, involving the separating out of the righteous (i.e., believers) from the wicked. While the created cosmos can be shaken, God’s own Kingdom cannot be, since it represents an extension of God Himself—His attributes and character, His presence and power. In the previous study, we examined Paul’s effective identification of the Kingdom of God with the Spirit of God.

This “unshakable” quality of the Kingdom also alludes to the end-time salvation of believers—those who will be saved and protected (by God) from the great Judgment, due to their trust in Christ and their enduring faithfulness (during the end-time period of distress). After passing safely through the Judgment, believers then receive the Kingdom—both inheriting and entering it. The faithfulness of believers in the end-time is reflected by the purpose clause in v. 28: (i.e., so that) “we might perform service (vb latreu/w)…to God”. This refers both to the mission of believers (in proclaiming the Gospel) and to the righteousness/holiness that must characterize our daily life and conduct. The author of Hebrews utilizes traditional Greek religious terminology, by describing this service to God as being performed in a manner that is “well-pleasing” (adv. eu)are/stw$) to Him, done with proper reverence/fear toward Him. The last point is expressed by a pair of nouns—eu)la/beia and de/o$; these both denote the proper fear with which one approaches what is holy and Divine. This “fear” must be understood in the context of the overall exhortation to believers in chapter 12 (see below).

Our ability to remain faithful and perform this service to God is the result of the favor (or ‘grace’, xa/ri$) that He Himself has shown to us. We must “hold on” firmly to this, during the end-time period of distress. Indeed, a sense of eschatological warning pervades the chapter, as it does in much of early Christian ethical instruction and exhortation. If we wish to realize our salvation, and thus escape the coming Judgment, we must remain faithful to our identity as believers—the holy/chosen people of God (cf. the note on 1 Peter 2:9 below).

The exhortation (and warning) begins in verses 1-2, which the author then expounds in vv. 3-17, utilizing a central Scripture citation (vv. 5-6) along with other illustrative references (vv. 18-25). The implicit theme of holiness comes into the fore in verse 18, drawing upon the tradition of the Sinai theophany (Exod 19-20, etc), and the manifest presence of God as a blazing fire. The same image informs the concluding exhortation in v. 28, and closes the section on a most dramatic note, explaining the reason why a holy/devout fear of God is necessary: “…for indeed our God (is) a consuming fire!” (cf. Deut 4:24).

It is noteworthy that the Kingdom-reference at the close of chap. 12 is matched by the reference to the exalted Christ as King in the opening (v. 2). The implication is that the Kingdom that believers will receive is tied to the position of Jesus Christ on his (Divine) throne, in his position at the right-hand of God the Father. This, of course, represents a traditional expression of the early Christian exaltation Christology. Jesus’ exaltation, inheriting the ruling seat of the Kingdom, precedes (and leads to) the entry of believers into the Kingdom. Indeed, our inheritance of the Kingdom is dependent upon the Kingship of Christ.

This aspect of the Kingdom-theme was introduced by the author at the beginning of his work, in chapter 1. The ‘prologue’ concludes (vv. 3-4) with this same royal imagery (and exaltation Christology), and is then followed by the catena (chain) of Scripture references in vv. 5-14. This catena begins and ends with the two most prominent Messianic Scriptures, applied to the Kingship of Jesus and his identity as the Davidic (royal) Messiah—Psalm 2:7 (v. 5a, see also 5:5), along with 2 Sam 7:14 (v. 5b), and 110:1 (v. 13, and note the further reference to Ps 110:4 in chap. 7). Actually, all of the cited Scriptures refer or allude in some way to the Kingship of Christ, but the theme is stated explicitly in vv. 8-9 (citing Psalm 45:6-7).

2 Peter 1:11

The opening section of 2 Peter (1:3-11) contains an exhortation to believers that is comparable, in certain respects, to that of Hebrews 12, though expressed in a very different style and with different terminology. The basic message, however, is much the same—regarding the need for believers to live up to their/our identity as the chosen people of God (vv. 3-4, 10), and to remain faithful (vv. 5-9) during the end-time period of distress (see chap. 2) that precedes the coming Judgment (3:1-13). This eschatological emphasis is quite clear already in chapter 1, as Peter (or the author) refers to the imminent (v. 14) “coming along” (parousi/a) of the exalted Jesus from heaven (v. 16).

The purpose of the exhortation (with its implicit warning) is stated directly in the concluding verse 11:

“For so it shall be supplied richly to you, the way into the eternal [ai)w/nio$] Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Yeshua (the) Anointed.”

This is another example of the specific motif of entering (noun ei&sodo$, “way into”) the Kingdom. The way into the Kingdom is supplied by God—the passive of the verb here being an instance of the so-called “Divine passive” (passivum divinum), with God as the implied actor. The verb used is the relatively rare compound e)pixorhge/w, which can be extremely difficult to translate, as it represents a highly idiomatic use of technical terminology. The base verb (xorhge/w) refers to the leader (vb h(ge/omai) of a chorus (xoro/$), who provides/supplies it for a particular occasion; the verb came to be used in a much more general sense (i.e., “supply, furnish”), often with the connotation that the supplying is done lavishly (or, at one’s own expense). The compound form, with the prefixed preposition e)pi/ only enhances this connotation—i.e., supply fully or abundantly—an emphasis that is further reinforced here by the adverb plousi/w$ (“richly”).

God has thus richly and abundantly provided the way for believers into the Kingdom. This alludes to the same idea—viz., of the favor (xa/ri$) shown to us by God—expressed in Heb 12:28 (cf. above). We might have expected a present (or even past) tense of the verb, since the “way” into the Kingdom could be understood in terms of the Gospel and our (current) trust in Jesus. However, the emphasis here is eschatological, focusing on salvation in terms of being saved/rescued from the coming Judgment; thus the verb is in the future tense—God will supply us richly with the way into the Kingdom. The “richness” of this treatment is in accordance with the royal status of believers—as those who belong to the Kingdom, and who will enter and inherit it, so long as they/we remain faithful to the end.

This identity of believers is expressed, more famously, in a different Petrine passage: 1 Peter 2:1-11. Again, we have an exhortation to believers with a strong eschatological emphasis (cf. already in the exordium, 1:3-12, and following [vv. 13ff]). The motif of performing holy service (i.e., as priests) to God (Heb 12:28) also occurs here (vv. 5ff), expressed even more pointedly through the idiom of Israelite religious tradition. The thematically related Scriptures of Isa 28:16 and Psalm 118:22 (also Isa 8:14), interpreted Messianically, identifying Jesus Christ as the chosen ‘cornerstone’ (vv. 6-8), are blended together with the image of the Temple (as the house of God). This is done by identifying believers in Christ as the “stones” that comprise this “spiritual house” (v. 5). While Jesus is the supporting “corner-stone”, we are all (as believers) stones in this house—a “house” which one might further identify with the Kingdom of God itself. Such an identification is more or less confirmed (though with limited emphasis) by the declaration in verse 9:

“But you are a lineage gathered out [i.e. chosen], a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people made into (a possession) around (God)…”

The initial phrase, including the epithet “royal/kingly [basi/leo$] priesthood”, represents an abbreviated quotation from Exodus 19:6:

“And you shall be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation…”

The royal and priestly aspects of being God’s chosen people (i.e., believers, within the New Covenant) are combined together. From this we may infer that the “spiritual house”, while representing a spiritual ‘Temple’ in which believers serve as ‘priests’, is also a royal building, a King’s ‘Palace’, if your will. It serves here as an implicit symbol of the Kingdom of God, and of our place (as believers) in this Kingdom.

James 2:5

The final Kingdom-reference to examine here, however briefly, is James 2:5. Here the exhortation given to believers takes the form of practical ethical instruction that is very close in tenor to Jesus’ teaching in the Synoptic Gospels. The thrust of the teaching here is that believers should show no favor or partially to someone because they happen to be rich and prominent (v. 1). Indeed, this goes fundamentally against our identity as believers, since many (if not most) believers are rather poor and lowly people (in the eyes of the world). If anything, we should be showing special attention (and favor) to the poor, rather than to the rich. While believers may poor in worldly/human terms, we are rich in God’s eyes, as ones belonging to His Kingdom, and being called to inherit it:

“Hear (me), my (be)loved brothers: Did not God gather out th(ose) poor in (the) world to be rich in trust, and (as one)s receiving the Kingdom as (their) lot, which He promised to the (one)s loving Him?” (v. 5)

On care for the poor and lowly as Kingdom-characteristic of believers, see the earlier study on the sayings and parables in Matthew 18-19.

This love that we, as believers, show to others, is expressed in verse 8 as part of the “love-command” tradition among early Christians—a tradition that certainly goes back to the teaching of Jesus (Mark 12:28-34 par, etc). It is especially prominent in the Johannine writings, presented as a component of the two-fold duty (e)ntolh/) that is required of all believers (1 Jn 3:23-24), and which Jesus himself introduced to his disciples (Jn 13:34-35; 15:12-13ff; 1 Jn 3:11ff; 2 Jn 5-6). This “love-command” is also found in Paul’s writings (see esp. Gal 5:6, 13-14 and Rom 13:8-10), and here in James, where it is called the “royal [basi/leo$] law”, implying that it is the law of the Kingdom:

“If, then, you would fulfill (the) royal law, according to the Writing— ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’ —you do well” (v. 8)

In this regard, the teaching preserved in James is comparable to Jesus’ teaching on the Kingdom in the Gospels (esp. the Gospel of Matthew).

Notes on Prayer: Thy Kingdom Come (Matthew 24-25)

“May your Kingdom come!”
e)lqe/tw h( basilei/a sou

The final three Kingdom-parables in the Gospel of Matthew occur in chapter 25. Apart from the Passion Narrative (chaps. 26-27), with its traditional theme of Jesus as the royal Messiah (“Son of David”, “King of the Jews”), these are the last Kingdom-references of note in the Matthean Gospel. An examination of them will bring to a close our analysis of the theme of the Kingdom of God in Matthew.

Matthew 24-25

The parables in chapter 25 cannot be separated from their literary context of the ‘Eschatological Discourse’. Like many of the Matthean Discourses, this one represents a distinctive development and expansion of traditional material (viz., the Synoptic Discourse of Mark 13 par). I have already discussed the Matthean version of the Discourse in an earlier article, and here will focus specifically upon the parables in chap. 25, as they clearly represent a Matthean addition that is not found in either the Markan or Lukan (21:5-36) version.

How does the Discourse, as a whole, relate to the Kingdom-theme as it has been developed in the Gospel of Matthew? In terms of the preceding three chapters (21-23, see the previous study), one might note three interpretive strands:

    • The coming of Jesus (into Jerusalem) as the Davidic Messiah anticipates the impending end-time Judgment. How people respond to Jesus (and his identity as the Messiah) marks whether they belong to the Kingdom, and are worthy of entering/inheriting it—viz., that they will pass through the Judgment.
    • This represents a transfer of inheritance: those who might have belonged to the Kingdom (“sons of the Kingdom”), based on their religious-cultural heritage (i.e., the Israelite/Jewish people), will not necessarily inherit the Kingdom—only believers, those who trust in Jesus as his faithful disciples, will inherit it, as the true “sons of the Kingdom”.
    • As the Passion Narrative makes clear, the coming Judgment, like the coming of the Kingdom itself, entails a certain process, and an eschatological period of time. This period begins with Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (and his subsequent suffering and death), and then ends with his return to earth from heaven. In between, there is Jesus’ resurrection/exaltation, and the work of the first believers (disciples) who continue his ministry—viz., proclamation of the Kingdom (i.e., the Gospel), and all that accompanies this proclamation.

The eschatological teaching of Jesus collected (and arranged) in the Discourse provides a framework for these thematic strands. The theme of judgment upon the land (and people) of Israel, developed throughout the parables and illustrations of chaps. 21-23, and reaching its climax in the judgment-declaration of 23:37-39, finds expression in the Discourse. We see this, first, by the setting of the Discourse—Jesus’ prophetic announcement of the Temple’s destruction (vv. 1-2)—and then by what is announced in vv. 15-28 (Mk 13:14-23). The first three sections of the Discourse describe, from different vantage points, the end-time period of distress (qli/yi$) that is coming upon the world. The initial section (vv. 4-8) presents it from the general vantage point of the nations (i.e., humankind) as a whole; the second section (vv. 9-14) focuses on the experience of disciples/believers, particularly the suffering and persecution they will endure during their mission; finally, the third section (vv. 15-28) presents the distress that is coming on Jerusalem and Judea.

It is significant that only in Matthew’s version is the early Christian mission defined specifically in terms of the proclamation of the Kingdom; indeed, the Kingdom-theme effectively governs the entire end-time period: “And this good message of the Kingdom will be proclaimed in (the) whole of the inhabited (world), as a witness for all the nations, and then the completion [i.e., end, te/lo$] will come” (v. 14).

Beginning with verse 29, the focus of the Discourse shifts to the coming of the “Son of Man” —that is, the exalted Jesus, the Messiah—from heaven. As if to bring out this emphasis, the Matthean author includes some “Son of Man” sayings, “Q” material that the Gospel of Luke records in a different location (cf. my recent studies on the “Q” Son of Man sayings). The Synoptic Discourse closes with an illustration on the Son’s coming, as Jesus exhorts his disciples to be alert and watchful for this impending event (Mk 13:33-37). This is the portion that is particularly developed and expanded by the Matthean author—first, by the inclusion of the “Q” material in vv. 37-43f; second, by an expansion/adaptation of the Synoptic illustration (vv. 45-51), presenting the Judgment-motif in a more vivid and graphic manner; then, finally, by the three parables of chapter 25.

Let us briefly examine each of these three parables.

25:1-13

It should be pointed out that these are unquestionably Kingdom-parables. This is clear enough from the way in which the first parable is introduced—a qualification that effectively applies to all three parables:

“Then (it is that) the kingdom of the heavens shall be likened to ten virgins, those who, (hav)ing taken their own lamps, went out for a meeting with the bridegroom.” (v. 1)

The adverbial particle to/te (“then”) has temporal significance, indicating a specific time—namely, that of the coming (parousi/a, 24:3) of the exalted Jesus (“the Son of Man”) to earth. In other words, these parables serve as expository illustrations of that time.

The earlier Kingdom parable in 22:1-14 (cf. the discussion in the previous study) utilized the similar motif of a wedding celebration, in which the bridegroom was the king’s son—that is, specifically a royal figure. Clearly, in the Gospel context, this refers to Jesus as the royal (Davidic) Messiah, and the Son of God (with God the Father as King); he is the Son who will inherit the Father’s Kingdom. Almost certainly, the Matthean author understood the same associations implicitly here.

The point of contrast established and illustrated in that earlier parable involved, primarily, whether or not a person trusted in Jesus, so as to become his disciple. However, in vv. 11-13f, a secondary theme was introduced—namely, a contrast between the true and false disciple. It is this particular point of contrast that is illustrated here in the Virgins parable. The “thoughtful” (fro/nimo$) virgins represent the faithful (i.e., true) disciples, whose faithfulness is indicated by the fact that they were diligent and prepared for the bridegroom’s coming (even in the middle of the night). By contrast, the ‘foolish’ (mwro/$) ones represent the faithless (false) disciples, who are negligent and unprepared.

25:14-30

As noted above, the overarching rubric of verse 1a implies that this second parable is also a Kingdom-parable. Certainly, it is comparable to other such parables in the Gospel, with the central character of the wealthy estate-owner, etc. Moreover, the Lukan ‘parallel’ in 19:12-27 is specifically meant to illustrate the Kingdom of God and its coming (v. 11). It is quite clear that the figure of the young nobleman, who traveled away to a far-off region in order “to receive a kingdom for himself”, and who then returns, is meant to depict the death, exaltation, and subsequent return of Jesus. The context of the Matthean parable suggests a similar point of reference. Certainly, the return of the estate owner (v. 19) is to be understood as a reference to second coming (parousia) of Christ.

As in the Virgins parable, there is here a contrast between the true/faithful and false/unfaithful disciple. The main difference is that there are three characters involved, entailing two figures who represent the faithful disciple—one who was entrusted with more, and one who was entrusted with somewhat less. The thrust of this distinction is that faithfulness is unrelated to a person’s individual gifts and (ministerial) responsibilities. Every disciple must act in a faithful and trustworthy manner. Similarly, the false disciple acts in an unfaithful manner, regardless of the gifts and responsibilities involved.

25:31-46

The final parable is less of a parable (properly speaking), than a visionary depiction of the Last Judgment. It depicts the moment anticipated throughout the Kingdom teachings and illustrations—namely, the moment when the exalted Jesus (here called “the Son of Man”) inherits his Kingdom and sits down upon his seat of rule (throne). The initial statement in verse 31, taken out of the Matthean literary context, could properly refer to Jesus’ exaltation (to God’s right hand in heaven), rather than to his future return. Indeed, the vision, in its original form, may have had this point of reference (compare the Son of Man saying in Mk 14:62 par, esp. the Lukan version [22:69, cf. Acts 7:55-56]). However, in the context of the Eschatological Discourse, the “coming of the Son of Man” at the time of the Judgment, can only refer to the second coming (parousia) of Jesus.

Again, the Judgment involves a distinctive contrast between the true and false disciple. It is framed according to the the traditional Prophetic-eschatological motif of the  Judgment of the Nations—when all of the nations are judged (collectively) by God. The exalted Christ, functioning as God’s anointed (royal) representative, presides over the Judgment.

What is the contrast, and how is it manifested? It involves whether (or not) one regularly cares for the needs of other disciples, especially in times of suffering, weakness, and vulnerability. The contrastive illustration would not necessarily exclude charitable/merciful acts toward other human beings (generally), but the specific point of reference here is the care shown toward other disciples. The designation of the disciple as “these (who are) my brothers, (even) the least (of them)” echoes Jesus’ earlier use of little children to symbolize the faithful disciple (18:1-4ff; 19:13-15; cf. also 21:15-16). Those references in chaps. 18-19 also emphasized the need for the true disciple, as one who belongs to the Kingdom, to care for others who belong to the Kingdom (i.e., other disciples); cf. the discussion in the earlier study.

In many ways, this Matthean emphasis resembles the fundamental Johannine teaching—viz., of the believer’s duty (e)ntolh/) to show love toward other believers (Jn 13:31-35, etc). Fulfillment of this duty is required of all believers, and is a mark that distinguishes the true believer from the false (cf. throughout First John, esp. 2:7-11ff; 3:10-24; 4:7-5:4a). This is a reflex of the early Christian “love command” tradition (Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:6, 13-14; James 2:8-13, etc), which itself goes back to the core teachings of Jesus to his disciples (cf. Mark 12:31ff par). In the Sermon on the Mount, such teaching is extended, so that the faithful disciple will show love even to one’s enemies (5:43-47).

In the next study, we will turn our attention to how the Kingdom of God (and its coming) was understood by early Christians, outside of the Gospel Tradition. We will begin with several passages from the Letters of Paul.

June 28: 1 John 5:1-4

1 John 5:1-4a

These verses represent the conclusion of the division 4:7-5:4a, which, like the central division 2:28-3:24, has the duty (e)ntolh/) of love as its focus—using this e)ntolh/ to distinguish the true believer (viz., the one born of God as His offspring) from the false. As we have discussed, there actually two aspects, or components, to the great e)ntolh/—trust in Jesus (as the Messiah and Son of God), and love for other believers (following Jesus’ own example). These two aspects go hand-in-hand and really cannot be separated. Their interconnectedness has been made clear by the author throughout, and, most notably, here in 4:7-5:4a. I have already pointed out the formal parallel between the wording in 4:7 and 5:1:

    • “every(one) loving has come to be (born) of God” [4:7]
      pa=$ o( a)gapw=n e)k tou= qeou= gege/nnhtai
    • “every(one) trusting that Yeshua is the Anointed has come to be (born) of God” [5:1]
      pa=$ o( pisteu/wn…e)k tou= qeou= gege/nnhtai

Essentially these two statements bracket the section as a whole, emphasizing both components of the two-fold duty that is required of believers—trust and love.

However 5:1 is just the beginning of a complex unit—spanning 5:1-4a (or 5:1-5)—that both summarizes the thought of the section and provides a transition to the next (5:4b-12). Verses 4b-5 are, in fact, transitional, and can reasonably be connected both with what precedes and what follows. The thematic and formal chiastic structure of 5:1-5 has been illustrated by von Wahlde in his Commentary (p. 172f). Note the following schematic:

    • “Every(one) trusting that Yeshua is the Anointed (v. 1a)
      • has come to be (born) of God… (vv. 1b-2a)
        • when we would love God and do His e)ntolai/. (v. 2b)
          • For this is the love of God— (v. 3a)
        • that we should watch over His e)ntolai/… (v. 3b)
      • every(thing) having come to be (born) of God… (v. 4-5a)
    • the (one) trusting that Yeshua is the Son of God (v. 5b)

To love God (the central theme) means “keeping watch over” (vb thre/w) the two-fold duty (e)ntolh/, plur. e)ntolai/) of trust and love. The aspect of trust is primary, since it precedes our birth as the offspring/children of God. Once we have come to be born, it is love that becomes primary. This dynamic is indicated by the outer and inner layers of vv. 1-5, respectively. The two aspects, however, remain interrelated; note, for example, how this is expressed in verse 1:

“Every(one) trusting that Yeshua is the Anointed has come to be (born) of God; and, every(one) loving the (One hav)ing caused (him) to be (born), [also] loves the (one) having come to be (born) out of Him.”

Consider the parallelism here of the trust and love aspects:

    • “every(one) trusting that Yeshua is the Anointed
      • has come to be (born) of God
    • every(one) loving…loves
      • the (one) having come to be (born) out of Him.”

Loving God also means loving His offspring (i.e., true believers). Indeed, the one who truly loves God is His offspring; it is only natural that one who is His child, will love all the siblings— ‘brothers and sisters’ —all the other children of God. This point has already been made here in 4:20-21. The person who fails to show love toward other believers cannot love God. Indeed, loving God means loving His offspring, and thus fulfilling the duty (e)ntolh/) of love. This is expressed in verse 2:

“In this we know that we love the offspring [te/kna] of God:
when we would love God and do His e)ntolai/.”

The Johannine writings use the singular and plural of the noun e)ntolh/ interchangeably. The use of the plural (e)ntolai/) can be misleading, especially when translated as “command(ment)s”, since it suggests that a set of ethical-religious commands is in view, such as the regulations, etc, of the Torah. However, as I have repeatedly maintained, within the theological and religious worldview of the Johannine writings, there is just one e)ntolh/—viz., one duty/requirement placed on us (as believers) to fulfill. But this is a duty with two components (3:23); thus it can be viewed either as a single e)ntolh/ with two aspects, or as two e)ntolai/. Regardless of the use of the singular or plural, the meaning is the same.

If we, as believers, truly love God and fulfill our duty (e)ntolh/), then we can be sure (“know”) that we do, in fact, love our fellow believers. The love of our fellow believers follows as a natural consequence of our love of God. Again, this principle is expressed by way of the birth/offspring motif—if we love God the Father, as His children, we will also love all His other children (with whom we are related, through the Spirit). In verse 2, loving God and fulfilling the duty of trust/love seem to be presented as two separate, but related, actions; however, as verse 3 makes clear, there is really no separation—love of God is love of God’s offspring, principally because it is God’s own love that we possess:

“For this is the love of God: that we should watch over His e)ntolai/—and His e)ntolai/ are not weighing (heavy on us).”

The qualifying statement in 3c is reminiscent of Jesus’ famous words in Matthew 11:30. The ‘lightness’ here could allude to the fact that just a single (two-fold) duty (or ‘command’) is involved. From the standpoint of the Johannine theology, however, the proper explanation relates to the nature of our union with God the Father and Jesus the Son. Our fulfillment of the e)ntolh/ (or e)ntolai/) is enabled by the abiding presence of the Father and Son in us (through the Spirit). God’s own love abides in us, and thus we are able to love, as long as we remain in Him (and His love). The same is true with regard to the aspect of trust, as the author discusses in vv. 4b-12. The main point at issue, and the crux of the author’s message in 1 John, is the need for believers to remain in God, by remaining the Son—specifically, in the truth of who he is (viz., “trust”), and in his love. The “antichrist” opponents have not remained, but have departed from the truth (and from love); the same may be said for all other false believers.

In the next daily note, we will look at verse 4a (along with the following vv. 4b-5), which brings the section to a close, with a further reiteration of the birth/offspring theme.

References above marked “von Wahlde” are to Urban C. von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John. Volume 3: Commentary on the Three Johannine Letters, Eerdmans Critical Commentary (2010).
See also the same author’s fine study on the use of e)ntolh/ in the Johannine writings, The Johannine Commandments: 1 John and the Struggle for the Johannine Tradition (Paulist Press: 1990).

June 27: 1 John 4:7, continued

1 John 4:7, continued

As discussed in the previous note, verse 7 can be divided into four component phrases or clauses:

    • “we should/must love each other”
    • “(in) that love is of God”
    • “every(one) loving has come to be (born) of God”
    • “(everyone loving) knows God”

The first two components, which comprise an exhortation to demonstrate love, were examined in the previous note, along with the author’s development of the themes throughout the section (4:7-5:4a). Here, we will do the same with the final two components.

3. “every(one) loving has come to be (born) of God” (pa=$ o( a)gapw=n e)k tou= qeou= gege/nnhtai)

There are two fundamental aspects of a person’s identity as a true believer in Christ, which the author of 1 John emphasizes, utilizing the Johannine key verbs genna/w (“come to be [born]”) and me/nw (“remain”). First, the believer comes to be born as the “offspring” (te/knon) of God; then, as a true child of God, the believer remains in God. The child remains in God the Father by way of the Son (Jesus). This is how the Johannine theology conceives the dynamic. The believer enters into an abiding union with the Son, and through the Son, with the Father. The other offspring share the same parent-child relationship along with the Son—as the Son abides in/with the Father, so do the other children.

The birth aspect is introduced here in verse 7, and then again in 5:1; through the remainder of the section, the emphasis is on the abiding union. Both aspects, however, are clearly framed in terms of the great two-fold duty (e)ntolh/) that is required of all believers (3:23): (i) trust in Jesus Christ, and (ii) love for fellow believers, following Jesus’ own example. There is a precise formal parallelism in this regard, between the birth-statements of 4:7 and 5:1, as pointed out in the previous note:

    • “every(one) loving has come to be (born) of God” [4:7]
      pa=$ o( a)gapw=n e)k tou= qeou= gege/nnhtai
    • “every(one) trusting that Yeshua is the Anointed has come to be (born) of God” [5:1]
      pa=$ o( pisteu/wn…e)k tou= qeou= gege/nnhtai

The abiding statements, in vv. 13-16, follow the same thematic pattern, paralleling trust (v. 15) and love (v. 16). The use of the verb me/nw (“remain, abide”) was introduced in this section at verse 12, and is then expounded further, fully upon Johannine theological lines, in verses 13-14:

“In this we know that we remain [me/nomen] in Him, and He in us: (in) that He has given to us out of His Spirit.” (v. 13)

The relationship of abiding/remaining is reciprocal—viz., believers remain in the Father, and the Father remains in them—even as it is between the Son (Jesus) and the Father. Indeed, it is through our union with the Son that we have this abiding relationship with the Father. This is realized through the Spirit, as the author indicates here in verse 13. The Spirit is the manifestation of the union; much the same is stated in 3:24b, at the close of the central section of the treatise. Moreover, in 3:24a, the author declares that, only if a person fulfills the great e)ntolh/ (trust and love), will he/she remain in God (as His offspring).

This is also the message here in vv. 13-16. Both aspects—trust and love—are emphasized. First, the reciprocal abiding occurs when the believer trusts—demonstrating genuine trust in Jesus Christ as the Son of God:

“Whoever would give account as one (with us) that Yeshua is the Son of God, God remains in him, and he in God.” (v. 15)

It also occurs when the believer loves (v. 16). Here this is explained, somewhat elliptically, by a further use of the verb me/nw. God’s love remains in the believer, and so the believer must remain in His love; if this occurs, then the believer will remain in God, and God in the believer. The author could have used a similar mode of expression with regard to trust—e.g., by speaking of remaining in the truth (cf. 2 John 4ff), or by remaining in the word of truth (cf. John 8:31). The Spirit within us bears witness to this truth, a point the author alludes to in v. 14, and will develop later on in 5:5-12.

Focusing on the love aspect, as the author does here in this section, the true believer is one who fulfills the e)ntolh/ of love. Indeed, the fulfillment of this duty to show love demonstrates that the person has come to be born of God (v. 7), and abides/remains in God (v. 16). Both the birth and the abiding union are fundamental aspects of the believer’s identity as the offspring of God.

4. “and knows God” (kai\ ginw/skei)

This phrase is shorthand for “the (one) loving knows God”, being parallel with the prior phrase (see above). The second state (knowing God) follows upon the first (being born of God). This is rather clearly alluded to by Jesus in the Gospel, when he famously declares: “If one should not come to be (born) from above, he is not able to see the kingdom of God”. In the Johannine theological idiom, seeing God and knowing God are virtually identical in meaning, playing upon the dual meaning of the verb ei&dw, and upon the sight-idiom generally. Thus, a person can only know God when he/she comes to be born as His offspring. Moreover, this implies that knowledge of God (the Father) is dependent upon knowing (i.e., trusting in) the Son.

The author expounds upon this theme of knowing in vv. 13-19, beginning with the initial statement of v. 13 (see above): “In this we know that we remain in Him, and He in us…”. As noted above, the Spirit is the realization (and manifestation) of our abiding union with God, and thus relates to both our trust and love. Trust is emphasized in vv. 14-15, and love in v. 16, where the motif of knowing is again utilized: “And we have known and have trusted the love which God holds in us”. On the Divine nature/character of love, and of God as the source of our love, see the discussion in the previous note (on the second phrase of v. 7). Like the Spirit, God has given His love to us (on this Spirit/love parallel, cf. Romans 5:5). The principle is famously stated by the author in verse 19: “We love, (in) that [i.e. because] He first loved us”.

This association between knowing and loving continues in vv. 20ff. In this unit, the author applies the exposition (in vv. 7-19) to the specific situation involving the opponents. As a rhetorical device, he presents the claim of the false believer:

“If one should say, ‘I love God’, and (yet) should hate his brother, he is false [i.e. a false believer]”.

This is similar to the earlier false claim presented in 2:4:

“The (one) saying, ‘I know God’, and (yet) is not keeping (watch over) His e)ntolai/, is false, and the truth is not in him.”

The true believer is one who knows God—as, indeed, the offspring naturally know their Father. But only the person who fulfills the great dual-e)ntolh/ (presented as a plural [e)ntolai/] in 2:4) is a true believer, and can truly be said to know God.

The author continues to play on the reciprocity of the abiding relationship between child (i.e., true believer) and Father. Our love for God is manifest through our love for our fellow believers. The person who does not show love to other believers cannot possibly love God. This is the message of verse 20. The author goes so far as to call this lack of love “hate” (vb mise/w). It is somewhat surprising that the author provides no real indication of how this lack of love is demonstrated. Indeed, this is quite remarkable, given the rhetorical (and polemical) importance of the love-e)ntolh/ in his line of argument—viz., the opponents violate the e)ntolh/, and thus show themselves to be false believers, by failing to love. The only practical example he gives is in 3:17, and could suggest that the opponents may have been neglectful in caring for the physical/material needs of fellow believers. More likely, however, the author views the opponents’ very departure (from the Community of true believers, 2:19; cf. 4:1) as a fundamental lack of love, and thus a violation of the great e)ntolh/ (4:21).

In the next daily note, we will examine the conclusion to this section (5:1-4a), in which the author summarizes many of the themes and statements presented throughout the treatise. The unit begins with a birth-statement (using the genna/w + e)k idiom) parallel to that in 4:7 (see above).

 

June 26: 1 John 4:7

1 John 4:7

Most of the remaining references in 1 John, touching on the theme of the ‘birth’ of believers as the “offspring of God”, occur in 4:7-5:4a. This is a major division of the treatise, following the second “antichrist” section (4:1-6). Throughout the body of 1 John, there is an alternation between the thematic emphases of trust and love—the two aspects of the great duty (e)ntolh/) required of all believers (3:23). The focus in the “antichrist” sections (2:18-27; 4:1-6) is on trust, dealing principally with the false belief of the opponents; whereas, in 2:28-3:24 and 4:7-5:4a, the focus is primarily on love.

In some ways, the beginning of this last section (4:7) picks up on 3:10 (discussed in the two previous notes), by essentially equating “doing what is right [dikaiosu/nh]” with loving one’s fellow believers (“loving one another”). In actuality, the fundamental characteristic of “doing what is right” means fulfilling the great two-fold duty (e)ntolh/) of trust and love. This can be seen quite clearly by comparing the wording of 4:7 with that of 5:1:

    • “every(one) loving has come to be (born) of God” [4:7]
      pa=$ o( a)gapw=n e)k tou= qeou= gege/nnhtai
    • “every(one) trusting that Yeshua is the Anointed has come to be (born) of God” [5:1]
      pa=$ o( pisteu/wn…e)k tou= qeou= gege/nnhtai

Every true believer—defined as one who “has come to be (born) of God” —regularly and characteristically will fulfill the great e)ntolh/ of love and trust. Once again, the author utilizes the familiar Johannine syntax of an articular substantive participle (e.g., “the [one] loving”, “the [one] trusting”), preceded by the comprehensive adjective pa=$ (“all, every”). Every true believer will be characterized by these two actions, in fulfillment of the great e)ntolh/: (i) a genuine trust in Jesus Christ, and (ii) love for other believers, following the example of Jesus himself. The focus here in vv. 4:7ff, as it was in 3:11-18ff, is on love.

Here is verse 7 in full:

“Loved (one)s, we should love each other, (in) that [i.e. because] love is of God, and every(one) loving has come to be (born) of God and knows God.”

Each component of this statement carries great significance for the author, who ‘unpacks’ and expounds them throughout the remainder of the section (which I would divide into three units: 4:7-12, 4:13-19, and 4:20-5:4a, cf. von Wahlde, pp. 152-81).

The author begins by addressing his audience as “loved (one)s” (a)gaphtoi/), which, of course, establishes the theme of love from the start. Like the term tekni/a (“[dear] offspring [i.e. children]”) in 2:28, etc, this is much more than simply a term of endearment. It plays on the Johannine theological vocabulary, as utilized by the author, and implicitly identifies the readers/hearers of the treatise as true believers. The noun tekni/on is a diminutive of te/knon, the very term used for referencing (true) believers as the “offspring [te/kna] of God”. Similarly, the adjective a)gaphto/$ alludes to believers—true believers—as those who demonstrate love.

Verse 7 can be divided into four component phrases or clauses:

    • “we should/must love each other”
    • “(in) that love is of God”
    • “every(one) loving has come to be (born) of God”
    • “(everyone loving) knows God”

The first two components comprise the exhortation to demonstrate love, while the last two components provide encouragement and affirmation for the believer—viz., if you regularly show love, then you are a true believer, one who has been born of God and who knows God. As noted above, each of these components is effectively expounded by the author in the remainder of 4:7-5:4a. It will prove useful to work from these four components as a way of analyzing the author’s thought and message in this section.

1. “we should love each other” (a)gapw=men a)llh/lou$)

The subjunctive mood/aspect of the verb (a)gapa/w, “love”), can be variously translated according to several different nuances: “we should love each other”, “we ought to love each other”, “we must love each other”. As an aspect of the great duty (e)ntolh/) required of believers, this statement is a direct echo of Jesus’ words in Jn 13:34:

“A new e)ntolh/ I give to you: that you should love each other [a)gapa=te a)llh/lou$]…”

Jesus adds the qualifying phrase: “…just as I [have] loved you”, that is, following Jesus’ own example of demonstrating love for his disciples/believers. He restates this in 15:12, giving the ‘command’ again in v. 17. As an effective exhortation, this aspect of the e)ntolh/ is repeated throughout 1 John, and also is emphasized in 2 John (vv. 5ff).

The author gives an initial exposition in vv. 11-12, following the theological explanation in vv. 8-10 (see below).

2. “(in) that love is of God” (o%ti h( a)gaph/ e)k tou= qeou= e)stin)

This statement is an example of Johannine essential predication: Divine subject + verb of being + predicate noun/phrase. Occasionally, an attribute of God can serve as the Divine subject, as it does here:

” love [h( a)gaph/] | is [e)stin] | of God [e)k tou= qeou=]”

Love can be considered Divine since it comes “out of” (e)k, i.e. from) God Himself. Moreover, in the following verse 8, the author goes a step further, and gives the predicative statement in a different way, identifying God with love itself: “God is love” (o( qeo\$ a)gaph/ e)stin). Note the chiastic parallelism that is produced in vv. 7-8 (cf. von Wahlde, p. 152):

    • “we should love each other,
      • (in) that love is of God,
        • and every(one) loving has been (born) of God
          and knows God
        • the (one) not loving (has) not known God,
      • (in) that God is love.”

That which is of God (and comes out of Him) is Divine, and can be identified with God Himself. In vv. 9-10, the author explains further how the love which we, as believers, demonstrate has a Divine source, coming from God. This is explained two different ways: (a) by example, and (b) by abiding presence. First, we have the example: we are able to love because God has shown this love to us, principally by sending His Son to earth (in the person of Jesus) on our behalf. Verse 9 is practically a quotation from the Gospel (cf. 3:16) As a result of the Son’s mission, in which he himself demonstrated the Divine love, by laying down his life (in a sacrificial death), we as believers are able to live through him. In verse 10, this same proposition is explained in terms of the removal of sin (cf. the earlier sections of 1:5-2:2 and 3:4-9).

However, we do not love only by example, but also because of the abiding presence of God (and His love) in us. Here, again, the author utilizes an important Johannine keyword, the verb me/nw (“remain, abide”):

“…if we would love each other, (then) His love (truly) remains [me/nei] in us, and His love in us is made complete.”

The last statement (“His love in us is made complete”) is most remarkable, not least because this is another example of Johannine essential predication (see above). Again, God’s love serves as the Divine subject, but with the qualifying expression “in us”:

“His love in us | is | made complete”

In this instance, the predicate nominative is a substantive perfect (passive) participle: “(something) having been made complete” (teteleiwme/nh). The Divine love is a love made complete when it is present and active in believers—the offspring of God. That is to say, God’s love finds completion in His children.

This theme, utilizing the verb me/nw, continues in vv. 13-19, and will be touched on in the next daily note. At the same time, we will examine the final two components of verse 7, looking at how the author expounds these, as well, in the remainder of the section.

References above marked “von Wahlde” are to Urban C. von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John. Volume 3: Commentary on the Three Johannine Letters, Eerdmans Critical Commentary (2010).

June 25: 1 John 3:10 (continued)

1 John 3:10, continued

“In this it is shining out [i.e. apparent], (who are) the offspring of God and the offspring of the Diábolos: every(one) not doing what is right [dikaiosu/nh] is not (born) of God—even the (one) not loving his brother.”

In concluding these notes on 1 Jn 2:28-3:10, we must look again at the specific significance of the terms dikaiosu/nh (“right[eous]ness”) and a(marti/a (“sin”, vb a(marta/nw), in the context of the Johannine theology (as it is used here by the author of 1 John). To this end, it is important to pay attention to the closing words of 3:10 (see the previous note)—namely, the qualifying phrase “and the (one) not loving his brother” (kai\ o( mh\ a)gapw=n to\n a)delfo\n au)tou=). This phrase is clearly related to the main phrase of verse 10b, but the nature of the relationship is not readily apparent. The phrases are, however, certainly parallel, both serving to define the “offspring [te/kna] of the Devil” (that is, false believers):

    • “the (one) not doing th(at which is) right”
    • “the (one) not loving his brother”

This distinctive Johannine syntax has been discussed extensively in the prior notes. The use of a substantive verbal noun (participle) describes the characteristic behavior of a person (or group). In this case, the false believer (“offspring of the Devil”) does the opposite of the true believer (“offspring of God”). The true believer does “th(at which is) right” (h( dikaiosu/nh), while the false believer does not do this.

The force of the conjunction kai/ (“and”), joining the two phrases of v. 10b, is not entirely certain. Is it meant to show that the two phrases—and the corresponding characteristic actions—are synonymous, or that the second is in addition to the first? In the latter case, we would translate: “the (one) not doing th(at which is) right—and also the (one) not loving his brother”. Another alternative is that the act of “loving one’s brother [i.e. fellow believer]” is to be included, as a particularly important example, of what it means to “do what is right”. This line of interpretation is surely closer to the mark. However, I am convinced that, for the author of 1 John, the two phrases are essentially synonymous. That is to say, to “do that which is right” means “to love one’s brother”.

The key to a correct interpretation is the relationship of 2:28-3:10 to the following 3:11-24. One must note, in particular, the importance of the theme of love in that section, and also the emphasis on the duty (e)ntolh/) that is required of every believer, and which every true believer will fulfill. The idea of loving fellow believers dominates verses 11-18, and thus the closing phrase of verse 10 is transitional—transitioning from the righteousness/sin emphasis in 2:28-3:10 to the love/duty emphasis of 3:11-18. The emphasis in vv. 11-18 is on love, while that of vv. 19-24 is on the duty (e)ntolh/) of believers (note the repeated occurrence of the noun e)ntolh/ in vv. 22-24).

As discussed in the previous note, “doing th(at which is) right” is essentially the same as “not doing the sin”; the opposite is also true— “not doing what is right” means “doing the sin”. I have discussed the Johannine understanding of sin (a(marti/a, vb a(marta/nw) extensively in a recent series of studies. My conclusion (demonstrated in those studies) is that the Johannine writings evince a dual-layered understanding. At one level, “sin” is to be understood from a conventional standpoint, in terms of ethical-religious failures and misdeeds. However, at a second (and deeper) level, “sin” refers to a failure/refusal to trust in Jesus. Both levels of meaning are valid, but the second is primary, and represents the true meaning of sin. The same may be said of “righteousness” (“right-ness”, what is right, dikaiosu/nh). As the opposite of sin, the true meaning of “right-ness” is: to trust in Jesus as the Son of God. These distinctly Johannine theological meanings of a(marti/a and dikaiosu/nh are defined in Jn 16:8-11 (vv. 9, 10).

How does this apply to the use of the terms in 1 Jn 2:28-3:10? I would maintain that the dual-layered meaning described above absolutely applies. The conventional ethical-religious meaning of the terms is in focus in 2:28-3:10, but the deeper theological meaning is also present, and comes firmly into focus in 3:11-24. The love-reference in 3:10b marks the transition between these two aspects of meaning.

Let us consider how this relates to the broader theme of believers as the “offspring [te/kna] of God”, and to the contrast between the true and false believer (viz., “offspring of God” vs. “offspring of the Devil”). In the previous note, I mentioned how there are two aspects to this contrast: (i) essential identity, and (ii) practical manifestation. The identity of the true believer (as the offspring of God) is manifested by “doing what is right” and “not doing what is sin”. Conversely, the identity of the false believer (as the offspring of the Devil) is demonstrated by “not doing what is right” and by “doing what is sin”.

At the ethical-religious level, “sin” refers to various kinds of wrong-doing, and a failure to do what is right. Similarly, “right(eous)ness” refers to upright (moral) behavior and acts of religious devotion. The “right-ness” and the sinlessness of the Son (Jesus) is also to be reflected in the children (offspring) of God. Insofar as believers remain in the Son, they can (and will) be free from sin, and will act in a right manner, following the Son in doing what is right. This is the ethical-religious message of 2:28-3:10, and it applies to the statements in 3:4-9, in spite of the difficulty surrounding the ‘sinlessness’ claims in vv. 6 and 9.

However, at the theological level, the message is somewhat different. For, as noted above, at this level of meaning, “sin” refers to a failure/refusal to trust in Jesus, while “right(eous)ness” means the opposite—a genuine trust in Jesus as God’s Son, and that, through this trust, believers are united with the Son, so as to share in his righteousness (which is the very righteousness of God). In this regard, the false believer sins, while the true believer does what is right (and is entirely free from sin).

A related point of Johannine theology is that trust in Jesus also involves showing love for fellow believers (following Jesus’ own example). The author of 1 John views these—trust and love—as two sides of the same coin. Indeed, in verse 23, at the climactic point of this central division of his work, the author clearly defines the duty (e)ntolh/) that is required of all believers:

“And this is His e)ntolh/:
that we should trust in the name of His Son Yeshua (the) Anointed, and
(that) we should love one another,
just as he gave this e)ntolh/ to us.”

This concept of a two-fold e)ntolh/ is also found in the Gospel, expressed by Jesus in his Last Discourse to his disciples (13:31-16:33). There the trust aspect is framed in terms of being faithful to Jesus’ word(s). Yet, it is important to remember that, in the Johannine Gospel, Jesus’ teaching (“word[s]”) refers primarily to his identity as the Son. Thus, to be faithful to Jesus’ words means, fundamentally, to trust in the message of his identity as the Son of God, sent from heaven by God the Father. Such a line of interpretation is fully in keeping with the thought (and message) of the author of 1 John.

Also in common, between the Gospel and First Letter, is the use of the verb me/nw (“remain, abide”) to express the identity of the true believer, in this regard. We have seen how often this verb was used in 1 John (including key occurrences in 2:28-3:10 [2:28; 3:6, 9; cf. 2:24, 27]), and this usage continues in 3:11-24—vv. 14-15, 17, and finally climaxing in v. 24. It also features prominently in the Last Discourse, particularly in the Vine-illustration section (where it occurs 11 times, in 15:4-7, 9-10, 16). The true believer is one who remains in the Son (Jesus), demonstrating this by fulfilling both aspects of the great e)ntolh/ (trust and love). I have utilized the following simple diagram to illustrate this:

The true believer trusts in Jesus, remaining in both his word and his love. The false believer, by contrast, does not. For the author of 1 John, it is the “antichrist” opponents who are principally in view when he speaks of false believers (“offspring of the Devil”). Although they, surely, would have considered themselves genuine believers in Christ, from the standpoint of the author (and his circle) they are false believers, since they hold to an erroneous view of Jesus Christ. They have departed from the truth of Jesus’ own word, away from the truth of who he is (and what he did during his earthly mission). Moreover, by departing from the Community of true believers, they also fail to show love to believers in Christ, and thus also violate the second part of the great e)ntolh/. Whether, or to what extent, the opponents manifested this lack of love in other practical or tangible ways, is hard to determine (but note the emphasis in vv. 16-18, esp. verse 17).

In the next daily note, we will continue exploring the birth/offspring theme in 1 John, turning to examine the remaining passages where the noun te/knon (plur. te/kna, “offspring”) and the idiom genna/w + e)k (“come to be [born] of”) are used.

 

Saturday Series: 1 John 2:28-3:24

1 John 2:28-3:24

In the previous study, as in the two prior, we examined the conflict that is at the heart of both 1 and 2 John, and how it shaped the author’s treatment of the Johannine theology. The section covering 2:28-3:24 represents the central division of First John, in which the author presents, most clearly and directly, the principal theme of his work: namely, the contrast between the true and false believer. This is done through an exposition and application of a number of key Johannine principles. The primary principle expounded by the author is the idea of the two-fold duty (entol¢¡) that is required of every believer.

This key noun was used earlier, in 2:3-8, both in the plural and singular, presented as something which Jesus has given to believers, a duty placed on them, which they are obligated to fulfill. In the Gospel of John, the noun entol¢¡ is used by Jesus in two different ways. First, it refers to the duty (and mission) which God the Father gave him (the Son) to complete, when He sent him to earth—10:18; 12:49-50; 15:10b. Second, it refers to the duty (and mission) that the Son, in turn, gives to his disciples (believers)—13:34; 14:15, 21; 15:10a, 12. The two uses are clearly related, and the seeds of the dual-entol¢¡ may be glimpsed from a consideration of the duty/mission given by the Father to the Son. Two aspects of this mission may be ascertained:

    1. A directive, from the Father, regarding what the Son should say (and do), and which may be summarized as representing the word of the Father (12:49-50)
    2. The culmination of his mission is that the Son would lay down his own life, as a self-sacrifice, demonstrating the love and care he has for those (i.e., his disciples/believers) whom he holds dear (10:18; cf. 15:10)

These same two aspects are applied to the entol¢¡ that the Son (Jesus) gives to his disciples (and to all believers). This may be summarized based the teaching of Jesus in 15:4-10, and his use of the verb me/nw (“remain, abide”). Jesus instructs his disciples to remain in his word(s), and to have his word(s) remain in them (15:7; cf. 8:31); similarly, they are to remain in his love, and to have his love remain in them (15:9-10, 12; cf. 14:21). These two aspects define and explain what it means for the believer to remain in Jesus, as can be illustrated by the following simple diagram (which I have used on prior occasions):

The two-fold duty (entol¢¡) for the believer thus may be defined as:

    1. Remain rooted and faithful to Jesus’ words (i.e., teachings), which, in the Gospel relates primarily to the message regarding who Jesus is—viz., the Son sent from heaven by God the Father, and the mission he was sent to fulfill.
    2. Stay faithful to the example of Jesus in showing love (to fellow believers), being willing to lay down one’s own life for the sake of others.

In First John, this same two-fold entol¢¡ applies, as defined in 3:23:

“And this is His entol¢¡—that:

        • that we should trust in the name of His Son Yeshua (the) Anointed,
          and
        • (that) we should love each other, just as he gave (the) entol¢¡ to us.”

In some ways, the duty to show love takes priority, as is indicated by its position in the Last Discourse (13:34-35; see vv. 1, 23), and its prominence in 15:9-17 (see also the closing words of 17:26). Similarly, the aspect of love seems to have priority, both in 1 John (2:5ff, see below) and 2 John (vv. 5-6).

The duty to remain in Jesus’ words is now defined in terms of trusting in Jesus as the Son of God—that is, trusting in the message (word) of who he is, a message that goes back to Jesus’ own teaching (see this emphasis at the beginning of 1 John, 1:1-4). In 2 John, this trust-aspect of the entol¢¡ is defined by the Johannine keyword “truth” (al¢¡theia), vv. 3-4ff—that is, the truth of who Jesus is, and what he did (and said).

The Johannine principle of the dual entol¢¡, of trust (or truth) and love, was applied in 2 John to the conflict with the “antichrist” opponents (vv. 7-11), as we discussed in the earlier study. The same is true of the situation in 1 John. Indeed, the dual entol¢¡ is utilized even more comprehensively, as a structuring principle for the entire work. Note the way that the two aspects alternate as guiding thematic emphases, according to the following outline:

The “trust” sections each deal rather directly with the opponents, and their view/teaching regarding Jesus Christ. The “love” sections, at first glance, do not seem as relevant to the conflict, and yet, I would maintain that the author still has the opponents in view throughout. The contrast between the true and false believer is meant, primarily, to address the conflict surrounding the opponents. The important point to observe is that, in the author’s view, the opponents have shown themselves to be false believers, in that they violate both aspects of the great entol¢¡—they do not hold a genuine trust in Jesus, nor do they show proper love to those who are believers.

Key to the author’s rhetorical strategy is the way that he utilizes language and wording, theological principles and points of emphases, that likely would have been familiar to many, if not most, of his readers. It is quite possible that even the opponents, as Johannine Christians, would have affirmed many of the author’s statements, even if they were to interpret them in a very different way.

With this framework in place, next week we will undertake a detailed survey of the section (2:28-3:24), with an eye toward examining how the author applies the Johannine language and precepts to the conflict that is at the heart of his work.