# The Johannine Writings/Part II, Chapter II

CHAPTER II.
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
 WHAT is known as the First Epistle of John, though in reality it is not  in epistolary form at all but in that of a circular addressed to the  whole of Christendom, is to all appearances inseparably connected with  the Gospel. Often, as we read, we can hardly say whether we have the  one or the other book open before us. And in fact the matter on which  they differ from each other most clearly is one which, from another  point of view, serves to bring them together again.  __________________________________________________________________
 1 . MAIN PURPOSE: TO OPPOSE THE GNOSTICS.
 Whereas, for instance, the Gospel never says that it is opposing false  teaching within the Christian fold (except in x. 1-10: see p. 135 f.),  the Epistle says this most emphatically. But we found certain  utterances in the Gospel aimed at very definite opponents, in other  words, at the Gnostics (pp. 152-154, 160-163); and the first Epistle  likewise opposes the Gnostics. We are told (ii. 4) that the author's  opponents asserted that they knew God; and it was knowledge on which  the Gnostics prided themselves. We know further the doctrine of the  Stoics according to which the logos or rather the individual logoi were  like seeds of corn scattered throughout the world (p. 142 f.), and out  of these the things of the world arose. The Gnostics applied this idea  to themselves, and claimed that they had in their own persons the  divine seed. There is a hint of this idea in iii. 9; and in i. 8, 10 of  the Gnostics assertion that this made them sinless.
 As to Jesus, the opponents of the writer of the Epistle taught that he  was not the Christ (ii. 22). And in this again we can recognise the  claim of the Gnostics, that Jesus was only a man who for a time and in  a loose way became one with the Christ who had come down from heaven.  This is seen even more clearly in iv. 2 f.; they deny that Jesus Christ  is come in the flesh, an utterance which is aimed at the same time at  that other idea of the Gnostics--that he had merely a phantom body (pp.  150, 152). And in v. 6 that teaching of theirs is opposed, according to  which the man who suffered on the cross was not really the redeemer,  that is to say, the Christ, who had come down from heaven. The author  says here that he came, that is to say, to save mankind, not only with  water through his baptism but also with blood through his death.
 But, further, in iii. 4, 10, ii. 4 the author declares against "every  one that doeth sin" or "that keepeth not God's commandments," and by  sin he means opposition to the injunction in iii. 3, that every one  should purify himself. What he has in mind therefore is an unholy,  unbridled life. Now, it is hardly possible that this reproach, which is  made more than once and in the most varied forms, can apply to persons  other than those who are opposed in other passages throughout the  Epistle. And if this be so, the Gnostics with whom we have to deal here  are not, like many others, especially in the first decades of the  second century, people who adhered to the law of the Old Testament. We  already have to do with a more developed form of Gnosticism.  __________________________________________________________________
 2. AGREEMENT WITH GNOSTICISM.
 But it is remarkable that the man who so decisively opposes Gnosticism  agrees with it entirely on a strikingly large number of points. He also  cannot but think that there are two kingdoms very sharply opposed to  each other, the kingdom of God, and that of the world which is ruled by  the devil (ii. 16; iii. 8, 10; iv. 4-6), or the kingdom of truth and  that of lies (ii. 21) and this opposition extends to mankind as well,  the one part being from God and the other from the world, which "lieth  in the evil one," that is to say, is under the dominion of the devil  (v. 19).
 We found that there is the same kind of agreement with the Gnostics in  the Gospel (pp. 158-160). But the Epistle goes a step farther. While  the Gospel only occasionally suggests that knowledge is a valuable  thing (xvii. 3), the Epistle emphasises, in a way that a Gnostic could  not excel, that the author and his party themselves possess the  knowledge of God or of the truth (ii. 13 f., 20 f., 27; iv. 7).  Further, as to the Gnostics belief that they had in themselves the  divine "seed," the author maintains again that it is really he and  those who think with him who possess it as their own. And on this point  he ventures to make the strongest statement found in his Epistle:  "Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin" (iii. 9; v. 18). By these  he means himself and his party. And this is said by the same person who  just before (i. 8, 10) has reproached his opponents in these words: "If  we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not  in us." Here we can see how great a spell the ideas of the Gnostics  exercised upon men's minds.
 3. NATURE OF THE OPPOSITION TO GNOSTICISM.
 But we see at the same time the peculiar nature of the attack that is  made upon them. Those who opposed them claimed as their own all that  was valuable in the things the Gnostics prided themselves on, and  denied it to the Gnostics. And upon what ground? If these Gnostics  really lived the sinful kind of life they were reproached with, this  would assuredly provide a certain amount of justification for arguing  on these grounds against the truth of their teaching, on the principle  "by their fruits ye shall know them" (Mt. vii. 16). But it is much to  be feared that the opponents of the Gnostics painted their excesses in  darker colours than was just; and it would also be reasonable to ask  whether they had as much light on their own side as (in their view)  there was of shade in that of their opponents. Unfortunately, we are  obliged to say that the New Testament writers are too prone to  disparage their opponents by attacking their morals, and often they do  so in a way that is very unpleasant. In this matter the Epistles to  Timothy and Titus (which were not composed by the Apostle Paul, but in  the first half of the second century), the Epistle of Jude from the  same period, and the Second Epistle of Peter (which was not written by  the Apostle Peter any more than the first Epistle, but is the latest  book in the New Testament, and was not written until after the middle  of the second century) offend in a special degree. It is very possible  that by employing this method of warfare, they show at the same time  that they are incapable of overcoming their opponents with intellectual  weapons. The author of the Epistle to the Colossians provides an  honourable exception; and from this we can see at the same time that  Gnostic views were not always and necessarily associated with  immorality.
 As regards the First Epistle of John, we must say that in its attack on  its opponents, compared with the writings mentioned above, it has  observed a certain moderation. In form at least it is written in a calm  and measured style. We note that the author feels the necessity of  convincing his readers of the truth of what he says. Laying so great  stress on knowledge as he does, he cannot have failed to desire this.  True, his argument does not take the form of giving real proofs; he  simply gives expression to his own conviction; but the brevity and  simplicity with which he does so makes it so effective that he could  really hope to make an impression by it.
 On what then, in the last resort, does he take his stand when he  opposes the Gnostics? On the Confession of the Church. People must  confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh that is to say, has  appeared with a body consisting of flesh; otherwise they are not from  God, but are Christ's enemies, and, in denying the son, they are at the  same time denying God the Father as well (iv. 2 f.; ii. 22).  __________________________________________________________________
 4. THE EPISTLE NOT BY THE AUTHOR OF THE GOSPEL.
 After all that has been said so far, the Gospel and the first Epistle  might very well seem to have been the work of the same person; but on a  closer view it is clear that in all probability the two writings had  different authors. A number of important expressions occur only in the  Epistle which the author of the Gospel would have had opportunities of  using as well had he been familiar with them. But, above all, the  convictions to which the Epistle gives expression bring it nearer than  the Gospel to the ordinary, simple faith of the Church.
 Jesus second coming from heaven, at which he will bring eternal  happiness, in ii. 28, as amongst primitive Christians in general, is  expected to take place on a definite day as an objective event; on the  other hand, when the Evangelist speaks of a second coming of Jesus  after his death, he does so only in the sense that it will be identical  with the coming of the Holy Spirit into the hearts of believers, which  of course happens at very different times (xiv. 16-18, 26-28). The  Epistle follows the old idea closely in expecting that on that great  day in the future all men will rise from the dead and come before the  bar of judgment (iii. 2; iv. 17). In the Gospel this idea is found only  in particular passages, for example in v. 28 f., or in a clause which  is perhaps disturbing, or at least can always be dispensed with, "and I  will raise him up at the last day," vi. 40, 44, 54, 39 (on this account  perhaps added by another person, in order to make the book more  acceptable to simple believers); but his principal idea on this point  is that eternal life begins even in this world as soon as a man  believes in Jesus, and that such a one will never come into judgment  (v. 24). To the writer of the Epistle the most important redemptive act  of Jesus seems to be his death (i. 7; ii. 2; iv. 10), as was generally  thought since the time of the Apostle Paul; the Gospel gives expression  to this belief only in i. 29, 36, and perhaps in xi. 50-52; xvii. 19 b,  and assumes everywhere else that Jesus brought redemption by coming  amongst men and bringing them that true knowledge which leads to  believing in him. In the division which is made between God and the  world, the Epistle does not go so far as the Gospel. The Evangelist's  most significant train of thought is to the effect that God does not  give his gifts directly to men, but to Jesus. Jesus is the first to  bestow them upon men (xv. 9 f.); none can come to the Father save  through him (xiv. 6). There are not wanting in the Gospel, as we have  indicated already (p. 161), sayings which represent the idea, assumed  throughout the Epistle (ii. 24; iii. 24; iv. 12 f., 15 f.), that men  also can commune directly with God. But the difference is perceptible  all the same. Finally, in place of the designation "Logos," the Epistle  (i. 1) has "the Word of Life," by which one cannot perceive that Jesus  is a Being who bears the name Logos and is well known from Greek  Philosophy.
 It is indeed permissible to think that one and the same person might  have expressed himself differently in two works. But the facts of the  case are certainly more easily understood if we suppose that we have to  do with two different authors; and since, moreover, the Evangelist  cannot have been John the Apostle, it is no use insisting that the  author of the Epistle can have been no other than he.  __________________________________________________________________
 5. DATE OF COMPOSITION.
 But when was the Epistle written? Since it represents the simpler and  earlier form of the Christian faith, it is natural to think it older  than the Gospel. But the contrary may also have been the case; and  there are many other writers who have not followed the Gospel of John,  when it diverges from the original teaching, but have betaken  themselves to this. We must therefore look for another means of  deciding the question. Let me quote here ii. 12-14: "I write unto you,  my little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's  sake. I write unto you, fathers, because ye know him which is from the  beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the  evil one. I have written unto you, little children, because ye know the  Father. I have written unto you, fathers, because ye know him which is  from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are  strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the  evil one." This can hardly be understood to mean anything else than  that the author wishes to inform his readers that what he now writes is  essentially the same as he has already written to them once before. And  thus it is very natural to suppose that he suggests that he had done  this in the Gospel. With this the external evidence would agree; the  Epistle, like the Gospel, is not used by Christian writers until after  the year 140, and when it is first used there is no mention of the  author's name.  __________________________________________________________________
 6. SECONDARY PURPOSE: RECOMMENDATION OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
 We must now devote a few more words to the purpose of the Epistle. We  have hitherto explained that the author is opposing the Gnostics, but  if what we have just said be correct, this does not exhaust the matter;  another purpose is to repeat in another form what is contained in the  Gospel and so to confirm it. Is there any connection between this and  the fact that in the earliest days after its publication it gained so  little recognition (p. 199 f.)? In that case, the purpose of the  Epistle would be the same as that which induced some one, as we have  already found (p. 186 f.), to add the twenty-first chapter to the  Gospel. And just as in the addition to the Gospel the ruling idea was  to satisfy the requirement that the account of Peter should be more  favourable, sq in the present case the work was carried out in such a  way as to avoid those statements in the Gospel which differed too much  from the ordinary faith of the Church. Here we may again wonder whether  this may not have been done by the author of the Gospel himself, and  whether he may not have written in this way, to set aside his original  views of set purpose. But it is easier to suppose that one who belonged  to the circle of his followers wrote it to give expression to his own  view of the matter.
 We should have to assume at the same time that he wished to be taken  for the Evangelist. But, according to the ideas of the time, there  would be as little harm in this as there was in the other case where  the Evangelist (perhaps) wished to be taken for John the Apostle (pp.  183-185). We must not therefore regard it as being in the slightest  degree deceitful when we are told at the beginning of his circular:  "that which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that  which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld and our hands  handled, concerning the Word of Life (that is to say, concerning Jesus)  . . . declare we unto you also." By taking up the pen in the name of  the Evangelist, and yet writing in a rather different sense, the author  served the great purpose of gaining recognition in the Church for the  precious thoughts contained in the Fourth Gospel, knowing as he did how  to remove all that was offensive; and it is quite possible that he  helped in a real sense to achieve this purpose. He did not, however,  fulfil in any way his opening promise (i. 1). There is not the least  trace in his Epistle of anything that only an eye-witness of the Life  of Jesus could know.  __________________________________________________________________