Structure

The present section, 4:1-6, is one of three units within the letter (the other two are 2:12-14 and 2:15-17) that virtually all interpreters would regard as a self-contained unit. The subject matter of each of these sections is so clearly distinguished from the surrounding context that there can be little doubt that each constitutes a separate unit of thought. I have yet to find a proposed division of 1 John that breaks 4:1-6 apart.506

This section does, however, contain two subdivisions: 4:1-3, introduced by =agaphtoiv (agaphtoi, “dear friends”) in 4:1, and 4:4-6, introduced by tekniva (teknia, “little children”) in 4:4.

4:1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Summary

Since possession of the Spirit he has given us (3:24) is a ground of assurance for the believer, it is important to test the spirits, because not every spirit is the Spirit of God (4:1-6). The second section (4:7-21) deals with the believer’s assurance of God’s love.

The false prophets are the opponents with their false christology who have gone out from the Christian community the author is addressing into the world. They are claiming to be inspired by the Spirit of God. The author of 1 John makes it clear, however, that not all spirits are from God, and so it is necessary to test the spirits to determine if they are from God. The test the author proposes is in the following verse (4:2).

Exegetical Details

The referents of pneuvmati and pneuvmata in 4:1. In the previous verse, 1 John 3:24, the author tells the readers that one of the ways in which they may be assured that God “resides” in them is by the (Holy) Spirit which he has given to believers. Now, in a section closely tied to the preceding one, the author realizes the need for further qualification because the Holy Spirit is not the only spirit active in the world. Thus in 4:1 the readers are warned, “do not believe every spirit (pneuvmati, pneumati), but test the spirits (pneuvmata, pneumata) to determine if they are from God.” One could argue that the plural here indicates a reference to demonic or evil spirits behind the human prophets which inspire them. However, the primary contrast in 1 John is not between believers and multiple evil spirits, but between the Spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit (4:6).507 The readers must be warned not to make the mistake of thinking that every spirit which influences human behavior is the Spirit of God. There are two spirits at work to influence human behavior, the Spirit of truth (toV pneu'ma th' ajlhqeiva [to pneuma ths alhqeias] in 4:6), that is, the Spirit of God, and the spirit of deceit (mentioned explicitly in 4:6 as toV pneu'ma th' plavnh [to pneuma ths planhs]), that is, the evil spiritual being known as Satan. The same opposition between these two spirits is found in the Gospel of John in 16:8-11, which describes the conflict between the Paraclete (the Holy Spirit) and the “Ruler of this world” (Satan, the devil).

But while the author of 1 John views these two spirits as real entities which are at work in the world, their influence is evident in terms of its effect on human beings (note how the writer shifts easily from discussing the Spirits in 4:1-3 to addressing the readers and the opponents directly as “you” [uJmei', Jumeis] and “they” [aujtoiv, autoi] in 4:4-5). The Holy Spirit influences and motivates the human spirits of the believers in the community to which the author is writing, while the evil spirit of deceit influences and motivates the human spirits of the opponents with their false teaching.

The author’s use of dokimavzete (dokimazete, “test”) in 4:1. According to the third edition of the Bauer lexicon, the verb means “to make a critical examination of someth. to determine genuineness, put to the test, examine.”508 Since in the second half of the present verse the author mentions “false prophets” who have “gone out into the world” it appears highly likely that his concept of testing the spirits is drawn from the Old Testament concept of testing a prophet to see whether he is a false prophet or a true one. The procedure for testing a prophet is found in Deut 13:2-6 and 18:15-22. An Old Testament prophet was to be tested on the basis of (1) whether or not his predictive prophecies came true (Deut 18:22) and (2) whether or not he advocated idolatry (Deut 13:1-3). In the latter case the people of Israel are warned that even if the prophet should perform an authenticating sign or wonder, his truth or falsity is still to be judged on the basis of his claims, i.e., whether or not he advocates idolatry.509

Here in 1 John the idea of “testing the spirits” comes closer to the second Old Testament example of “testing the prophets” mentioned above. According to 1 John 4:2-3, the spirits are to be tested on the basis of their christological confession: the person motivated by the Spirit of God will confess “Jesus as the Christ come in the flesh”; while the person motivated by the spirit of deceit will not confess “Jesus” and is therefore not from God. This comes somewhat closer to the idea expressed by Paul in 1 Cor 12:3 where the person speaking charismatic utterances is also to be judged on the basis of his christological confession: “So I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, ‘Jesus is cursed,’ and no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit.”

The identification of the “false prophets” who have “gone out into the world” in 4:1. It seems clear that the “false prophets” mentioned in 1 John 4:1 are the author’s opponents, since he has already labeled them “antichrists” in 2:18 and 2:22, and uses this same label again in 4:3.510 It is best to understand the adjective polloiv (polloi, “many”) as implying that there were a considerable number of opponents who withdrew from fellowship with the Christian community to which the author is writing. All the opponents, however (not just some of them), are viewed as “false prophets” here, because according to 4:3 and 4:6 the spirit that motivates every one of them is the spirit of deceit. In the author’s antithetical framework there are only two possible alternatives: either a person is motivated by the Spirit of God, in which case he is a genuine believer and belongs to the faithful Christian community to which the author is writing; or one is motivated by the spirit of deceit, in which case he belongs to the opponents, who are ‘false prophets’ because like the false prophet of Deut 13:1-3 they advocate a form of idolatry. As far as the author is concerned this ‘idolatry’ consists in their attempt to seduce others into adopting their heretical christological views while rejecting the apostolic testimony (1 John 1:1-4) about who Jesus is (4:2).

The description of the false prophets as having “gone out into the world” appears to be a direct reference to the secession of the opponents in 2:19 since the same verb (ejxevrcomai [exercomai], “to go out, to depart”) is used in both places. Not only that, but the same verb also occurs in John 13:30 as a description of the departure of Judas Iscariot, who in the Fourth Gospel is called “devil” by Jesus himself (John 6:70-71; cf. 13:2). To leave the author’s congregation and go out into the “world” is, in the framework of Johannine theology, a clear indication that the secessionists are viewed by the author as unsaved, since he warns the readers in 1 John 2:15-17 not to love the “world,” which is described as transitory rather than eternal (2:17), and in the Fourth Gospel when Jesus prays for the disciples, he specifically states that the “world” hates them (17:14) and they do not belong to it (17:14, 16).

4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh is from God,

Summary

This is the test for the spirits: every spirit that confesses Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh is from God. Note that the test is both confessional (concerning what a person believes) and christological (concerning what a person believes about Jesus). Presumably the opponents would not be able to make this confession, since this is designed to test the truth or falsehood of their prophetic claims.

Exegetical Details

The referent of ejn touvtw/ (en toutw, “by this”) in 4:2. Once again we must attempt to determine whether the phrase ejn touvtw/ (en toutw, “by this”) refers to what precedes or to what follows. This occurrence falls into category (2) mentioned in the section “The referent of ejn touvtw/ (en toutw, “by this”) in 2:3.”511 There is no subordinating conjunction following the ejn touvtw/ (en toutw) here in 4:2, so the phrase could refer either to what precedes or to what follows. Contextually the phrase refers to what follows, because the following clause in 4:2b-4:3a,512 while not introduced by a subordinating conjunction, does explain the preceding clause beginning with ejn touvtw/ (en toutw).513 In other words, the following clause in 4:2b-3a is analogous to a subordinate clause introduced by an epexegetical Jina or Joti, and the relationship can be represented in the English translation by a colon, “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.” Most modern translations follow this approach and insert the colon.514

The meaning of the phrase oJmologei' =Ihsou'n CristoVn ejn sarkiV ejlhluqovta (Jomologei Ihsoun Criston en sarki elhluqota, literally “confess Jesus Christ in the flesh having come”) in 4:2. This forms part of the author’s christological confession which serves as a test of the spirits. Many interpreters have speculated that the author of 1 John is here correcting or adapting a slogan of the secessionist opponents, but there is no concrete evidence for this in the text. Such a possibility is mere conjecture.515 The phrase may be understood in a number of different ways, however: (1) the entire phrase “Jesus Christ come in the flesh” may be considered the single object of the verb oJmologei' (Jomologei, “confess”; so B. Westcott, A. Brooke, J. Bonsirven, R. Brown, S. Smalley, and others); (2) the verb oJmologei' (Jomologei, “confess”) may be followed by a double accusative of object-complement,516 so that “Jesus Christ” functions as object and the phrase “come in the flesh” as complement; the meaning would be “confess Jesus Christ as come in the flesh” (so B. Weiss, J. Chaine, and others). (3) A third possibility is to see the verb followed by a double accusative of object-complement as in (2), but in this case the object is “Jesus” and the complement is “[the] Christ come in the flesh,” so that what is being confessed is “Jesus as [the] Christ come in the flesh” (so N. Alexander, J. Stott, J. Houlden, and others).

All three options are grammatically possible, although not equally probable. Option (1) has a number of points in its favor: (a) the parallel in 2 John 7 suggests to some that the phrase should be understood as a single object; (b) option (2) makes “Jesus Christ” the name of the preincarnate second person of the Trinity, and this would be the only place in the Johannine literature where such a designation for the preincarnate Logo occurs; and (c) option (3) would have been clearer if Cristovn (Criston, “Christ”) had been accompanied by the Greek article (oJmologei' =Ihsou'n toVn CristoVn, Jomologei Ihsoun ton Criston).

Nevertheless I am inclined to prefer option (3) on the basis of the overall context involving the secessionist opponents: their christological views would allow the confession of “the Christ come in the flesh,”517 but they would have trouble confessing that Jesus was (exclusively) the Christ incarnate. It seems to me that the author’s failure to repeat the qualifying phrases (CristoVn ejn sarkiV ejlhluqovta, Criston en sarki elhluqota) in the negative repetition of the confession in 4:3a actually suggests that the stress is on Jesus as the component of the confession objected to by the opponents. I do not see how the parallel in 2 John 7 favors option (1), in spite of R. Brown’s assertion that it does.518 As for the objection that option (3) would have been clearer if the author had included the Greek article before Cristovn (Criston, “Christ”), one can hardly complain about the presence or absence of an article given the convoluted and obscure grammatical constructions the author has employed elsewhere in 1 John!

The related or parallel construction in John 9:22 (ejavn ti aujtoVn oJmologhvsh/ Cristovn, ean tis auton Jomologhsh Criston, “if anyone should confess him [to be the] Christ”) provides further support for option (3). This is discounted by Brown because the verb in John 9:22 occurs between the two accusative objects rather than preceding both as here – although Brown does mention Rom. 10:9 as another parallel closer in grammatical structure to 1 John 4:2).519 Brown does not mention the textual variants in John 9:22, however: both Ì66 and Ì75 (along with K, Ë13 and others) read oJmologhvsh/ aujtoVn Cristovn (Jomologhse auton Criston).520 This structure exactly parallels 1 John 4:2, and a good case could be made that this is actually the preferred reading in John 9:22; furthermore, it is clear from the context in John 9:22 that Cristovn (Criston, “Christ”) is the complement (what is predicated concerning the first accusative) since the object (the first accusative) is aujtovn (auton, “him”) rather than the proper name =Ihsou'n (Ihsoun, “Jesus”). The parallel in John 9:22 thus appears to me to be clearer than either 1 John 4:2 or 2 John 7. In fact, it proves useful in understanding both the latter constructions.

4:3 but every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; and this is the spirit of the Antichrist, that you have heard is coming, and now is already in the world.

Summary

Since the spirit…not from God is unable to confess Jesus, this is where the opponents appear to have had their christological problems. Perhaps they could confess the Messiah come in the flesh, but could not connect this with Jesus. Many heresies and sects have begun by distorting who Jesus is. The author of 1 John identifies this false spirit with the spirit of the Antichrist. Earlier the author had called the opponents themselves antichrists (1 John 2:19). Now he says the false spirit behind them is the spirit of the Antichrist. It is important to note that behind the people are spirits who motivate them.

Exegetical Details

The force of the kaiv (kai, translated by the NET Bible here as “but”) at the beginning of 4:3. The kaiv (kai) which begins 4:3 introduces the “negative side” of the test by which the spirits can be known in 4:2-3. Thus it is adversative (contrastive) in force: “…every spirit that confesses Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.”

The meaning of mhV oJmologei' toVn =Ihsou'n (mh Jomologei ton Ihsoun, “does not confess Jesus”) in 4:3. The omission of Cristovn (Criston, “Christ”) from the negative repetition of the confession in 4:3a is significant. According to our reconstruction of the opponents’ views, they would have had no difficulty confessing that the Christ (the Logo) had come in the flesh, since they appear to have based their soteriology on the fact of the incarnation, as reflected in the stress on the incarnation found in John 1:14. What they could not acknowledge was the salvific significance of Jesus’ earthly life and ministry (including his sacrificial death on the cross), and this is precisely where the author of 1 John differed radically with them. Thus the opponents could have confessed the Christ come in the flesh (the incarnation), they could not have confessed Jesus, because they denied that there was any salvific significance to his earthly life and ministry.521 There is a textual variant in this verse which replaces the negated verb mhV oJmologei' (mh Jomologei) with luei (luei), which would mean in this context “to annul, to abolish.”522 However, the external (manuscript) evidence for this variant is extremely slim, because it is supported only by the Latin Vulgate and a few fathers, three of whom (Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen) are mentioned in the margin of ms 1739. With such slender external support, it is very unlikely this represents the original reading.

The referent of pneu'ma (pneuma, “spirit”) in 4:3. “Every spirit that does not confess Jesus” in 4:3a refers to the spirit of deceit (cf. 4:6), that is, Satan, behind the opponents with their false christological confession. The opponents refused to confess the salvific significance of Jesus’ earthly life and ministry.523

The referent of toV tou' ajnticrivstou (to tou anticristou, “the [spirit] of the Antichrist”) in 4:3. This is another reference to the spirit of deceit (cf. 4:6), this time referred to as “the [spirit] of the Antichrist.”524 This is the “spirit of the Antichrist” which the readers have heard about: the author has already announced that it is now at large in the world (2:18), and he will do so again in 2 John 7. R. Brown thinks the mention of the “spirit of the Antichrist” as “coming” (e[rcetai, ercetai) here in 4:3 is a word-play on the preceding description of Jesus as “come in the flesh” (ejlhluqovta, elhluqota) in 4:2.525 It seems much more probable, however, that this is an allusion to the Antichrist as “the prince who is to come” in Dan 9:26, who in the LXX is referred to as oJ hJgouvmeno oJ ejrcovmeno (Jo Jhgoumenos Jo ercomenos, “the coming prince” [or, “the prince who is coming”). The “spirit of the Antichrist,” that is, the motivating spirit behind the Antichrist, is Satan.

The meaning of kovsmo (kosmos, “world”) in 4:3. The term kovsmo (kosmos) is understood to be neutral in its connotation here, meaning “the world of humanity,” the sphere in which the “spirit of the Antichrist” operates.526 It is true that later uses of the term kovsmo (kosmos) in this section (e.g., vv. 4, 5) are more negative in tone than the earlier ones in vv. 1, 3. However, it is just as possible to take all six references to kovsmo (kosmos) in vv. 1-5 as negative, referring to that which opposes God and his purposes. The so-called “false prophets,” by their secession from the Johannine Christian community (cf. 2:18-19) have gone into the “world” (4:1) and the “world” listens to them (4:5). In this way the antithetical contrast between the “world” of faith (the author’s readers) and the “world” of unbelief (the secessionist opponents) becomes clear (cf. 2 John 7).527

4:4 You are from God, little children, and have conquered them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

Summary

The author now gives reassurance to his readers (whom he addresses yet again as little children) that they are victorious over the opponents (have conquered them), because the Holy Spirit (the one who is in you) is greater than the spirit of the Antichrist (the one who is in the world).

Exegetical Details

The significance of the author’s inclusion of uJmei' (Jumeis, “you”) in 4:4. The author’s use of uJmei' (Jumeis) at the beginning of 4:4 signals both emphasis and contrast. The author is now contrasting the readers, whom he regards as genuine believers,528 with the opponents (aujtouv [autous, “them”]) who are not. But there is also an emphatic shift from reference to the spirits (the Spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit, cf. 1 John 4:6) in 4:1-3 to the people whom those respective spirits influence and control: the readers, as God’s children, are motivated by the Spirit of God; the opponents, as children of the devil (cf. 3:10), are motivated by the spirit of the Antichrist (4:3), that is, Satan.

The significance of the perfect tense nenikhvkate (nenikhkate, “have conquered”) in 4:4. Here the perfect tense looks not only at a decisive victory won in the past over the secessionist opponents, but at the results of that victory continuing in the present.529 The immediate context here suggests that more emphasis is on the existing results than on the past completed action, although if one sees a more polemical tone to the present section one might argue for somewhat more emphasis on the past completed action.

The referent of aujtouv (autous, “them”) in 4:4. As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the author of 1 John has shifted the emphasis in 4:4 from the spirits themselves to the people whom they motivate, influence, and control. While the author’s readers are motivated by the Spirit of God, the opponents, the secessionists with their heterodox christology who withdrew from the Christian community to which 1 John is addressed (2:19), are motivated by Satan, known in this context as the spirit of deceit (cf. 4:6). Thus aujtouv (autous, “them”) refers to the opponents, and the author tells his readers that they have “conquered” these opponents, just as in 2:13-14 the author assured the readers that they had conquered the “evil one” (a reference to Satan) who is viewed in the present context as the motivating spirit behind the opponents.530 The basis for the author’s assertion of victory, “because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world,” is not mere empty boasting, but is consistent with his earlier statements about believers being “from God” (4:2; also 3:1-2) and God residing in believers (2:5-6; 3:24).531 This is still true even if the Spirit of God is the primary referent here rather than God himself, since in Johannine theology there is considerable interchange of function between Father, Son, and Spirit as far as the believer is concerned.

The referents of the first and second uses of the relative pronoun oJ (Jo, translated both times by the NET Bible as “the one who”) in 4:4. Some interpreters have taken the first use of the relative pronoun oJ (Jo) to refer to Jesus or to God the Father because of the Johannine emphasis on Jesus or God “residing” in the believer.532 Significantly, however, the verb mevnw (menw, “I reside/remain”) is not used here. In context the contrast is clearly between the Spirit of truth, that is, the Holy Spirit, and the spirit of deceit, that is, Satan (cf. 4:6). Thus it seems clear that when the author mentions “the one who is in you” in speaking to the readers, he is referring to the Spirit of God.533 Likewise, the second occurrence of the relative pronoun oJ (Jo) refers to “the one who is in the world,” a reference to the spirit of deceit, that is, Satan.

Regarding the conflict portrayed here between the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error, Smalley noted,

If the thought of this v, with its allusion to the battle between spiritual truth and error, God and the evil one, grazes the edge of dualism, this dualism is ethical and not cosmic…Jewish and not Greek. For John is in no doubt about the ultimate outcome of the conflict (“he in you is more powerful”; cf. further v 6; 5:4-5; Rev 5:5; 12:11; 17:14).534

4:5 They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world’s perspective and the world listens to them.

Summary

In 4:1 the author insisted the opponents, who were characterized as false prophets, had gone out into the world. Now he asserts the opponents are from the world. This determines their perspective and also ensures that the world pays attention to them. Compare John 15:19: “If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own.”

Exegetical Details

The referent of the pronoun aujtoiv (autoi, “they”) in 4:5. In contrast to uJmei' (Jumeis, “you”) at the beginning of 1 John 4:4 which refers to the readers, the author speaks of the opponents here as aujtoiv (autoi, “they”). While the author’s readers are regarded as believers (note “you are of God,” 4:4a), the opponents are regarded as unbelievers. Confirmation of this is provided here by their association with “the world”: they are “of the world” (ejk tou' kovsmou eijsivn, ek tou kosmou eisin). From the author’s perspective the departure of the opponents from the believing community (1 John 2:19) demonstrated that they never had been genuine Christians, but had been guilty of a false profession all along. Thus they belong to the world, and when they speak the world listens to them because they are its own.

The significance of the statement in 4:5 that “the world listens to them.” The “world” pays attention to the message of the secessionist opponents because, as Stott observed, their message “originates in its own circle.”535 The Pharisees complained about the success of Jesus in gathering a following in similar terms (John 12:19): “Look, the world has run off after him!” R. Brown, S. Smalley, and R. Schnackenburg see in the author’s comment about the opponents here (“the world listens to them”) a hint that the opponents may be enjoying greater success than the faithful believers to whom the author is writing.536 This may be so, but there is not enough information in the context to be sure.537 The author’s primary interest in the opponents is the disastrous effect they could have on the believing community to which he is writing; their relative success in the world at large is of secondary interest to him at best.

4:6 We are from God; the person who knows God listens to us, but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.

Summary

Now the author introduces another way to test the spirits: We are of God is inclusive, referring to the author and the faithful Christians who have held fast to the apostolic testimony about who Jesus is. Whoever is not from God refers to the opponents, who are refusing to listen to the apostolic testimony about Jesus.

Exegetical Details

The referent of the pronoun hJmei' (Jhmeis, “we”) in 4:6. It is difficult to isolate the extent of the author’s intended reference by his use of the pronoun hJmei' (Jhmeis, “we”) in 4:6. (1) This could be a distinctive (or exclusive) use of “we” by which the author refers specifically to himself and the other apostolic eyewitnesses as guardians of the truth concerning the eyewitness testimony to the significance of the earthly life and ministry of Jesus, as emphasized in the prologue (1:1-4).538 In this case the meaning is, “We apostolic witnesses are from God, and the person who knows God (the true Christian) listens to us….” (2) But it is also possible that by the use of hJmei' (Jhmeis, “we”) here the author intends to include himself with his readers and all genuine Christians, as over against the heterodox opponents with their false christology.539 This would mean, “We (all of us true Christians) are from God, and the person who knows God (the true Christian) listens to us….” R. Brown thinks it more likely that a nondistinctive use of hJmei' (Jhmeis, “we”) is involved here (the second option above), where the writer does not single himself and the other apostolic eyewitnesses out from among the rest of Christianity.540 Partly this is because Brown does not see the author of 1 John himself as an eyewitness of the earthly life and ministry of Jesus, but a member of the community to which he is writing,541 although in fairness it must be noted that the contrast with the opponents (“they”) in the previous verse supports an inclusive use of “we” here to refer to both the author and his readers.

It is also possible to see a distinctive use of hJmei' (Jhmeis, “we”) here (the first option mentioned above), similar to the prologue’s emphasis on the (apostolic) eyewitness testimony to the significance of Jesus’ earthly life and ministry. This may provide sufficient justification for the author (whom I understand to be one of those eyewitnesses) to distinguish himself from the members of the community to which he writes. The author would be, in effect, stating his apostolic authority here when he says “the person who knows God listens to us,” because he, as an apostle – a delegated successor whom Jesus himself appointed to carry on the ministry after his departure and return to the Father – can echo Jesus’ own words in John 10:27, “my sheep listen to my voice.”542 In other words, those who are genuine believers will pay attention to the apostolic testimony about Jesus, and those who are not (the opponents) will ignore it.

The referent of the phrase ejk touvtou (ek toutou, “by this”) in 4:6. This phrase, which occurs only here in the Johannine corpus but bears obvious similarity to the much more common phrase ejn touvtw/ (en toutw, “by this”),543 must refer to what precedes, since there is nothing in the following context for it to relate to, and 4:1-6 is recognized by almost everyone as a discrete unit. There is still a question, however, of what in the preceding context the phrase refers to. Interpreters have suggested a reference only to 4:6, to 4:4-6, or to all of 4:1-6.544 The latter seems most likely, because the present phrase forms an inclusion with the phrase ejn touvtw/ (en toutw, “by this”) in 3:24 which introduces the present section. Thus “by this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit” refers to all of 4:1-6 with its “test” of the spirits by the christological confession made by their adherents in 4:1-3 and with its emphasis on the authoritative (apostolic) eyewitness testimony to the significance of Jesus’ earthly life and ministry in 4:4-6.

The identification of the “Spirit of truth” and the “spirit of deceit” mentioned in 4:6. Although some interpreters have regarded the “spirits” in 4:6 as human spirits, it appears abundantly clear in the context that (while 4:1a is ambiguous and might refer either to human spirits or spiritual beings who influence people) the author sees behind the opponents and their false christology the spirit of the Antichrist, that is, Satan (4:3b), at work, and behind the true believers of the community to which he is writing, the Spirit of God (4:2). This is made clear in 4:4 by the reference to the respective spirits as “the one who is in you” (oJ ejn uJmi'n, Jo en Jumin) and “the one who is in the world” (oJ ejn tw'/ kovsmw/, Jo en tw kosmw).545 In the final analysis this may be another instance of Johannine ambiguity, and it is really only a question of whether the human agents who speak are in view first, or the spiritual beings who exert influence over them.

---

506 See the discussion of major divisions in 1 John in the previous section “Structure and Purpose of 1 John.”

507 Cf. Bultmann, The Johannine Epistles, 61-62, and Marshall, The Epistles of John, 204, n. 3. A similar contrast between the “spirit of truth” and the “spirit of falsehood” (corresponding to light and darkness respectively) can be seen in the Qumran literature in 1QS 3:18; 4:23. On this contrast see also Houlden, A Commentary on the Johannine Epistles, 106, and Malatesta, Interiority and Covenant, 283, n. 2. This is not to suggest direct links between 1 John and Qumran; their antithetical or dualistic outlooks may be similar but are not identical.

508 BDAG 255 s.v. dokimavzw 1.

509 Note that in the concluding verse of the letter (1 John 5:21) the author warns his readers against idolatry.

510 Cf. Smalley, who summarizes, “The ‘false prophets’ who have ‘defected into the world’ are undoubtedly the heretical members of John’s congregation who have spearheaded a secession from the community…and a direct reference to this ‘defection’ has already been made in 2:18-19” (1, 2, 3 John, 219).

511 For the complete discussion of the problems with identifying the referents of ejn touvtw/ phrases in 1 John, see the section “The referent of ejn touvtw/ (en toutw, “by this”) in 2:3.”

512 I.e., “Every spirit that confesses Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.”

513 Cf. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 220.

514 So, for example, neb, nasb, niv, nrsv, nlt, esv, NET Bible, tniv.

515 Note Brown’s comment: “Too often scholars have been distracted by speculating that there was a somewhat similar secessionist slogan which the author corrected in order to achieve the present wording” (The Epistles of John, 492).

516 See Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 188, n. 41. Wallace lists John 9:22; 1 John 4:2; and 2 John 7 as examples of the verb oJmologevw (Jomologew, “I confess”) taking a double accusative of object and complement.

517 Perhaps in the sense of the Spirit indwelling believers, although this is hard to prove.

518 Brown, The Epistles of John, 492. It is difficult to see how the use of the present participle in 2 John 7 instead of the perfect participle in 1 John 4:2 would contribute to option (1), and the same can be said for the relocated prepositional phrase ejn sarkiV (en sarki).

519 Brown, The Epistles of John, 493.

520 The order of the Greek words is different. In the textual variant found in Ì66 and Ì75 (along with other mss) both object and complement follow the verb, as in 1 John 4:2.

521 See the earlier section “The Opponents and Their Teaching in 1 John,” for further discussion and summarization of the views of the opponents. Smalley made an important observation: “John is not discussing the contrast between faith and unbelief; he is condemning those heretical beliefs, within and beyond his community, which amount to a determined and antichristian rebellion against God (v 3b)” (1, 2, 3 John, 223).

522 BDAG 607 s.v. luvw 4.

523 See also the discussion in the previous paragraph.

524 In the Greek text pneu'ma [pneuma, “spirit”] is elided and must be supplied. Cf. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 224). According to Westcott, the omission of pneu'ma may be the author’s way of generalizing the allusion to the figure of the Antichrist (The Epistles of St. John, 143). Marshall saw the omission as a device to prevent any suggestion that there is a “spirit” of antichrist comparable to the Spirit of God (The Epistles of John, 208, n. 12).

525 Brown, The Epistles of John, 496. The lexical form of both these verbs is the same (ejrcomai, ercomai).

526 Cf. Haas, et al., A Translator’s Handbook, 104; Marshall, The Epistles of John, 209, n. 18. See also the discussion of the meaning of kovsmo (kosmos) in 2:15.

527 See also Malatesta, Interiority and Covenant, 178-82, esp. 179, n. 51.

528 Note the use of tekniva (teknia, “little children”), a term of endearment, to address them.

529 Cf. Houlden, A Commentary on the Johannine Epistles, 109-110.

530 Bultmann compares the “triumphal self-consciousness” of the author’s community implicit here with that expressed in the first part of 1 John 3:14 (The Johannine Epistles, 63).

531 See Malatesta, Interiority and Covenant, 132-33; cf. also Dodd, The Johannine Epistles, 100.

532 Haas (A Translator’s Handbook, 104) saw a reference to God the Father here, while Westcott (The Epistles of St. John, 144) thought the relative pronoun referred to Christ. For a survey of the different uses of mevnw (menw, “I reside/remain”) in 1 John, see 1 John 2:6.

533 So Stott, The Epistles of John, 157, and Houlden, A Commentary on the Johannine Epistles, 110. Smalley, on the other hand, saw a combined reference to God as Father, Son, and Spirit based on the trinitarian character of this section, especially v. 3 (1, 2, 3 John, 227)

534 Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 227.

535 Stott, The Epistles of John, 157.

536 Brown, The Epistles of John, 498; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 228; Schnackenburg, The Johannine Epistles, 204-205.

537 Georg Strecker argued that seeing in 1 John 4:5 a comment about the degree of success enjoyed by the opponents amounted to an overestimation of the possibility of obtaining historical information from the text (The Johannine Letters, 139). He may well be right.

538 So Brooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles, 115, and Stott, The Epistles of John, 157-58, who see the referents of the “we” here as differentiated from the Christian readers of the letter in general.

539 So Malatesta, Interiority and Covenant, 288, n. 10; cf. also Bultmann, The Johannine Epistles, 64, n. 15. Haas (A Translator’s Handbook, 104) expresses a preference for this inclusive sense of “we,” although he acknowledges that it may be exclusive instead.

540 Brown states, “A decision between the distinctive and nondistinctive use of ‘we’ is difficult here, but overall I am inclined toward the latter” (The Epistles of John, 499).

541 Brown did not hold to apostolic authorship of 1 John.

542 Even if one does not hold that the Apostle John wrote 1 John, it is still evident from the context that the author is claiming to have apostolic authority in the confrontation with the secessionist opponents: he places himself among the apostles to bolster his arguments against the teaching of the opponents. It seems to me, however, that it is simpler to regard the author himself as one of those eyewitnesses he describes in 1:1-4.

543 For the complete discussion of the problems with identifying the referents of ejn touvtw/ phrases in 1 John, see the section “The referent of ejn touvtw/ (en toutw, “by this”) in 2:3.”

544 Dodd preferred to see the phrase referring not just to v. 6, but to the christological confession in vv. 2-3 as well (The Johannine Epistles, 102). Smalley allowed that the phrase referred to v. 6, but stated further that “an allusion to the earlier test (a proper acknowledgment of Jesus, vv 2-3) is almost certainly in view as well” (1, 2, 3 John, 230).

545 See the sections “The referents of pneuvmati and pneuvmata in 4:1” and “The referents of the first and second uses of the relative pronoun oJ (Jo) in 4:4” above for further discussion.

Bibliography of Major Commentaries

NOTE: Items marked with an asterisk (*) are especially important for the study of the Johannine Letters.

Akin, Daniel L. 1, 2, 3 John. New American Commentary 38. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001.

Alexander, J. N. S. The Epistles of John. Torch Biblical Commentaries. London: SCM, 1962.

Balz, Horst Robert. Die “Katholischen” Briefe: die Briefe des Jakobus, Petrus, Johannes und Judas. Das Neue Testament Deutsch 16. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, 1980.

Bonsirven, J. Épîtres de Saint Jean. Paris: Beauchesne, 1954.

Brooke, A. E. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912.

*Brown, Raymond E. The Epistles of John: Translated with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. Vol. 30 of The Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982. [This is perhaps the most significant commentary published on the Johannine letters in the twentieth century.]

Bruce, F. F. The Epistles of John. Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1970.

Büchsel, Friedrich. Die Johannesbriefe. Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 17. Leipzig: Deichert Verlag, 1933.

Bultmann, Rudolf. The Johannine Epistles. Hermeneia. Trans. by R. P. O’Hara, L. C. McGaughy, and R. W. Funk. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973.

Burge, Gary M. The Letters of John. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

de Ambroggi, P. Le Epistole Cattoliche. 2^nd ed. Sacra Biblia 14. Torino: Marietti, 1949.

Dodd, C. H. The Johannine Epistles. Moffatt New Testament Commentary. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1946.

Findlay, G. G. Fellowship in the Life Eternal: An Exposition of the Epistles of St. John. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1909.

Gore, C. The Epistles of John. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1920.

Haas, C., de Jonge, M., and Swellengrebel, J. L. A Translator’s Handbook on the Letters of John. UBS Helps for Translators 13. London: United Bible Societies, 1972.

Hodges, Zane C. The Epistles of John: Walking in the Light of God’s Love. Irving, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 1999.

Hoskyns, E. “The Johannine Epistles.” In A New Commentary on Holy Scripture , pp. 658-73. Edited by C. Gore, H. L. Goudge, and A. Guillaume. New York: Macmillan, 1928.

Houlden, J. L. A Commentary on the Johannine Epistles. Harper’s New Testament Commentaries. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.

Klauck, Hans-Josef. Der erste Johannesbrief. Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 23/1. Zürich and Braunschweig: Benziger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1991.

Kruse, Colin. The Letters of John. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Leicester: Apollos, 2000.

Law, Robert. The Tests of Life: A Study of the First Epistle of St. John. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909.

Lewis, G. P. The Johannine Epistles. Epworth Preacher’s Commentaries. London: Epworth Press, 1961.

Love, J. P. The First, Second, and Third Letters of John. Richmond: Knox, 1960.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Epistles of John. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Moody, D. The Letters of John. Waco: Word, 1970.

*Painter, John. 1, 2, and 3 John. Sacra Pagina 18. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2002.

Plummer, A. The Epistles of S. John: With Notes, Introduction and Appendices. Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: University Press, 1886.

Rensberger, David K. 1 John, 2 John, 3 John. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon, 1997.

Ross, Alexander. The Epistles of James and John. New International Commentary on the New Testament. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954.

Schmithals, Walter. Johannesevangelium und Johannesbriefe: Forschungsgeschichte und Analyse. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 64. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1992.

Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Johannine Epistles. Translated by Reginald and Ilse Fuller. New York: Crossroad, 1992.

Smalley, Stephen S. 1, 2, 3 John. Word Biblical Commentary 51. Waco: Word, 1984.

Smith, D. Moody. First, Second, and Third John. Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1991.

Stott, John R. W. The Epistles of John: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentary 19. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

*Strecker, Georg. Die Johannesbriefe. Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament 14. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, 1989.

*Strecker, Georg. The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John. Hermeneia. Trans. by Linda M. Maloney; ed. Harold Attridge. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

Thompson, Marianne Meye. 1-3 John. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992.

Vouga, Francois. Die Johannesbriefe. Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 15. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1990.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistles of St John: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays. 2^nd ed. Cambridge and London: Macmillan, 1886.

Wilder, A. N. “Introduction and Exegesis of the First, Second, and Third Epistles of John.” In The Interpreter’s Bible 12, pp. 207-313. Edited by G. A. Buttrick. Nashville: Abingdon, 1957.

Williams, R. R. The Letters of John and James. The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible. Cambridge: University Press, 1965.

Windisch, Hans. Die katholischen Briefe. HNT 15. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1951.

Additional Bibliography

NOTE: Items marked with an asterisk (*) are especially important for the study of the Johannine Letters.

1. Grammar, Style, and Vocabulary

Cassem, N. H. “A Grammatical and Contextual Inventory of the Use of kosmos in the Johannine Corpus with some Implications for a Johannine Cosmic Theology.” New Testament Studies 19 (1972/73): 81-91.

Haas, C., de Jonge, M., and Swellengrebel, J. L. A Translator’s Handbook on the Letters of John. UBS Helps for Translators 13. London: United Bible Societies, 1972.

Kilpatrick, G. D. “Two Johannine Idioms in the Johannine Epistles.” Journal of Theological Studies 12 (1961): 272-73.

*Louw, Johannes P. “Verbal Aspect in the First Letter of John.” Neotestamentica 9 (1975): 98-104. [A very important article on the use of the present tense with respect to sin in 1 John.]

Salom, A. P. “Some Aspects of the Grammatical Style of I John.” Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (1955): 96-102.

Tarelli, C. C. “Johannine Synonyms.” Journal of Theological Studies 47 (1946): 175-77.

2. Epistolary Theology

Bonsirven, J. “La théologie des épîtres johanniques.” Nouvelle revue théologique 62 (1935): 920-44.

Lazure, Noël. Les valeurs morales de la théologie johannique (Évangile et Épîtres). Études bibliques. Paris: Gabalda, 1965.

Lieu, Judith M. The Theology of the Johannine Epistles. New Testament Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Marty, Jacques. “Contribution à l’étude des problèmes johanniques: Les petites épîtres ‘II et III Jean’.” Revue de l’histoire des religions 91 (1925): 200-11.

Tarelli, C. C. “Johannine Synonyms.” Journal of Theological Studies 47 (1946): 175-77.

3. Specific Theological Topics

Barrosse, T. “The Relationship of Love to Faith in St. John.” Theological Studies 18 (1957): 538-59.

Coetzee, J. C. “Christ and the Prince of this World in the Gospel and Epistles of St. John.” Neotestamentica 2 (1968): 104-21.

Coetzee, J. C. “Life (Eternal Life) in St. John’s Writings and the Qumran Scrolls.” Neotestamentica 6 (1972): 48-66.

Coetzee, J. C. “The Holy Spirit in 1 John.” Neotestamentica 13 (1979): 43-67.

Cook, W. R. “Hamartiological Problems in First John.” Bibliotheca Sacra 123 (1966): 249-60.

Cooper, E. J. “The Consciousness of Sin in I John.” Laval Théologique et Philosophique 28 (1972): 237-48.

*de Jonge, M. “The Use of the Word Christos in the Johannine Epistles.” In Studies in John (Festschrift for J. N. Sevenster), pp. 66-74. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 24. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970.

de la Potterie, I. “La connaissance de Dieu dans le dualisme eschatologique d’après I Jn, ii, 12-14.” In Au Service de la Parole de Dieu. Gembloux: Duculot, 1969.

Fensham, F. C. “Love in the Writings of Qumran and John.” Neotestamentica 6 (1972): 67-77.

Heise, Jürgen. Bleiben. Menein in der Johanneischen Schriften. Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie 8. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1967.

Hill, David. Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967.

Johnston, G. “The Will of God: V. In I Peter and I John.” Expository Times 72 (1960/61): 237-40.

Kennedy, H. A. A. “The Covenant-conception in the First Epistle of John.” Expository Times 28 (1916/17): 23-26.

Lieu, Judith M. “What Was from the Beginning: Scripture and Tradition in the Johannine Epistles.” New Testament Studies 39 (1993): 458-77.

*Louw, J. P. “Verbal Aspect in the First Letter of John.” Neotestamentica 9 (1975): 98-104. [A very important article on the use of the present tense with respect to sin in 1 John.]

*Malatesta, Edward. Interiority and Covenant: A Study of eijnai ejn and menein ejn in the First Letter of Saint John. Analecta biblica 69. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1978. [An extremely important study in which the author demonstrates the interchangeability in 1 John of the two Greek phrases in the title. In other words, to “abide” in (reside in, remain in) Christ is for John the same as to “be” in Christ.]

Mussner, Franz. Zwh: die Anschauung vom “Leben” im vierten Evangelium, unter Berucksichtigung der Johannesbriefe. Münchener Theologische Studien 1. Munich: Karl Zink, 1952.

Nauck, W. Die Tradition und der Charakter des ersten Johannesbriefes: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Taufe im Urchristentum und in der alten Kirche. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 3. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1957.

Perkins, Pheme. “Koinwnia in 1 John 1:3-7: The Social Context of Division in the Johannine Letters.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45 (1983): 631-41.

Schnackenburg, Rudolf. “Zum Begriff der ‘Wahrheit’ in den beiden kleinen Johannesbriefen.” Biblische Zeitschrift n.s. 11 (1967): 253-58.

Segovia, Fernando F. “The Love and Hatred of Jesus and Johannine Sectarianism.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43 (1981): 258-72.

Smalley, Stephen S. “The Christ-Christian Relationship in Paul and John.” In Pauline Studies: Essays Presented to F. F. Bruce, ed. D. A. Hagner and M. J. Harris. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Exeter: Paternoster, 1980.

Spicq, Ceslaus. “Notes d’exégèse johannique. La charité est amour manifeste.” Revue biblique 65 (1958): 358-70.

Swadling, H. C. “Sin and Sinlessness in 1 John.” Scottish Journal of Theology 35 (1982): 205-211.

Thornton, T. C. G. “Propitiation or Expiation? JIlasthvrion and JIlasmov in Romans and 1 John.” Expository Times 80 (1968/69): 53-55.

van der Horst, P. W. “A Wordplay in 1 Joh 4, 12?” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 63 (1972): 280-82.

4. Exegesis of Specific Passages in the Johannine Epistles

Argyle, A. W. “1 John iii. 4f.” Expository Times 65 (1953/54): 62-63.

du Preez, J. “‘Sperma autou’ in 1 John 3:9.” Neotestamentica 9 (1975): 105-10.

Greiff, A. “Die drei Zeugen in 1 Joh. 5, 7f.” Theologische Quartalschrift 114 (1933): 465-80.

Hall, D. R. “Fellow-Workers with the Gospel.” Expository Times 85 (1973/74): 119-20.

Hills, Julian. “‘Little Children, Keep Yourselves from Idols’: 1 John 5:21 Reconsidered.” CBQ 51 (1989): 285-310.

Hodges, Zane C. “Fellowship and Confession in I John 1:5-10.” Bibliotheca Sacra 129 (1972): 48-60.

Keppler, P. W. “Geist, Wasser und Blut. Zur Erklärung von I. Joh. 5, 6-13 (ev. Joh. 19, 34).” Theologische Quartalschrift 68 (1886): 3-25.

Kittler, R. “Erweis der Bruderliebe an der Bruderliebe?! Versuch der Auslegung eines ‘fast unverständlichen’ Satzes im 1. Johannesbrief.” Kerygma und Dogma 16 (1970): 223-28.

Kubo, Sakae. “I John 3:9: Absolute or Habitual?” Andrews University Seminary Studies 7 (1969): 47-56.

Lazure, Noël. “La convoitise de la chair en I Jean, II,16.” Revue biblique 76 (1969): 161-205.

Noack, B. “On 1 John II. 12-14.” New Testament Studies 6 (1959/60): 236-41.

Pratscher, W. “Gott ist grösser als unser Herz. Zur Interpretation von 1 Joh. 3, 19f.” Theologische Zeitschrift 32 (1976): 272-81.

Romaniuk, Kasimir. “‘Die vollkommene Liebe treibt die Furcht aus.’ Eine Auslegung von 1 Jo 4, 17-18.” Bibel und Leben 5 (1964): 80-84.

Segond, A. “1re Épître de Jean, chap. 5:18-20.” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 45 (1965): 349-51.

Stegemann, Ekkehard. “‘Kindlein, hütet vor den Götterbildern!’ Erwägungen zum Schluss des 1. Johannesbriefes.” Theologische Zeitschrift 41 (1985): 284-94.

Sugit, J. N. “1 John 5:21: TEKNIA, FULAXATE EAUTA APO TWN EIDWLWN.” Journal of Theological Studies 36 (1985): 386-90.

Thiele, Walter. “Beobachtungen zum Comma Iohanneum (I Joh 5,7f.).” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 50 (1959): 61-73.

5. Studies Not Specifically Related to the Johannine Epistles

Beyer, K. Semitische Syntax im Neuen Testament. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, 1962.

Box, G. H., ed. The Apocalypse of Abraham. London: SPCK; New York: Macmillan, 1919.

Braun, F.-M. Jean le Théologien. Vol. 1: Jean le Théologien et son Évangile dans l’Église ancienne. Paris: Gabalda, 1959.

Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John, I-XII. Anchor Bible 29. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966.

Campbell, J. Y. “Koinonia and its Cognates in the New Testament.” Journal of Biblical Literature 51 (1932): 352-80.

Cullmann, O. Early Christian Worship. Trans. A. S. Todd and J. B. Torrance. Studies in Biblical Theology 10. London: SCM, 1953.

Dunn, J. D. G. “John vi – A Eucharistic Discourse?” New Testament Studies 17 (1970/71): 328-38.

Grayston, Kenneth. “The Meaning of Paraklhtos.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 13 (1981): 67-82.

Gundry, R. H. “‘In my Father’s House are many Monai’ (John 14,2).” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 58 (1967): 68-72.

Hauschildt, H. “presbuteroi in Ägypten im I-III Jahrhundert n. Chr.” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 4 (1903): 235-42.

Hengel, Martin. The Son of God: The Origin of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion. Trans. J. Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976.

Hill, David. Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings: Studies in the Semantics of Soteriological Terms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967.

Klijn, Albertus Frederik Johannes. Seth in Jewish, Christian and Gnostic Literature. NovTSup 46. Leiden: Brill, 1977.

McCaffrey, J. The House With Many Rooms: The Temple Theme of Jn. 14, 2-3. Analecta biblica 114. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1988.

Manson, T. W. “Entry into Membership of the Early Church.” Journal of Theological Studies 48 (1947): 25-33.

Marshall, I. Howard. “The Divine Sonship of Jesus.” Interpretation 21 (1967): 87-103.

Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955.

Richter, G. “Blut und Wasser aus der durchbohrten Seite Jesu (Joh 19,34b).” Münchener theologische Zeitschrift 21 (1970): 1-21. Reprinted in Studien zum Johannesevangelium. Ed. J. Hainz. BU 13. Regensburg: Pustet, 1977, 120-42.

Smalley, Stephen S. John: Evangelist and Interpreter. Exeter: Paternoster, 1978.

Streeter, B. H. The Four Gospels. Rev. ed. London: Macmillan, 1930.

6. Other Works

Fanning, Buist M. Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Goetchius, Eugene V. The Language of the New Testament. New York: Scribner’s, 1965.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2^nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft/German Bible Society, 1994.

Moulton, J. H. Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. 3: Syntax, by Nigel Turner. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963.

Turner, Nigel. Grammatical Insights into the Greek New Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1965.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Zerwick, Maximilian. Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963.

Index of Modern Authors

A

Akin, D. L., 39, 265

Aland, K., 22

Alexander, J. N. S., 106, 170, 265

Argyle, A. W., 132, 270

B

Balz, H. R., 265

Barrett, C. K., 16

Barrosse, T., 268

Bauer, W., 19

Beyer, K., 223, 271

Bogaert, M., 37, 45

Bogart, J., 34

Boismard, M.-E., 26

Bonsirven, J., 55, 170, 265, 268

Box, G. H., 152, 271

Braumann, G., 122

Braun, F.-M., 21, 271

Brooke, A. E., 13, 37, 93, 95, 99, 106, 112, 115, 118, 119, 149, 160, 164, 170, 175, 177, 183, 184, 185, 187, 188, 194, 209, 211, 215, 219, 220, 222, 224, 232, 233, 235, 236, 241, 242, 243, 265

Brown, C., 185

Brown, R. E., 13, 17, 18, 19, 22, 26, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 41, 43, 44, 48, 50, 52, 63, 65, 68, 70, 71, 72, 74, 78, 79, 80, 84, 85, 86, 87, 90, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 103, 104, 106, 112, 114, 118, 119, 122, 123, 124, 126, 128, 129, 131, 133, 137, 141, 142, 143, 146, 148, 151, 156, 157, 164, 166, 170, 172, 174, 175, 180, 183, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 192, 196, 199, 200, 202, 203, 204, 205, 208, 210, 212, 224, 225, 226, 230, 232, 236, 238, 239, 241, 248, 250, 254, 265, 271

Bruce, F. F., 35, 95, 165, 203, 206, 265, 270

Büchsel, F., 30, 138, 180, 265

Bultmann, R., 37, 72, 80, 84, 88, 89, 90, 93, 95, 105, 112, 115, 118, 119, 121, 124, 129, 131, 150, 163, 164, 167, 173, 175, 181, 189, 190, 193, 194, 197, 203, 205, 219, 224, 241, 247, 265

Burge, G. M., 265

C

Campbell, J. Y., 58, 271

Cassem, N. H., 268

Chaine, J., 170

Coetzee, J. C., 268, 269

Cook, W. R., 269

Cooper, E. J., 269

Cullmann, O., 202, 271

Culpepper, R. A., 45, 126, 194

D

de Ambroggi, P., 38, 265

de Boer, M. C., 203

de Jonge, M., 104, 114, 265, 268, 269

de la Potterie, I., 93, 95, 269

Dodd, C. H., 19, 37, 40, 45, 48, 54, 58, 74, 80, 95, 98, 99, 104, 105, 109, 112, 126, 128, 133, 134, 138, 140, 141, 142, 148, 149, 153, 157, 161, 173, 176, 178, 182, 183, 184, 185, 190, 192, 195, 205, 208, 209, 215, 222, 226, 231, 232, 246, 249, 251, 252, 265

du Preez, J., 141, 270

Dunn, J. D. G., 208, 271

E

Edwards, M. J., 34, 225, 226

Eichler, J., 115

Esser, H.-H., 79, 155

F

Fanning, B. M., 133, 272

Fensham, F. C., 269

Feuillet, A., 19, 43

Filson, F. V., 26, 45

Findlay, G. G., 265

Foerster, W., 185

Fohrer, G., 126

Francis, F. O., 45

Freedman, D. N., 50

Funk, R. W., 37, 45, 229, 245, 265

G

Giurisato, G., 45

Goetchius, E. V., 211, 272

Gore, C., 265

Grayston, K., 73, 271

Greiff, A., 270

Griffith, T., 24, 26

Grundmann, W., 104

Guhrt, J., 97

Gundry, R. H., 103, 271

H

Haas, C., 104, 109, 112, 114, 116, 118, 121, 126, 128, 147, 150, 159, 172, 173, 175, 178, 180, 182, 187, 189, 191, 200, 202, 212, 214, 215, 217, 224, 236, 247, 251, 265, 268

Hahn, H.-C., 122, 159

Hall, D. R., 251, 270

Hanse, H., 115

Häring, T., 36, 45

Harris, M. J., 164, 165, 270

Hauschildt, H., 230, 271

Heise, J., 269

Hengel, M., 137, 271

Hill, D., 74, 269, 271

Hills, J., 226, 270

Hodges, Z. C., 62, 133, 265, 270

Hoffman, T. A., 26

Hoffmann, E., 117

Holtzmann, H. J., 19

Hoskyns, E., 265

Houlden, J. L., 38, 42, 43, 48, 54, 80, 93, 95, 106, 118, 126, 149, 151, 163, 167, 170, 173, 180, 189, 191, 193, 208, 223, 226, 233, 266

Howard, W. F., 19, 137, 211

J

Johnston, G., 269

Jones, P. R., 45

K

Katz, P., 13, 19

Kennedy, H. A. A., 269

Keppler, P. W., 270

Kilpatrick, G. D., 86, 268

Kittler, R., 270

Klauck, H.-J., 31, 34, 35, 266

Klijn, A. F. J., 152, 271

Köster, H., 155

Kruse, C., 59, 71, 72, 99, 203, 266

Kubo, S., 134, 139, 270

Kügler, J., 17, 19

L

Law, R., 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 134, 186, 187, 266

Lazure, N., 98, 268, 270

Lewis, G. P., 266

Lieu, Judith M., 24, 69, 268, 269

Loisy, A. F., 157

Louw, J. P., 78, 268, 269

Love, J. P., 260, 262, 266, 268, 269

M

Malatesta, E., 38, 82, 90, 94, 95, 99, 101, 102, 109, 115, 117, 121, 132, 136, 141, 153, 156, 164, 167, 172, 173, 175, 183, 202, 213, 218, 222, 224, 225, 269

Manson, T. W., 19, 197, 207, 271

Marshall, I. H., 55, 79, 80, 84, 95, 97, 102, 109, 110, 112, 114, 115, 118, 119, 122, 124, 126, 131, 137, 141, 150, 151, 155, 160, 164, 165, 167, 172, 177, 184, 185, 186, 188, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 197, 201, 203, 207, 208, 213, 214, 217, 219, 220, 225, 229, 233, 241, 248, 266, 271

Marty, J., 268

Maurer, C., 154

McCaffrey, J., 103, 271

Metzger, B. M., 22, 205, 272

Michaelis, W., 22

Michel, O., 137, 164

Moody, D., 266

Morris, L., 74, 271

Moulton, J. H., 72, 211, 272

Mundle, W., 190, 217

Mussner, F., 269

N

Nauck, W., 45, 110, 207, 269

Noack, B., 94, 270

O

O’Neill, J. C., 19, 40, 41, 45

Oepke, A., 122

Oke, C. C., 45

P

Painter, J., 31, 34, 48, 58, 126, 184, 201, 223, 266

Perkins, Pheme, 58, 269

Piper, O. A., 26

Plummer, A., 36, 37, 42, 47, 72, 243, 266

Pratscher, W., 270

R

Rensberger, D. K., 266

Richter, G., 202, 271

Robinson, J. A. T., 45

Romaniuk, K., 270

Ross, A., 266

S

Salom, A. P., 268

Schlier, H., 122

Schmithals, W., 152, 266

Schnackenburg, R., 17, 31, 34, 41, 48, 52, 59, 63, 64, 66, 70, 72, 73, 80, 84, 85, 87, 89, 91, 92, 102, 103, 106, 122, 124, 128, 142, 145, 149, 166, 174, 186, 188, 191, 193, 196, 197, 205, 207, 209, 215, 225, 226, 247, 251, 266, 269

Schneider, J., 185

Schrenk, G., 196, 197

Segond, A., 270

Segovia, F. F., 269

Smalley, S. S., 17, 18, 31, 65, 78, 80, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 94, 95, 97, 100, 103, 104, 105, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 119, 121, 125, 126, 131, 132, 135, 136, 138, 141, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 153, 154, 155, 157, 163, 164, 165, 166, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 176, 177, 180, 181, 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 194, 195, 201, 206, 211, 213, 214, 215, 219, 220, 222, 224, 225, 226, 231, 232, 233, 234, 236, 237, 239, 241, 242, 247, 249, 250, 251, 266, 270, 271

Smith, D. M., 266

Soltau, W., 19

Songer, H. S., 26

Sorg, T., 159

Spicq, C., 270

Stagg, F., 34, 72

Stählin, G., 89

Stegemann, E., 226, 270

Stott, J. R. W., 55, 93, 95, 114, 126, 162, 170, 173, 174, 175, 178, 183, 184, 186, 189, 193, 205, 224, 240, 242, 266

Strecker, G., 19, 37, 38, 47, 48, 59, 65, 74, 78, 109, 174, 203, 226, 237, 266

Streeter, B. H., 18, 26, 41, 229, 230, 271

Sugit, J. N., 226, 270

Swadling, H. C., 134, 270

Swellengrebel, J. L., 104, 265, 268

T

Tarelli, C. C., 50, 268

Thiele, W., 271

Thiselton, A. C., 99

Thompson, Marianne Meye, 266

Thompson, P. J., 40, 46

Thornton, T. C. G., 74, 270

Tolkien, J. R. R., 76

Tomoi, K., 46

Turner, N., 72, 133, 197, 218, 232, 272

V

van der Horst, P. W., 182, 270

Vorster, W. S., 34

Vouga, F., 266

W

Wallace, D. B., 72, 80, 97, 117, 125, 170, 181, 231, 240, 241, 272

Weiss, B., 170

Weiss, K., 34

Wengst, K., 34, 202

Westcott, B. F., 35, 36, 46, 70, 80, 87, 93, 95, 104, 106, 109, 114, 119, 126, 136, 146, 153, 170, 172, 173, 179, 185, 187, 188, 192, 202, 215, 219, 222, 224, 226, 241, 253, 267

Wilder, A. N., 37, 267

Williams, R. R., 267

Wilson, W. G., 19

Windisch, H., 92, 207, 267

Z

Zerwick, M., 69, 72, 80, 97, 133, 208, 217, 241, 272

---

822 Slightly different is R. W. Funk’s analysis of the structure of 3 John: introduction (vv. 1-2); thanksgiving (vv. 3-4); the writer’s request (vv. 5-8); the presbyterial ‘arrival’ (vv. 9-10); paranesis (v. 11); recommendation (v. 12); conclusion (vv. 13-15) (“The Form and Structure of II and III John,” 429).

823 See 2 John 1 for further discussion of this term.

824 Several possible explanations for the author’s use of this title are discussed above at 2 John 1.

825 As Dodd noted, there is no early support for such an identification (The Johannine Epistles, 156).

826 See the earlier section “The Opponents and Their Teaching in 1 John” for further discussion and summarization of the views of the opponents as reflected in the Johannine Letters.

827 See the section “The identification of ‘all those who know the truth’ in v. 1” above.

828 See the section “The referent of ejn touvtw/ (en toutw, ‘by this’) in 3:19” above.

829 Philo, Who Is the Heir 58.285.

830 Some interpreters have understood this to imply that Gaius may not have been in the best of physical health (e.g., Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 346).

831 So Schnackenburg, The Johannine Epistles, 292-93.

832 So Bultmann, The Johannine Epistles, 98, n. 6. Haas, et al. (A Translator’s Handbook, 150) and Marshall (The Epistles of John, 84) hold open the possibility of both interpretations.

833 Brown remarks, “Again I judge it more likely that we encounter a meaningless variant of Johannine style” (The Epistles of John, 707).

834 BDAG 821 s.v. pivsti 1.b.

835 BDF §§290(5) and 442(9).

836 Cf. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles, 159.

837 So Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 349.

838 See the section “The meaning of the author’s statement pistoVn poieiv (piston poieis, literally ‘practice faithfulness’) in v. 5” above.

839 See the section “The identification of Demetrius mentioned in v. 12” below.

840 BDAG 873 s.v. propevmpw 2.

841 Brown notes that in rabbinic literature “the Name” is a frequent substitute for the Tetragrammaton, yhwh, the personal name of God (The Epistles of John, 707). This name was considered too sacred to be pronounced, so other words were substituted.

842 So, e.g., Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 351.

843 Cf. Dodd, The Johannine Epistles, 160; Schnackenburg, The Johannine Epistles, 295, n. 119; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 351.

844 See further on this phrase D. R. Hall, “Fellow-Workers with the Gospel,” ExpTim 85 (1973/74): 119-20; cf. also Haas, et al., A Translator’s Handbook, 153.

845 Cf. Dodd, who suggested that Gaius was a member of another neighboring church, but not the one to which Diotrephes belonged (The Johannine Epistles, 161).

846 As explained in the previous section.

847 BDAG 1058 s.v. filoprwteuvw states: “to have a special interest in being in the leading position, wish to be first, like to be leader, in our lit. with focus on controlling others.”

848 BDAG 370 s.v. ejpidevcomai 1., “to receive into one’s presence in a friendly manner, receive, welcome tinav someone”; the verb is used with this meaning in the next verse.

849 BDAG 370 s.v. ejpidevcomai 2., “to acknowledge receptively, accept = not reject…tinav acknowledge someone’s authority.”

850 Although Westcott takes the force of ejavn e[lqw as temporal (“when I come”) and not implying any doubt that the author will do so (The Epistles of St. John, 240).

851 Brown speculates, “The secession described in I John 2:19 may well have been the Johannine occasion for introducing letters of recommendation since it would no longer have been easy to detect immediately on which side of the dispute a Christian of the Johannine heritage stood” (The Epistles of John, 723).

852 See the section “The meaning of the phrase ‘I do not want to do so with paper and ink’ in v. 12” of 2 John for further discussion of the similar phrase there.

Views on the authorship, origin, and historicity of the Fourth Gospel have changed drastically over the last century and a half. One hundred fifty years ago, if one had asked a New Testament scholar which of the four gospels gave us the most information about the life and ministry of Jesus, the answer would almost invariably have been, “The Gospel of John.” Today if one asks a typical New Testament scholar the same question, the Gospel of John would be the last choice as a source of information about Jesus (if it was viewed as having anything to say about this topic at all). How has such a drastic shift in opinion regarding the Fourth Gospel come about? In large part it has happened because of a shift in scholarly opinion about the interrelationship of the four gospels which placed John’s Gospel late in the first century (actually, it would have been pushed well into the second century, as F. C. Baur and the “Tbingen School” had proposed around 1835. The discovery of the fragmentary manuscript known as ⁵² by C. H. Roberts in 1934 in the John Rylands Library of the University of Manchester, however, led to the late first century date). As a late work John’s Gospel was thus regarded as secondary and derivative, and where John’s version of events differed from that of the synoptic gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it was assumed that John had altered the traditions to suit his own theological ends.

This state of affairs held sway until only about two decades ago. Things have now begun to change again with regard to views on the Fourth Gospel as a legitimate source for information about Jesus’ life and ministry.

The following summary is quoted from Stephen S. Smalley and serves as a useful starting point for a discussion of the Fourth Gospel:

In 1978 Dr. J. A. T. Robinson gave a paper to an Oxford Conference on the Gospels, entitled “The New Look on the Fourth Gospel.” In it he suggested that if a new look on John existed, it could be distinguuished from an ‘old look.’ He therefore set out what he regarded as the five presuppositions belonging to critical orthodoxy in the first half of the twentieth century so far as the interpretation of John’s Gospel was concerned, and tried to demonstrate that each was in need of and in the process of re-examination.

The five presuppostions listed by Robinson are as follows:

(I) That the fourth evangelist is dependent on sources, including at least one of the Synoptic Gospels.

(II) That his backgound differs from that of the tradition he reports.

(III) That his work is a serious witness not to the Jesus of history but to the Christ of faith.

(IV) That he reflects the latest stage of theological development in first-century Christianity.

(V) That he is neither the apostle John nor an eyewitness.

The most crucial of these assumptions mentioned by Robinson, as indicated already, is the first. Once it is allowed that John to any extent depends on the Synoptic Gospels, it follows that the only way to account for the differences between the Synoptic and Johannine traditions when they are in conflict is to say that the fourth Evangelist has altered his material to suit his own purposes.

And having said that the other assumptions follow. For particular reasons of writing, the Evangelist (it may be claimed) cuts loose from the tradition to which he is presumably indebted, and theologises the ‘history’ he is interpreting. He does this in a developed manner for a late, primarily Hellenistic audience, by which time any eyewitness links have disappeared. In other words, as Robinson himself points out, the effect of adopting the ‘old look’ on the Fourth Gospel is essentially to drive a wedge between the Evangelist and his tradition. It is to oppose Johannine history and theology, and to make the second superior to the first.¹

Smalley goes on to point out that it is precisely this presupposition of the literary dependence of the Fourth Gospel on the synoptics, with all the implications that follow from it, that is being most widely and seriously questioned by scholars at present. But for these scholars the issue is no longer one of authorship, but of tradition—whether the tradition behind the Gospel of John is independent of the synoptic tradition or not.

Let us begin by examining the issue of authorship to see what can indeed be said about the author of the Fourth Gospel:

1. Authorship—Who Wrote the Fourth Gospel?

In the popular imagination the author of the Fourth Gospel is normally viewed as the aging Apostle John, but it is important to remember that nowhere in the Gospel does the author actually state his name. This has led to such widespread and thorough discussion in scholarly circles over who the author might be, and when and how the Gospel of John came to be written, that it is almost impossible to group together and summarize the significance of all the different theories that have been advanced concerning the origin of the Fourth Gospel. Nevertheless, that is the purpose of the following paragraphs.

External Evidence Concerning Authorship

External (that is, historical) evidence regarding the authorship of the Fourth Gospel has been discussed well by Donald Guthrie.² More recently, the material has also been discussed by Gary Burge in his introductory volume on interpreting John’s Gospel and by Donald Carson in his commentary.³ There is no writer who mentions the Fourth Gospel or its author before Irenaeus.

Irenaeus (born AD 115-142? – died ca. AD 200). Scholars date the birth of Irenaeus between these two dates, chiefly on the basis of whether they give credit to his claims to have known Polycarp. In his work Against Heresies he states that the author of the Fourth Gospel was John, the Lord’s disciple; that the Gospel was published at Ephesus and that John remained at Ephesus until the time of Trajan.⁴

Eusebius, who reported this, says that Irenaeus’ authority for these statements was Polycarp, who learned truth from the apostles.⁵

According to Eusebius, Irenaeus himself, in a letter to his friend Florinus, reminisces of their childhood conversations with Polycarp.⁶

Irenaeus’ testimony has been discounted by many modern scholars, chiefly because they have concluded on other grounds that John the Apostle could not have written the Gospel. They simply claim his memory failed.

However, this presupposes that Irenaeus’ only source of information was Polycarp. But Irenaeus mentions another anonynmous Presbyter (bishop), whom most think was his predecessor as Bishop of Lyons, Pothinus, a man born well before the end of the 1st century. (He died in AD 177 at well over 90 years old.) Also, Irenaeus was in close touch with Rome, and must have known the traditions there.

J. Drummond states: “Critics speak of Irenaeus as though he had fallen out of the moon, paid two or three visits to Polycarp’s lecture-room, and had never known anyone else…he must have had numerous links with the early part of century.”⁷

All writers subsequent to Irenaeus assume the apostolic authorship of the Gospel without question (Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen). If they were merely reporting Irenaeus’ opinion, they must have considered it worth reporting—without suspicion.

The Muratorian Canon (a document probably written in the last quarter of the 2nd century with firm ties to Rome) describes the Fourth Gospel as proceding from John after a vision given to Andrew that John should write and the others revise. (This is problematic for those who hold a late date, though, in light of the probability that Andrew did not survive that long). But this probably indicates John was associated with the Gospel in Rome at the time.

In conclusion, while more might be said, especially concerning theories relating to the early martyrdom of the apostle John, it should be noted that these contradict Johannine authorship only if a late date is assumed for the Gospel. Such a late date is by no means certain. Also, there really is not much evidence at all for the early martyrdom of John. The evidence is as follows:

Evidence for the Early Martyrdom of the Apostle John

1. The martyrdom is deduced from Mark 10:39. Both James and John are promised that they will drink from the same cup as the Lord (i.e., referring to a martyr’s death). Therefore, John must have suffered the same fate as James. If not, it is presupposed, then Mark would have altered his text to reflect the fact that only James “drank from the same cup as the Lord.”

2. Two late writers, an epitomist of Philip of Side (5th century AD) and George Hamartolus (9th century AD) report statements supposed to have been made by Papias to the effect that John as well as James was killed by the Jews. George Hamartolus follows this with a citation of Mark 10:39 (see the previous point).

3. A Syrian martyrology (list of martyrs) of AD 411 commemorates John and James on the same day and describes them as ‘apostles in Jerusalem’.

4. The Carthaginian Calendar (ca. AD 505) has a similar entry for Dec. 27th but links John the Baptist with James. Many scholars regard this as an error for the Apostle John and claim this as early evidence for the apostle’s death.

5. A homily of Aphraates (no. 21) states that apart from Stephen, Peter, and Paul, there were only two martyr apostles, John and James.

The cumulative effect of all this evidence is very small. Guthrie thinks the individual points become even weaker on closer examination.

Evaluation of the Evidence for the Early Martyrdom of the Apostle John

1. The prediction of Mark 10:39 does not necessitate martyrdom, only suffering. There are far too many assumptions here, and even if it is granted that Mark 10:39 is a prediction of martyrdom for John, it does not prove that martyrdom was early. Furthermore, the idea that the evangelists would have adjusted the accounts, instead of recording what really happened, is a presupposition of modern critical scholarship.

2. Neither Philip’s epitomist nor George Hamartolus were noted for historical accuracy. Both Irenaeus and Eusebius know of Papias’ writings but neither refer to this statement about John’s martyrdom. Also, it is questionable whether Papias would have used the late Greek title “the Theologian” for John, as Philip’s report says he did. Furthermore George Hamartolus himself did not take the report from Papias seriously, since he also mentions the apostle John’s peaceful end.

3. The rest of the evidence may be dismissed, since the martyrologies and the homily by Aphraates are probably confusing John the Apostle with John the Baptist.

Modern Proposals Concerning the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel

In light of the text’s silence on the name of the author, a number of theories have been proposed in recent time as alternatives to the traditional view that the author of the Fourth Gospel was John the Apostle. A short survey of these proposals is given here.

1. John of Jerusalem was the author. Existence of a ‘John of Jerusalem’ who had access into the High Priest’s house was first proposed by H. Delff (1889). This John later became influential among Asiatic churches. This does have the advantage of still relying on eyewitness testimony. But no external evidence of any kind supports this theory.

2. The Fourth Gospel is a pseudepigraphal work. This view holds that all the eyewitness details are merely a device to create the impression of apostolic authorship, although the work was not really written by an apostle (thus “pseudepigraphal”). But why did an author intending to write a pseudepigraphal work not just mention the Apostle John’s name, which would have been much more effective and in harmony with general pseudepigraphal practice? Further, how can this theory explain how the gospel gained acceptance generally? Unless this gospel were at once assumed to be genuinely apostolic, it would have had increasing difficulty creating that impression as time went on, especially with the rise of Gnosticism. The Fourth Gospel was a favorite of the Gnostics and if it had not been widely accepted as apostolic, there would have been considerable difficulty gaining later acceptance. There are no known cases of works once recognized as pseudonomous ever losing their pseudonomous ascription at some later time.

3. The Fourth Gospel was written by John Mark. Originally Wellhausen proposed John Mark as author of the Fourth Gospel; more recently by J. N. Sanders and Pierson Parker have done so.⁸ But in another earlier article Parker had argued for a second edition of the gospel issued fairly late.⁹ It is difficult to see how this can be reconciled with his view of John Mark as author—not to mention the complications with traditional ascriptions of Mark’s Gospel to John Mark (since the style is so different).

4. It was written by John the Elder. A famous statement of Papias has given rise to a widespread conviction among many scholars that there was another John who had associations with Ephesus and had some connection with the production of the gospel. This might be called the ‘confusion’ theory for interpreting the external evidence. Irenaeus’ evidence is easily discounted by assuming that he was really referring to John the Elder.

Papias is quoted by Eusebius as saying: “And again, if anyone came who had been a follower of the Elders, I used to enquire about the sayings of the Elders—what Andrew, or Peter, or Philip, or Thomas, or James, or John, or Matthew, or any other of the Lord’s Disciples said (eijpen) and what Aristion and the Elder John, the Disciples of the Lord, say (legousin). For I did not think that I could get so much profit from the contents of books as from the utterances of a living and abiding voice.”¹⁰

The problem concerns the interpretation of Papias’ words. Who are the so-called “Elders”? Are they to be identified with the “Disciples” also named, or separated from them? Barrett is convinced the “sayings of the Elders” consisted of reports of what the named disciples (i.e. apostles) had already said, and Papias only heard these second hand. There would be no question of Papias being a hearer of the apostle John and companion of Polycarp. Thus Papias would be referring to three groups: the apostles (Disciples), their followers the Elders, and the other disciples.

If, however, Papias is describing the apostles as Elders, then there are only two groups (apostles and disciples), and Papias used to enquire directly from the followers of the apostles what the apostles had said. His testimony is therefore closer to Irenaeus’.

But if Papias is describing the apostles as Elders, then it is possible that the “Elder John” is also the Apostle John mentioned earlier. In this case, Papias is distinguishing between what John said in the past and what at the time of Papis’ enquiry he was still saying.

At the same time, the possibility that there may have been two men with the name John cannot be ruled out. It is supported by Eusebius’ interpretation of Papias’ words. But since Eusebius wished to attribute the Book of Revelation to a different John than the author of the gospel, his interpretation may not have been impartial.

In any case, the only other evidence for the existance for an ‘Elder’ John may be the introduction to 2 and 3 John, where the author calls himself this.

But even if there was a second person named John, known as ‘the Elder’, Papias gives no location and no hint of any writings. He merely happens to possess a name which is identical to the person to which the Fourth Gospel is traditionally ascribed, and this makes the ‘confusion’ theory possible.

Of course a possible response to this is that if the later Church mixed up apostles and elders in this way, might not Papias have done so himself? And after all, it is still possible that he was originally referring to only one person himself, and Papias’ words were confused by Eusebius.

5. Lazarus was the author of the Fourth Gospel. Floyd Filson proposed Lazarus as author of the Gospel.¹¹ Lazarus is the one male figure of the Gospel of whom it is specifically said Jesus loved him (filein, filo" in 11:3, 11, 36; ajgapan in 11:5). (But referring to the Beloved Disciple, ajgapein is more frequently used.) Filson argues that the Gospel was meant to be self-intelligible to readers who, without the second century tradition which ascribed the Gospel to John, son of Zebedee, would have understood the Beloved Disciple as a reference to Jesus’ love for Lazarus.

But this argument is valid only if readers were unaware of the author’s identity even before they started the Gospel. This is not so likely if the author were a famous Apostle like John.

Developing the relationship between John and Lazarus even further, K.A. Eckhardt went so far as to suggest Lazarus was a pseudonym for John the son of Zebedee after he was brought back from the dead by Jesus.¹² It seems incredible that if John died during Jesus’ ministry and was resurrected by Jesus, there remains absolutely no trace of this in the Synoptic accounts and/or tradition.

Finally, J. N. Sanders thinks the basis of the Fourth Gospel was an Aramaic work by Lazarus, edited by John Mark, who was the Evangelist.

Now we need to consider the internal evidence of the Gospel regarding authorship.

Internal Evidence Concerning Authorship

It is important to remember that internal evidence concerning the authorship of the Fourth Gospel is indirect. B. F. Westcott’s “concentric circles of proof,” originally part of the introduction to his commentary are still very helpful here.¹³ (They have never really been refuted, merely ignored.) Westcott outlined the evidence for authorship as follows:

I. The author of the Fourth Gospel was a Jew.

A. He is familiar with current Jewish opinions.

1. Messianic Expectations —1:21, 4:25, 6:14 ff, 7:40 ff, 12:34 ff.

2. Attitude toward Women —4:27

3. Importance of religious schools — 7:15

4. Disparagement of Jews of the Diaspora (Hellenistic Jews) —7:35

5. Hostility of Jews and Samaritans —4:9

B. He is familiar with Jewish observances, customs, etc.

1. Ceremonial pollution of entering a gentile court —18:28

2. Feast of Tabernacles (hinted at) by symbolism of “living water” and the “light of the world”—7:8 and 8:12

3. The last day of the feast was the “great day”—7:37

4. Customs at marriage feast —2:1-10

5. Customs of burial—11:17-44

C. Vocabulary, sentence structure, symmetry and numerical symbolism, expression and arrangement of thoughts are essentially Hebrew. “The source of the imagery of the narrative…is the OT. The words are Greek words, but the spirit by which they live is Hebrew.” (Westcott, Introduction, vii)

D. The Old Testament is the source of the religious life of the author.

1. Judea was the “home” of the Word become flesh; these people were “his own people”—1:11

2. Judaism is constantly taken as the starting-point for Christianity.

a. The writer assumed as axiomatic that Scripture cannot be broken—10:35

b. That which is written in the prophets is assumed to be true —6:45

c. OT types are mentioned as Christ applied them to himself:

i. Serpent —3:14

ii. Manna —6:32

iii. Water from the Rock —7:37 ff., etc.

II. The author of the Fourth Gospel was a Jew of Palestine.

A. His local knowledge is precise.

1. Bethany beyond the Jordan (1:28), a place forgotten by the time of Origen, is distinguished from Bethany near Jerusalem (11:18). The location of the latter is given as 15 stadia away.

2. Aenon near Salim (3:23) is not mentioned anywhere else—indicating direct acquaintance of the writer.

3. Topography —especially of Jerusalem—is precise.

a. The pool at Bethesda—5:2

b. The pool of Siloam—9:7

c. The wadi Kidron—18:1

[Points a. - c. are not mentioned in the Synoptics.]

d. The Pavement (Gabbatha) with its raised judgement-seat—19:13

e. Allusions to the Temple:

i. 46 years in building—2:20

ii. Mention of the Treasury—8:20

iii. Solomon’s Portico—10:22

B. The author’s use of OT quotations shows that he is not dependent on the LXX, and at least suggest he was acquainted with Hebrew:

1. These agree with both the Hebrew text and LXX, where both agree (Hebrew text and LXX in agreement):

a. 12:38, cf. Is. 53:1

b. 19:24, cf. Ps 22:18

c. 10:34, cf. Ps 82:6

d. 15:25, cf. Ps 34:19

2. These agree with the Hebrew text against the LXX:

a. 19:37, cf. Zach. 12:10

b. 6:45, cf. Is. 54:13

c. 13:18, cf. Ps 41:9

3. This differs from both Hebrew and LXX where they both agree:

2:17, cf. Ps 69:9

4. These differ from Hebrew and LXX where they do not agree:

a. 12:14-15, cf. Zech 9:9

b. 12:40, cf. Is. 6:10

5. These are free renditions (paraphrases?) of various OT passages:

a. 19:36, cf. Exod 12:46, Num 9:12

b. 7:38, no exact OT quote is parallel

c. 1:23, cf. Is. 40:3

d. 6:31, cf. Ps 78:24, Exod 16:4, 15

6. But nowhere does a quotation of the OT in the Fourth Gospel agree with the LXX against the Hebrew text.

C. The author’s doctrine of the Logos is Palestinian and not Alexandrian—he views the Logos as representing the divine Will manifested in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Philo, on the other hand, viewed the Logos as abstract divine Reason.

D. Qumran documents have many parallels, which indicate that the Gospel is essentially a Palestinian document. See A. M. Hunter, Expository Times 71(1959/60), 166, 202.

III. The author of the Fourth Gospel was an eyewitness of the events he describes:

A. Descriptions of persons—in minute detail.

1. Nicodemus—3:1 ff, 7:50, 19:39

2. Lazarus—9:1 ff, 12:1 ff

3. Simon, father of Judas Iscariot—6:71, 12:4, 13:2, 26

4. Note: The author was aware “Iscariot” was a local or family name; he applies it both to Judas and to his father Simon: 6:71, 13:2, 26, 12:4, 14:22

B. Details of time:

1. Number of days before the raising of Lazarus—11:6, 17, 39

2. Duration of Jesus’ stay in Samaria—4:40,43

3. Specific mention of the hour at which events occurred:

a. “the tenth”—1:40

b. “the sixth”—4:6

c. “the seventh”—4:52

d. “about the sixth”—19:14

e. “it was night”—13:30, etc.

C. Details of number:

1. two disciples of John the Baptist—1:35

2. six waterpots—2:6

3. five loaves and two fishes—6:9

4. twenty-five or thirty stadia—6:19

5. four soldiers—19:23

6. two hundred cubits—21:8

7. two hundred fifty-three fish—21:11

D. Details of manner or circumstance:

1. The boy had barley loaves—6:9

2. When Mary poured the ointment, the house was filled with the fragrance—12:3

3. The branches used at the triumphant entry were palm branches—12:13

4. Roman soldiers come with the officers of the priests to arrest Jesus—18:3

5. Jesus’ tunic was seamless—19:23

6. The facecloth in which Jesus was buried was wrapped and lying in a place by itself—20:7

7. Peter was grieved because the Lord said to him a third time, “Do you love me?”—21:17

IV. The author of the Fourth Gospel was an Apostle.

A. This is clear from the scope of his descriptions of Jesus’ ministry from the call of the first disciple to the appearances after the resurrection.

B. He is acquainted with the thoughts and feelings of the disciples at critical moments: 2:11, 17, 22; 4:27, 6:19, 60 ff.; 12:16, 13:22, 28, 21:12.

C. He recalls words spoken amont themselves: 4:33, 16:17, 20:25, 21:3,5.

D. He is familiar with the places to which they withdrew for time alone: 11:54, 18:1-2, 20:19.

E. He is acquainted with imperfect or erroneous impressions they received initially: 11:13, 12:16, 13:28, 20:9, 21:4.

F. He stood very near the Lord:

1. He knew the Lord’s emotions: 11:33, 13:21.

2. He knew the grounds of the Lord’s actions: 2:24 ff, 4:1, 5:6, 6:15, 7:1, 16:19.

3. He knew the mind of the Lord in many cases: 6:6, 6:61, 6:64, 13:1,3; 13:11.

V. The author of the Fourth Gospel was the Apostle John.

A. John 21:24 assigns authorship to “the apostle whom Jesus loved.”

B. This disciple is mentioned by this title twice in the passion narrative (13:23, 19:26) and twice afterwards (21:7, 21:20).

C. He is known to the high-priest (18:15).

D. He stands in close relationship with Peter (13:24, 20:2, 21:7).

E. From the list in 21:2 of those present, this disciple must have been one of the sons of Zebedee, or one of the two other unnamed disciples present.

F. The synoptics present Peter, James and John as standing in a special relationship to Jesus. Peter is eliminated (see 20:21), James was martyred very early (Acts 12:2); this leaves John.

VI. Corroboration:

A. John is not mentioned by name anywhere in the Gospel.

B. While John is not mentioned by name, the author is very particular about defining names in his gospel—he frequently qualifies by using additional names; Simon is never called merely Simon after his call, but always by his full name Simon Peter or the new name Peter. But in spite of this tendency, the author of the Fourth Gospel never refers to the Baptist as John the Baptist (as the synoptics do) but only as “John.”

Further Remarks on Johannine Authorship: Variations on the Theme

If one accepts the traditional view that John the Apostle was the author of the gospel which bears his name, there are still some possible variations in the way the composition actually took place, as follows:

1. John the Apostle was the witness and some other person was the author. A parallel to this solution may be found in the traditional relationship between Peter and Mark in the production of Mark’s Gospel. There is no fundamental objection to this theory, but it does involve a rather broad interpretation of gravya" in John 21:24, in the sense of “writing by means of another”(there are probably other NT parallels for this, however). It would not be out of keeping with the external evidence provided the apostle himself held the main responsibility for what was said. Under this theory, the amanuensis would remain anonymous and the apostle would take credit for the Gospel. In this respect it would differ from the Peter-Mark relationship and would suggest John had more of a personal hand in the writing than Peter did in the case of Mark.

2. A further modification (possible but less likely) is that a disciple of John wrote the memoirs of the apostle after his death. According to this theory the substance of the Gospel is John’s but not the actual writing. In this case 21:24 would constitute a reference not to John the apostle himself, but to the disciple doing the writing.

While these two theories offer interesting possibilities, there is almost certainly not enough concrete information in the text of the Gospel itself to confirm or deny either one. Furthermore, arguments based solely on stylistics are indeterminative since they are only probability statements.

2. Date—When Was the Fourth Gospel Written?

Given the diversity of opinion concerning authorship of the Fourth Gospel, the consensus on its dating is remarkable. A century and a half ago, F. C. Baur and his adherents, who became known as the “Tbingen School” because they were located at the University of Tbingen in southern Germany, advocated a date late in the second century for John’s Gospel (ca. AD 175). They did so mainly on the basis of the similarity between the Fourth Gospel and Gnosticism, which flourished in the mid- to late second century and was thought by many to be the background for “Johannine” thought. Today no New Testament scholar would advocate such a late date, primarily for two reasons. First was the discovery of a small fragment of papyrus containing a couple of verses from John 18 by a British scholar, C. H. Roberts, while studying fragments of uncatalogued fragments in the John Rylands Library at the University of Manchester in 1934. This fragment, which has become famous as ⁵², is now dated (by a consensus of NT scholars and papyrologists) ca. AD 125.¹⁴ Since no one believes this fragment is actually part of the autograph (the original document), and since it came from Egypt, it is generally conceded that it would take several decades for the Gospel of John to be circulated, copied, carried to Egypt (and end up buried there). This suggests a date for John’s Gospel late in the first century. The second contributing factor to such a date was the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947. The scrolls exhibit much of the imagery and symbolism that had formerly been attributed to Gnosticism. For example, the so-called “War Scroll” from Qumran is properly titled The War of the Sons of Light With the Sons of Darkness. Concepts which were thought to indicate a late date for John because of their connection with Gnosticism have now turned up in documents written (in some cases) as early as the second century BC.

W. G. Kümmel says:

If John was known in Egypt in the first quarter of the 2nd century, the beginning of the second century is a terminus ad quem. On the other hand, John’s knowledge of Luke is extremely probable, so it could not have been written before ca. 80-90. The assumption that John was written probably in the last decade of the first century is today almost universally accepted.¹⁵ [my emphasis]

J. A. T. Robinson likewise says:

Indeed one of the facts about the remarkable scholarly consensus which we shall be noting on the dating of the Johannine literature is that it cuts across almost every possible division. Those who believe that all five books—the Revelation, the gospel and the three epistles—are by one man, and that man the apostle John, and those who hold to none of these, or to almost every possible permutation of them, find common ground in dating both the Revelation and the gospel and epistles in the years 90-100.¹⁶ [my emphasis]

External Evidence Regarding the Date of John’s Gospel:

I. That the apostle John lived to a very old age is widely attested:

A. Irenaeus in Against Heresies claims that John lived into the reign of the Emperor Trajan (AD 98-117).¹⁷

B. Eusebius repeats Irenaeus’ statement about John living until the time of Trajan.¹⁸

C. Jerome placed John’s death “in the 68th year after our Lord’s passion.”¹⁹

II. That John was the last evangelist to write is also well attested, mentioned by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. iii.1.1), Clement (according to Eusebius, HE 4.14.7), and Eusebius himself (HE 3.24.7).

III. But that John wrote as a very old man is an inference which only appears later and combined with other statements which cast considerable doubt on its accuracy.

A. The Muratorian Canon (probably ca. AD 180) describing the origin of the gospel (the vision that John should write and the others revise) suggests no date, but it presupposes that John’s “fellow-desciples” including Andrew are still alive and with him, and thus argues against a very late period.

B. The Anti-Marcionite Prologue²⁰ records that “the gospel of John was revealed and given to the churches by John while still in the body” (some manuscripts add, “after writing the Apocalypse”). The Prologue also claims the authority of Papias for this statement, and says that John dictated the gospel to Papias. The Prologue adds that Marcion (who taught in Asia Minor ca. AD 130) was “rejected” by John (i.e., Marcion’s theology was disapproved by the Apostle). However, Eusebius knew Papias’ works, and quotes nothing from him about the origin of the Fourth Gospel.²¹ It seems unlikely that the gospel was dictated to Papias, and impossible that John knew of Marcion.

C. Victorinus of Pettau (died ca. AD 304) also says that John wrote the Gospel after the Apocalypse, but sees it as written against (among others) Valentinus, a Gnostic who taught in mid-2nd century.

D. Epiphanius (ca. AD 315-403) says explicitly that John, refusing in his humility to write a gospel, was compelled by the Holy Spirit to do so in his old age, when he was over ninety, after his return from Patmos and after living “many years” in Asia.²² However, this is combined with the confused statements that John’s banishment took place “under Claudius” and that he prophesied under that emperor “before his death.” Claudius reigned from AD 41-54 (but Epiphanius could be referring to Nero, whose full name was Nero Claudius Caesar Drusus Germanicus).

E. George Hamartolus (9th century) stated, “After Domitian, Nerva reigned one year, who recalled John from the island, and allowed him to dwell in Ephesus. He was at that time the sole survivor of the twelve Apostles, and after writing his Gospel received the honour of martyrdom” (Domitian reigned from AD 81-96).

F. Note, however, that Irenaeus and Eusebius did not say John wrote when a very old man.

This is basically the extent of the external evidence.

J. A. T. Robinson summarized well:

With marginal variation at each end (and even Bultmann goes down as far as 80 for the first composition), the span 90-100 is agreed by Catholic and Protestant, by conservative and radical, by those who defend apostolic authorship and those who reject it, by those who believe that John used the synoptists and those who do not. It includes virtually all those who have recently written commentaries on the gospel, not to mention other interpreters. It is one of the relatively few points at which over a span of two generations Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible and The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible agree, and the consensus includes now the redaction-critics. Indeed many commentators (e.g. Schnackenburg) scarcely bother to discuss the issue of dating, and the space it occupies in introductions, whether to the New Testament or to the gospel, compared with that of authorship is minimal. Kümmel’s two-sentence summary…[mentioned previously] is typical: the question appears to be settled.²³

Internal Evidence Regarding the Date of John’s Gospel

In the opinion of many interpreters, John’s use of the synoptics (especially Luke) must indicate a later date (toward the end of the first century).But much scholarly disagreement over the use of the synoptics by John exists, especially over their precise relationship. In any case, John could be written after the synoptics and still be early.

For others, John’s highly developed theology and ecclesiology must date from the end of the 1st century. But other books such as Romans and Hebrews have highly developed theology and are not necessarily late. Mention of the “spiritual” significance of sacraments (ordinances) like baptism is characteristic of John’s point of view (note the literal/figurative interplay throughout). And John does not even mention the “sacrament” of the Lord’s Supper!

John makes no reference at all to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Thus it is assumed this must be far enough removed not to seem as important. But of all the NT writings with the exception of Hebrews and Revelation, the Fourth Gospel is the most likely to contain an allusion to the fall of Jerusalem. The focus of the gospel is on the rejection of Messiah by “his own” (1:11). The visitation and rejection must mean divine judgment.

Ultimately, the temple (2:21) is replaced by Christ himself. Yet in chapter two there is no mention of Jerusalem’s fall. Instead, Jesus’ prophesy is seen as a prophecy not of what the Romans would do in destroying Jerusalem, but of the events of AD 33—what the Jews would do to Jesus. With an author as reflective as John, it is very strange that he does not see something of the coming doom in all of this.

A possible indication that Jerusalem was still undestroyed at the time the Fourth Gospel was written is found in 5:2, which speaks of the pool of Bethesda (Bethzatha according to some manuscripts) with its five porticoes as still standing, using a present tense. The present tense is the only one in the immediate context—the writer uses imperfects for the rest of the description. This appears to give it special significance. Elsewhere in the Fourth Gospel (4:6, 11:18, 18:1, 19:41) John assimilates such topographical descriptions into the context. The natural inference from this use of the present tense is that John is writing while the building is still standing. H. Hoehner thinks that because of this, the city might actually have been under siege, and Bethany (11:18) and Golgotha (19:1 ff.) had been destroyed, but the pool of Bethesda was still there. D. B. Wallace also argued that the present tense in 5:2 is not to be understood as a historical present, and thus provides a significant clue to the early dating of the Gospel.²⁴ In response to these suggestions, though, it must be noted that (1) while we do have some descriptions in Josephus of the general nature of the destruction in various quarters of the city, we do not know whether a feature like the pool of Bethesda would have survived the destruction or not; and (2) it is possible John, writing after the fall of the city and from a distant location, did not know whether the pool had been destroyed or not, and so naturally wrote as if it were still there, when in fact it may not have been.

Finally, the strong Palestinian influence throughout the gospel also suggests an early date. After John left for Ephesus and lived there for many years, such details would tend to fade and blur in memory.

In conclusion, the Fourth Gospel was probably written shortly before AD 70 and the fall of Jerusalem.

3. Literary Point of View

One of the most important developments in the field of literary criticism in the last century or so has been the study of the so-called “literary point of view.” For our purposes we can define “point of view” as the position where the author stands in relation to the events he is relating to his readers. It is the “stance” he adopts as he relates his story.

To determine the point of view, one can ask the following questions:

(1) Who is telling the story?

(2) From what physical point of view (or angle of narrative) is he telling the story?

(3) From what mental point of view (or mood [but not grammatical mood, however]) is he telling the story?

The first question (who is telling the story) is really the least important, since except in the case of an anonymous work it is relatively easy to determine who did write the story. The second question (about the physical point of view) is basically limited to 2 choices:

1. The author may adopt a first person point of view. Here the person telling the story is actually an observer of the events he relates. It is like a news reporter on the scene of a story describing what is taking place at the very moment as it happens. [Note: This does not necessarily involve the use of 1st person pronouns, just as a news reporter on the scene describing actions in progress may use second or third person pronouns.]

1 D Advantage: The first person point of view gives a great feeling of immediacy and closeness with the reader.

2 D Disadvantage: It greatly limits the range with which the author can deal with the events—he cannot present himself as knowing another person’s mind or knowing the future, for example.

2. The author may adopt a third person point of view. He tells the story as if he were separated from the events which are being described. He describes events like the narrator of a documentary.

1 D Disadvantage: this loses the feeling of immediacy and closeness with the reader.

2 D Advantages:

1 E A greater range of perspective from which to tell the story is available to the author.

2 E The writer may include later insights which the characters have received through the perspective of time, upon further reflection.

3 E The writer may interrupt the narrative to give his readers additional details and information they could not otherwise have—notes, explanatory glosses, comments, etc.

4 E Allows the readers to survey the lives of characters from a height, participating in the privilege of a novelist.

3. The so-called “Omniscient Author” convention—with this variation of the third person point of view, the author includes not only information the readers would not have, but information that even a firsthand observer of the events could not know. For instance, the writer may give the thoughts and feelings of more than one person at the same time (assuming these were not verbally expressed).

The third question (mental point of view or “mood”) is just as important as the physical point of view. It must be coherent with the physical point of view. The author’s mental analysis of a situation must agree with the physical point of view he adopts. What is meant is this: an author cannot adopt a 1st person point of view and yet tell the story as an “omniscient author” who knows the outcome. That would create a lack of coherence between the physical and mental points of view and would ring false to the reader or hearer.

In summary, we have seen that we may ask three questions to determine an author’s point of view. They are:

(1) Who is telling the story?

(2) What is his physical point of view? (This may be divided into 1st person or 3rd person, and if 3rd person, may involve the “omniscient author” convention).

(3) What is his mental point of view? (This must be consistent with the physical point of view adopted).

Now we will apply the above analysis to the Gospel of John.

1. Who is telling the story?

We find the answer to this at the end of the gospel itself— 21:24. The disciple whom Jesus loved (cf. 21:20) is the one who has written these things. From our previous discussion of authorship we concluded that this disciple is most likely the Apostle John.

2. What is the author’s physical point of view?

This is the basic difference between John and the Synoptics. The synoptics are written from a 1st person point of view (as if the author had personally observed all the events) while John is written from a 3rd person point of view (i.e. removed from the events he describes).

While the author claims to be a participant in the events he very carefully separates himself from the events. However clear it is that he was an eyewitness of the life of our Lord, it is no less clear that he looks back upon it from a distance. While we see the events through his eyes, we are carefully guided to see through those eyes not as they saw the events when they happened but as they now see them. We see more from the position the writer now holds.

We might suspect, even from the opening words of 1:1, the panoramic sweep of John’s view of the life of Christ.

There are numerous passages which could serve as an example of John’s 3rd person perspective. Four will serve as examples:

a. 2:17—ejmnhvsqhsan oiJ maqhtaiV aujtou' o{ti gegrammevnon ejstivn...

b. 2:22—o{te ou hjgevrqh ejk nekrw'n...

c. 12:16—tau'ta oujk e[gnwsan aujtou' oiJ maqhtaiV toV prw'ton...

d. 20:9—oujüdevpw gaVr h[/deisan thVn grafhVn...

In each of these passages it may easily be seen that John has adopted the “post-resurrection” point of view. He looks back on the events and emphasizes the inability of the apostles to understand the things that were happening in their true perspective at the time they occured. It is only possible for us to understand these things when we consider the resurrection and its significance in God’s plan.

But John has also chosen to use the “omniscient author” convention.

1 C Details he specifically explains to his readers—

1 D The place where John was baptizing (1:28)

2 D Jewish purification customs (2:6)

3 D The state of Jewish-Samaritan relations (4:9)

4 D The existence of “secret believers” among the Jewish leaders (because they wanted to retain their positions) (12:42-43)

5 D Details of Jewish burial customs (19:40)

2 C The disciples’ lack of understanding is repeatedly pointed out:

1 D Jesus’ exchange with Judas in the Upper Room (13:28-29)

2 D Jesus’ teaching concerning the resurrection (20:9)

3 D The disciples did not at first recognize the glorified Jesus (21:4)

3 C Explanation of yet future events:

1 D 11:2—Mary mentioned as “the Mary who anointed the Lord” before this takes place (not until 12:9)

2 D The coming of the Holy Spirit mentioned by Jesus (7:39) before Pentecost

4 C Things a firsthand observer would not know:

1 D Judas was a thief (12:6)

2 D The appropriateness of Caiaphas’ prophesy (11:51-52). He spoke “more truly than he knew”

3. What is the author’s mental point of view?

It is, in general, consistent with the physical point of view he adopts as omniscient author. The mental point of view chosen by the author has allowed him to choose material which the other gospel writers did not use and to present it with the confidence that his readers, also viewing it from the post-resurrection point of view, would understand it in its true light. Those to whom the teaching was originally delivered did not understand it at the time.

For example, concerning the doctrine of the coming of the Holy Spirit: Jesus relates in 7:38 that “out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water”. The following verse gives John’s point of view when he says: “He spoke this concerning the Spirit which those who believed in Him would receive, for the Spirit was not yet given because Jesus was not yet glorified.”

Finally, Jesus breathes on the disciples (20:22) and (in some sense) they receive the Holy Spirit. But believers, looking back with the author, could understand the teaching in 7:38.

Another example would be Nicodemus in chapter 3. He apparently did not get the point of Jesus’ teaching until after the conversation some time later. But let the reader understand!

4. Conclusions

This has been a brief attempt to deal with literary point of view in relation to the gospel of John. We have seen that John consistently has adopted a “post-resurrection” point of view, looking back on the events with the benefit of further insight and seeing their theological implications. As an “omniscient author” he uses his access to information that a participant in the events could not have had at the time the events occurred.

5. An additional note on the frequency of historical presents in the Fourth Gospel:

This technique allows the author to use the 3rd person point of view, with the “omniscient author” convention, and still preserve, at the same time, some of the immediacy and vividness of a first person point of view. Perhaps this is the reason for the large number of historical presents in the Fourth Gospel. Extensive use of the historical present is a characteristic mark of Johannine style.

---

¹ S. S. Smalley, John: Evangelist and Interpreter (London: Paternoster, 1978), 11-12 [emphasis mine].

² D. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1973), 258-63.

³ G. M. Burge, Interpreting the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 37-54; D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 68-81.

⁴ Adv. Haer. 2.22.5, 3.3.4 (ca. AD 185).

⁵ Historia Ecclesiasticus [The History of the Church] 3.23.3. ff. and 4.14.3-8.

⁶ HE 5.20.4-8.

⁷ J. Drummond, An Inquiry into the Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel (1903), 348.

⁸ J. N. Sanders and Pierson Parker, “John and John Mark,” JBL 79 (1960): 97-110.

⁹ Pierson Parker, “Two Editions of John,” JBL 75 (1956): 303-314.

¹⁰ HE 3.39.4.

¹¹ Floyd Filson, “Who Was the BD?” JBL 68 (1949): 83-88.

¹² K. A. Eckhardt, Der Tod des Johannes (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1961).

¹³ B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John (1881; rpt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978).

¹⁴ The date is usually given as between AD 100 and 150, so AD 125 is usually accepted as the approximate average date.

¹⁵ P. Feine, J. Behm, and W. G. Kümmel, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (1963); (Introduction to the New Testament, trans. A. J. Mattill, Jr. [1965], 246).

¹⁶ J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1976), 254.

¹⁷ Adv. Haer. 2.22.5; 3.3.4.

¹⁸ HE 3.23.3.ff.

¹⁹ De vir. ill. 9 (ca. AD 97 using an AD 30 date for the crucifixion, or ca. AD 100 if AD 33 is used).

²⁰ This work is dated ca. AD 400 by Regul, Die antimarcionitischen Evangelienprologe.

²¹ Cf. Eusebius’ quote from Papias about the “Elder John” mentioned above (HE 3.39.4).

²² Heresies 51.12.

²³ Robinson, Redating the New Testament, 261.

²⁴ D. B. Wallace, “John 5,2 and the Date of the Fourth Gospel,” Biblica 71 (1990):177-205.

Some have thought that the Prologue to the Fourth Gospel was composed separately by someone other than the Evangelist. The usual reasons given for seeing the Prologue as a separate composition involve the unique vocabulary it employs: lovgo" (referring to the preincarnate Logos) only in 1:1, 1:14; plhvrh", plhvrwma in 1:14, 1:16; and cavri" in 1:14, 1:16, and 1:17.

For example, R. Brown states that the Prologue is “an early Christian hymn, probably stemming from Johannine circles, which has been adapted to serve as an overture to the Gospel narrative of the career of the incarnate Word.”²⁶

But it is more likely that it is original, because it fits so well with what follows. Why not see it as from the Evangelist himself if it comes from “Johannine circles”? [Brown may prefer the phrase “Johannine circles” because it suggests a later date, although in any case for him this composition would precede the composition of the remainder of the Gospel.]

Some have thought it should be understood as poetry. True, it can be arranged to look like verse. [So can just about any prose unit, including Eph 1:3-14]. But I have seen no two arrangements which agree, nor any one arrangement which I find particularly convincing. I think it is better to regard the prologue as elevated prose, with a meditative or reflective air about it (like much of the rest of the Fourth Gospel). But this does not make it poetry.

On the use of oJ lovgo": It is not proven beyond doubt whether the term, as John uses it, is to be derived from Jewish or Greek backgrounds or some other source. Nor is it precisely plain what the author meant by it. He does not tell us, and we are left to work out the precise allusion and significance for ourselves.

R.P. Casey states regarding the Prologue:

…the principal difficulty lies neither in its style nor in its terminology but in the fact that its author has his feet planted firmly in two worlds: that of the Old Testament and that of Hellenistic philosophy and he allows his gaze to wander easily from one to the other. At every important point he has not only two thoughts instead of one, but two sets of allusions in mind.²⁷

Greek historical backgrounds: As a philosophical term, lovgo" meant the ‘world-soul’, the soul of the universe. This was an all-pervading principle, the rational principle of the universe. It was a creative energy. In one sense, all things came from it; in another, men derived their wisdom from it. These concepts are at least as old as Heraclitus (6th cent. BC): the lovgo" is “always existent” and “all things happen through this lovgo".”²⁸

Later Hellenistic thought: Philo of Alexandria, the Jewish philosopher of the early 1st century, frequently mentions the lovgo" (it appears over 1400 times in his writings), but he is really concerned with his Platonic distinction between this material world and the real, heavenly world of ideas. It was the Stoics who actually developed the concept of lovgo". They abandoned Plato’s heavenly archetypes in favor of the thought (closer to Heraclitus) that the Universe is pervaded by lovgo", the eternal Reason. They were convinced of the ultimate rationality of the universe, and used the term lovgo" to express this conviction. It was the ‘force’ (!) that originated and permeated and directed all things. It was the supreme governing principle of the universe. But the Stoics did not think of the lovgo" as personal, nor did they understand it as we would understand God (i.e. as a person to be worshipped).

The Evangelist, then, is using a term that would be widely recognized among the Greeks. But the ‘man in the street’ would not know its precise significance, any more than most of us would understand the terms ‘relativity’ or ‘nuclear fission’. But he would know it meant something very important.

The rest of the Fourth Gospel, however, shows little trace of acquaintance with Greek philosophy, and even less of dependence on it.

John, in his use of lovgo", is cutting across the fundamental Greek concept of the gods: they were detached, they regarded the struggles and heartaches and joys and fears of the world with serene, divine lack of feeling. John uses lovgo" to portray a God so involved, so caring, so loving and giving that he becomes incarnate within his creation.

William Barclay summarizes well:

John spoke to a world which thought of the gods in terms of passionless apatheia and serene detachment. He pointed at Jesus Christ and said: ‘Here is the mind of God; here is the expression of the thought of God; here is the lovgo". And men were confronted with a God who cared so passionately and who loved so sacrificially that His expression was Jesus Christ and His emblem a cross.²⁹

Jewish Backgrounds: The ejn ajrch'/ of John 1:1 inevitably recalls Genesis 1:1, tyvarb. But oJ lovgo" also recalls <yhla rmayw, “and God said…” [cf. also Psalm 33:6, “By the word of Yahweh the heavens were made.”] There was also the “semi-personalization” of Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22 ff. And the Targums substitute Memra (“Word”) as an intermediary in many places: e.g. in Exod 19:17, “And Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God” (MT), the Palestinian Targum reads “to meet theWord of God.” Targum Jonathan (containing the former and latter prophets, Joshua to 2 Kings plus the prophets and Daniel) uses this expression some 320 times. Some say this is not significant because Memra does not refer to a being distinct from God. It is just a way of referring to God himself. But this is the point: people familiar with the Targums were familiar with “Memra” as a designation for God. John does not use the term the way the Targums do, but to those familiar with the Targums it must have aroused these associations, which John would be in agreement with.³⁰

In summary: William Temple states that the lovgo"

“alike for Jew and Gentile represents the ruling fact of the universe, and represents that fact as the self-expression of God. The Jew will remember that ‘by the Word of the Lord the heavens were made’; the Greek will think of the rational principle of which all natural laws are particular expressions. Both will agree that this Logos is the starting-point of all things.”³¹

John was using a term which, with various shades of meaning, was in common use everywhere. He could count on all men catching his essential meaning. But for John, the Word was not a principle, but a living Being, the source of life; not a personification, but a Person, and that Person divine.

Note: John never uses the absolute, specific, unrelated term lovgo" outside of the prologue. Elsewhere it is always modified or clarified, and does not occur in the Gospel again in the sense of the lovgo". Why not? Probably because in the Prologue we are looking at pre-existence. 1:14 becomes the point of transition: the Word is now Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore, he is called Jesus from this point on, no longer oJ lovgo". Jesus and the lovgo" are an identity; the lovgo" is the pre-existent Christ.

Strictly speaking, I would prefer not to say that John has ‘personified’ the lovgo" because this implies that he borrowed the term from philosophical circles like the Stoics. Perhaps if we could ask John, he would prefer to say the philosophers had (in a sense) ‘de-personalized’ the lovgo" into a rational principle, although he really was a person (the pre-incarnate Christ) all along. That is to say, what the philosophers had grasped about the lovgo" had some elements of truth, but these were only dim and distant reflections of the pre-incarnate Christ himself. There really was a rational principle behind the universe, but until the coming of this lovgo" as Jesus of Nazareth (1:14) there was no way to know anything about him (1:18) except by natural revelation with all its limitations.

OUTLINE:

1A The Prologue to the Gospel (1:1-18)

1 B The Word and Creation (1:1-5)

2 B John the Baptist’s Testimony about the Word (1:6-8)

3 B The World’s Reaction to the Word (1:9-13)

4 B The Church’s Confession about the Word (1:14-18)

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Barrett, C. K., The Gospel According to St. John, 2nd ed., 149-70.

Beasley-Murray, G. R., John, Word Biblical Commentary 36, 1-17.

Brown, R. E., The Gospel According to John, AB 29, 3-37.

Carson, D. A., The Gospel According to John, 111-39.

Cook, W. R., “The ‘Glory’ Motif in the Johannine Corpus,” JETS 27 (1984): 293ff.

Edwards, Ruth B., “Cavrin ajntiV cavrito" (John 1.16),” JSNT 32 (1988): 3-15.

Fennema, D. A., “John 1:18: ‘God the Only Son’,” NTS 31 (1985): 125-26.

Green, H. C., “The Composition of St. John’s Prologue,” ET 66 (1954-55): 291-94.

Haenchen, E., John 1, Hermeneia, 109-140.

King, J. S., “The Prologue to the Fourth Gospel: Some Unsolved Problems,” ET 86 (1975): 372-75.

Miller, E. L., “The Johannine Origins of the Johannine Logos,” JBL 112 (1993): 445-57.

Miller, E. L., “The New International Version on the Prologue of John,” HTR 72 (1979): 309.

Morris, L., The Gospel According to John, NICNT, 71-128.

O’Neill, J. C., “The Prologue to St. John’s Gospel,” JTS 20 (1969): 41-52.

Parker, J., “The Incarnational Christology of John,” Criswell Theological Review 3.1 (1988): 31-48.

Trudinger, L. P., “The Prologue of John’s Gospel: Its Extent, Content and Intent,” RTR 33 (1974): 11-17.

DETAILED EXEGETICAL NOTES:

1A The Prologue to the Gospel (1:1-18)

1 B The Word and Creation (1:1-5)

1:1 =En ajrch'/ The search for the basic “stuff” out of which things are made is the earliest one in Greek philosophy. It was attended by the related question of “What is the process by which the secondary things came out of the primary one (or ones)?,” or in Aristotelian terminology, “What is the ajrch'/ (or ajrcai) and what is the genhsin of the sunqeta?”

In the New Testament the word usually has a temporal sense, but even in BAGD the second major category of meaning listed is “the first cause.”³² For John, the words =En ajrch'/ are most likely a conscious allusion to the opening words of Genesis: in Hebrew, tyvarb. Other concepts which occur prominently in Genesis 1 are also found in the prologue: “life” (John 1:4) “light” (John 1:4) and “darkness” (John 1:5). Genesis 1 describes the first (physical) creation; John 1 describes the new (spiritual) creation. But this is not to play off a false dichotomy between “physical” and “spiritual”; the first creation was both physical and spiritual. The new creation is really a re-creation, of the spiritual (first) but also the physical. In spite of the common understanding of John’s ‘spiritual’ emphasis, we should not overlook the “physical” recreation which occurs in Chapter 2 with the changing of water into wine, in Chapter 11 with the resurrection of Lazarus, and the emphasis of Chapters 20-21 on the aftermath of Jesus’ own resurrection.

=En ajrch'/ h In the beginning, the lovgo" already was, i.e., already existed. Before the created order as we know it existed, the Word already existed. And h can certainly convey eternal pre-existence, in contrast to ejgevneto (1:3). There is a possibility of a Johannine double meaning here, since (as already mentioned) ajrch'/ can also refer to the “first cause.” Tertullian makes reference to the double meaning of ajrch'/ in the LXX of Genesis 1:1 in his Argument against Hermogenes.³³

proV" toVn Qeovn The preposition prov" implies not just proximity, but intimate personal relationship. Marcus Dods states, “Prov" implies not merely existence alongside of but personal intercourse. It means more than metav or parav, and is regularly employed in expressing the presence of one person with another.”³⁴ See also Mark 6:3, Matt 13:56, Mark 9:19, Gal 1:18, 2 John 12. A. T. Robertson says: “the literal idea comes out well, ‘face to face with God.’”³⁵

QeoV" h oJ lovgo" See Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, for the significance of anarthrous pre-copulative predicate nominatives and a discussion of Colwell’s Rule.³⁶ From a technical standpoint, I think it is probably preferable to see something of a qualitative aspect to anarthrous qeov". NEB has a helpful translation: “What God was, the Word was,” meaning the Word was fully deity in essence. In modern English “the Word was divine” does not quite catch the meaning; “the Word was fully God” would be more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader.

1:3 o} gevgonen There is a major punctuation problem here: should this relative clause go with verse 3 or verse 4? The earliest manuscripts have no punctuation [66, 75*, a*, A, B, D]. Many of the later manuscripts which do have punctuation place it before the phrase, thus putting it with verse 4 [75c, C, D, L, Q, et al.]. Nestle-Aland 25th ed. placed the phrase in v. 3; Nestle-Aland 26th ed. moved the words to the beginning of v. 4.

In a detailed article Kurt Aland defends the change.³⁷ He sought to prove that the attribution of o} gevgonen to verse 3 began to be carried out in the 4th century in the Greek church. This came out of the Arian controversy, and was intended as a safeguard for doctrine. The change was unknown in the West.

It appears to me Aland is correct in affirming that the phrase was attached to v. 4 by the Gnostics and the Eastern Church; only when the Arians began to use them were they attached to v. 3. But this does not rule out the possibility that by moving the words from v. 4 to v. 3 one is restoring the original reading.

Understanding the words as part of v. 3 is natural and adds to the emphasis which is built up there; while it also gives a terse, forceful statement in v. 4. On the other hand, taking the phrase o} gevgonen with v. 4 gives a complicated expression: Barrett says that both ways of understanding v. 4 with o} gevgonen included ‘are almost impossibly clumsy’: “That which came into being—in it the Word was life”; “That which came into being—in the Word was its life.”³⁸

The following stylistic points should be noted in the solution of this problem:

(1) John frequently starts sentences with ejn;

(2) he repeats frequently (“nothing was created that has been created”);

(3) 5:26 and 6:53 both give a sense similar to v. 4 if it is understood without the phrase;

(4) it makes far better Johannine sense to say that in the Word was life, than to say that the created universe (what was made, o} gevgonen) was life in him.

Conclusion: The phrase is best taken with verse 3. Schnackenburg, Barrett, Carson, Haenchen, Morris, AV, and NIV concur (against Brown, Beasley-Murray, and NEB). The arguments of R. Schnackenburg are particularly persuasive.³⁹

1:4 ejn aujtw'/ zwhV h Regarding John’s use of zwhv: John uses the term 37 times. 17 times it occurs with aijwvnio", and in the remaining occurrences outside the Prologue it is clear from context that ‘eternal’ life is meant. The 2 uses in 1:4, if they do not refer to ‘eternal’ life, would be the only exceptions.

Also (as a footnote) 1 John uses zwhv 13 times, always of ‘eternal’ life.

For the meaning of the verse we should probably turn to Psalm 36:9: “For with Thee is the fountain of life; In Thy light we see light.” In later Judaism, 1 Baruch 4:2 expresses a similar idea. Life, especially eternal life, will become one of the major themes of the gospel.

1:5 kaiV toV fjw'" ejn th'/ skotiva/ faivnei Note the change of tense. Up till now John has used past tenses (imperfect, aorist); now he switches to a present. The light continually shines. Even as the evangelist writes, it is shining. The present here has gnomic force; it expresses the timeless truth that the light of the world (cf. 8:12, 9:5, 12:46) never ceases to shine. The question of whether John has in mind here the pre-incarnate Christ or the incarnate Christ is probably too specific. The incarnation is not really introduced till 1:9, but here the point is more general: it is of the very nature of light, that it shines.

kaiV hJ skotiva aujtoV ouj katevlaben Here we are introduced to what will become a major theme of John’s Gospel: the opposition of light and darkness. The antithesis is a natural one, widespread in antiquity. Genesis 1 gives considerable emphasis to it in the account of the creation, and so do the writings of Qumran. It is the major theme of one of the most important extra-biblical documents found at Qumran, the so-called War Scroll, properly titled The War of the Sons of Light with the Sons of Darkness. Connections between John and Qumran are still an area of scholarly debate and a consensus has not yet emerged.⁴⁰

katevlaben is not easy to translate. “To seize” or “to grasp” is possible, but this also permits “to grasp with the mind” in the sense of “to comprehend” (esp. in the middle voice). We are probably faced with another Johannine double meaning here, but I prefer the sense of “to overcome” rather than “to understand”: one does not usually think of Darkness as trying to understand light. For it to mean this, we must understand “darkness” as meaning “certain men,” or perhaps “mankind” at large, darkened in understanding. But in John’s usage, darkness is not normally used of men or a group of men. Rather it usually signifies the evil environment or ‘sphere’ in which men find themselves. They loved darkness rather than light (3:19). Those who follow Jesus do not walk in darkness (8:12). They are to walk while they have light, lest the darkness “overtake”/”overcome” them (12:35, same verb as here). For John, with his set of symbols and imagery, darkness is not something which seeks to “understand/comprehend” the light, but the forces of evil which seek to “overcome/conquer” it. But they did not succeed.

2 B John the Baptist’s Testimony about the Word (1:6-8)

1:6 =Egevneto a[nqrwpo" Note the use of givnomai rather than e[rcomai here: perhaps it would have been more natural to use hlqen (1:7). But ejgevneto in 1:3 refers to “coming into existence”—the creation. John the Baptist was a created being; there was a time when he was not. In contrast, oJ lovgo" h (1:1); there was never a “time” when the Lovgo" did not exist—-compare 1:15, where the Baptist testifies of Jesus, o{ti prw'tov" mou h .

1:7 ou|to" hlqen eij" marturivan i{na marturhvsh/ “Witness” is also one of the major themes of the Fourth Gospel. The verb marturevw occurs 33 times (compare to 1 time in Matthew, 1 time in Luke, 0 in Mark) and the noun marturiva 14 times (0 in Matthew, 1 time in Luke, 3 times in Mark).

3 B The World’s Reaction to the Word (1:9-13)

1:9 ejrcovmenon eij" toVn kovsmon The participle ejrcovmenon may be either (1) neuter nominative, agreeing with toV fw'", or (2) masculine accusative, agreeing with a[nqrwpon.

(1) results in a periphrastic imperfect with h , h toV fw'"...ejrcovmenon, referring to the incarnation.

(2) would have the participle modifying a[nqrwpon and referring to the true light as enlightening “every man who comes into the world.”

(2) has some rabbinic parallels: the phrase <lwuh yab lk (“all who come into the world”) is a fairly common expression for “every man” (cf. Leviticus Rabbah 31.6).

But (1) must be preferred here, because:

• In the next verse the light is in the world; it is logical for verse 9 to speak of its entering the world;
• In other passages Jesus is described as “coming into the world” (6:14, 9:39, 11:27, 16:28) and in 12:46 Jesus says: ejgwV fw'" eij" toVn kovsmon ejlhvluqa;
• Use of a periphrastic participle with the imperfect tense is Johannine style: 1:28, 2:6, 3:23, 10:40, 11:1, 13:23, 18:18 and 25. In every one of these except 13:23 the finite verb is first and separated by one or more intervening words from the participle.

In this verse we are introduced to the kovsmo" for the first time. This is another important theme word for John. Generally, kovsmo" as a Johannine concept does not refer to the totality of creation (the universe, das All) (although there are exceptions at 11:9. 17:5, 24, 21:25) but to the world of men and human affairs. Even in 1:10 the world created through the lovgo" is a world capable of knowing (or reprehensibly not knowing) its Maker.

Sometimes oJ kovsmo" is further qualified as oJ kovsmo" ou|to" (8:23, 9:39, 11:9, 12:25, 31; 13:1, 16:11, 18:36). This is not merely equivalent to the rabbinic hzh <lwuh (oJ aijwvn ou|to", “this present age”) and contrasted with the world to come. For John it is also contrasted to a world other than this one, already existing; this is the lower world, corresponding to which there is a world above (see esp. 8:23, 18:36). Jesus appears not only as the Messiah by means of whom an eschatological future is anticipated (as in the Synoptics) but also as an envoy from the heavenly world to oJ kovsmo" ou|to". This descent/ascent motif (connected to the Incarnation) will appear in the Prologue (see the chiastic arrangement for 1:1-18), again in 1:51 and as one of the themes of the remainder of the Gospel. The descent is mentioned in 3:13; the nadir (rejection by his own) in 12:37; the “ascent” is comprised of both crucifixion (predicted in 12:32) and resurrection/ascension (20:17).

1:11 oiJ i[dioi aujtoVn ouj parevlabon There is a subtle irony here: when the lovgo" came into the world, he came to his “own” (taV i[dia, literally “his own things,” a neuter form which refers to his own “home”—Israel—or to his own “things”—his messianic office) and his own people (oiJ i[dioi), who should have known and received him, but they did not. This time John does not say that “his own” did not know him, but that they did not “receive” him. (parevlabon). The idea is one not of mere recognition, but of acceptance and welcome.

1:12 toi'" pisteuvousin eij" toV o[noma aujtou' A note on John’s use of the pisteuvw + eij" construction: the verb pisteuvw occurs 98 times in John (compared to 11 times in Matthew, 14 times in Mark [including the longer ending], and 9 times in Luke). One of the unsolved mysteries is why the corresponding noun form pivsti" is never used at all. Many have held the noun was in use in some pre-Gnostic sects and this rendered it suspect for John. It might also be that for John, faith was an activity, something that men do.⁴¹

In any event, John uses pisteuvw in 4 major ways:

1. of believing facts, reports, etc., 12 times;

2. of believing people (or the Scriptures), 19 times;

3. of believing “in” Christ” (pisteuvw + eij" + acc.), 36 times;

4. used absolutely without any person or object specified, 30 times (the one remaining passage is 2:24, where Jesus refused to “trust” himself to certain men).

Of these, the most significant is the use of pisteuvw with eij" + accusative. It is not unlike the Pauline ejn Cristw'/ formula. It also appears to be a literal translation of the Hebrew ‘ b /ymah (see BDB s.v. /ma). Some have argued that this points to a Hebrew (more likely Aramaic) original behind the Fourth Gospel. But it probably indicates something else, as C. H. Dodd has observed: “pisteuvein with the dative so inevitably connoted simple credence, in the sense of an intellectual judgment, that the moral element of personal trust or reliance inherent in the Hebrew or Aramaic phrase—an element integral to the primitive Christian conception of faith in Christ—needed to be otherwise expressed.”⁴²

1:13 oujk ejx aiJmavtwn...ajll= ejk qeou' ejgennhvqhsan This describes the origin of the tevkna Qeou'—three times negatively and once positively. The plural aiJmavtwn has seemed a problem to many interpreters. At least some sources in antiquity imply that blood was thought of as being important in the development of the fetus during its time in the womb: thus Wisdom of Solomon 7:1: “in the womb of a mother I was molded into flesh, within the period of 10 months, compacted with blood, from the seed of a man and the pleasure of marriage.” In John 1:13, the plural aiJmavtwn may imply the action of both parents. It may also refer to the ‘genetic’ contribution of both parents, and so be equivalent to “human descent” (cf. BAGD s.v. aiJma.) Hoskyns thought John could not have used the singular here because Christians are in fact ‘begotten’ by the blood of Christ, although the context would seem to make it clear that the blood in question is something other than the blood of Christ.⁴³

The next phrase, oujdeV ejk qelhvmato" sarkoV", is more clearly a reference to sexual desire, but we should note that savrx in John does not convey the evil sense common in Pauline usage. For John it refers to the physical nature in its weakness rather than in its sinfulness. I think there is no clearer confirmation of this than the immediately following verse, where the lovgo" became savrx.

The third phrase, oujdeV ejk qelhvmato" ajndroV", means much the same as the second one. The word here (ajnhr) is often used for a husband. Thus, “nor of the will of a husband.” Or more generally, “nor of any human volition whatsoever.” Morris may be right when he sees here an emphasis directed at the Jewish pride in race and patriarchal ancestry, although such a specific reference is difficult to prove.⁴⁴

On the contrary, the way the tevknon Qeou' is begotten is by supernatural divine miracle. The imagery is bold because the verb gennavw is commonly used of the action of the male parent in the reproductive process.

4 B The Church’s Confession about the Word (1:14-18)

1:14 This verse constitutes the most concise statement of the Incarnation in the New Testament. 1:1 makes it clear that the lovgo" was fully God, but 1:14 makes it clear that he was also fully human. A Docetic interpretation is completely ruled out.

Note: Here for the first time the lovgo" of 1:1 ff. is identified as Jesus of Nazareth—the two are one and the same. Thus this is the last time the word lovgo" is used in the Fourth Gospel to refer to the second Person of the Trinity. Henceforth it is Jesus who becomes the focus of the Gospel.

kaiV ejsjkhvnwsen ejn hJmi'n The verb here, together with dovxan in the following clause, makes it clear that John is alluding to the Wilderness experience of Israel. Parallels with Exodus 33 are especially numerous:

Exod 33:7	How Moses used to take the tent and pitch it outside the camp.
John 1:14	ejskhvnwsen ejn hJmi'n...
Exod 33:9	. . .the pillar of cloud would descend.
Exod 33:10	When all the people saw the pillar of cloud...[they] would arise and worship.
John 1:14	kaiV ejqeasavmeqa thVn dovxan aujtou'...
Exod 33:11	Thus Yahweh spoke to Moses face to face...
John 1:17	oJ novmo" diaV Mwu>sevw" ejdovqh...
Exod 33:20	“You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live.”
John 1:18	QeoVn oujdeiV" eJwvraken pwvpote...
Exod 33:23	“You shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.”
John 1:18	ejkei'no" ejxhghvsato...

Some would say that John is here presenting Jesus as the new and greater Moses. I do not agree, because 1:17 makes it clear that ‘law’ came through Moses, while ‘grace and truth’ came through Jesus. More likely the allusions here are to Jesus being presented as Yahweh: it was Yahweh who dwelt in the Tabernacle; in 1:14 the lovgo" tabernacled among men. And Moses never saw God’s face (Exod 33:20) but the lovgo" resided in the bosom of the Father ‘and explained’ him. (1:18).

wJ" monogenou'" paraV patrov" “Only begotten” is a bit misleading as a translation here, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Antiquities, I.222) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise.

In the Johannine literature monogenh'" is only used of Jesus, and some want to see a heightened meaning like ‘begotten’ because of its proximity to the phrase ejk Qeou' ejgennhvqhsan in John 1:13. In this case it would become more or less equivalent to prwtovtoko" (Rom 8:29, Col 1:15).

It seems to me that the unique character of the relationship between Father and Son is one of the important themes of John’s Gospel which is repeatedly stressed throughout, and so the meaning ‘unique’ is perfectly adequate within the Johannine framework.

1:15 The testimony of John the Baptist: Ou|to" h is a bit unusual; we might have expected ejstin. John the Baptist may be referring back to a previous occasion when he had witnessed about Jesus; but it is also possible that this is a deliberate allusion back to 1:1 and the eternal (pre)existence of the Lovgo"—this is supported also by the case in the final clause in verse 15. This final (causal) clause is somewhat difficult in wording: literally, “because he was first of me.” Most commentators agree it should be understood as a temporal reference, “because he existed before me.” Westcott pointed out that the reference here is not merely to relative priority, but absolute priority. In other words, the lovgo" was not just “former” (prior to John the Baptist) but “first” in an absolute sense.⁴⁵ We might paraphrase, “my successor has taken precedence over me, because he was [existed] prior to me [and to all else]”.

1:16 The major problems with verse 16 lie in deciding whose words they are (the Baptist’s or the writer’s) and what the sense of the phrase cavrin ajntiV cavrito" is.

Earlier commentators (including Origen and Luther) took these words to be the Baptist’s. Most modern commentators take them as the words of the writer of the Gospel. Some, indeed, see the reference to the Baptist in 1:15 as one of the rather inept ‘interpolations’ made by the gospel writer into the hymn which comprises the Prologue (1:1-18).

Z. C. Hodges took 1:15-18 as the words of the Baptist.⁴⁶ The words do seem to read most naturally this way; it is only on account of the depth of this Christological insight that most today would assign them to the Evangelist. What most overlook is the ‘high’ Christological statement in 1:29, where the Baptist specifically identifies Jesus as “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” That John the Baptist had prophetic insight into the Person and Ministry of Jesus is also implied in Luke 1:15-17, where he is said to come “in the spirit and power of Elijah.” If one is willing to acknowledge that the Baptist genuinely had the prophetic gift, there is nothing inherently impossible in the attribution to him of 1:15-18. In addition to the arguments in favor of this interpretation given by Hodges in his article, it seems to me that several other things favor it:

1. The absence of words like plhvrwma (1:16) and cavri" (1:16,17) later in the gospel are more readily explained if these are in fact the Baptist’s terms for Jesus’ ministry;

2. Knowledge of such sayings by the Baptist on the part of the gospel writer is more believable if John the Apostle were originally a follower of the Baptist; and many think he is in fact the unnamed associate of Andrew mentioned in 1:35 and 1:40;

3. 1:14 makes a very appropriate introduction to these words if they are the Baptist’s; in other words, the gospel writer introduces the earthly career of the incarnate Lovgo" in 1:14, using terminology echoed in the initial testimony of the Baptist which immediately follows (monogenhv", patrov", plhvrh", cavrito", and ajlhqeiva");

4. 1:19 is not therefore the point of transition between Prologue and gospel (as usually assumed) but represents the testimony of the Baptist about Jesus on another occasion, when he was confronted with representatives from Jerusalem.

In spite of all this, I am not convinced that 1:16-18 should be understood as a continuation of the Baptist’s testimony for the following reasons:

1. There is the 2nd plural ejqeasavmeqa of 1:14 (which are undoubtedly the words of the Evangelist) which fits with hJmei'" pavnte" ejlavbomen of 1:16.

2. The repetition of monogenhv" in 1:14 and 1:18, as a description of Jesus, would seem to argue that the Evangelist was responsible for both—otherwise the Evangelist would have had to have written 1:14 as a deliberate introduction to the quoted words of the Baptist—not impossible, but less likely in my judgment.

3. Perhaps most significant, if there are deliberate allusions to Exod 33 in 1:14 (as we have already discussed) and if M. Hooker is right that 1:16 is an allusion to Exod 33:13 (see below) then it seems more likely, on the whole, that the Evangelist wrote both 1:14 and 1:16 and was deliberately alluding to Exod 33 in both, than that it is merely coincidental that 1:14 and 1:16 both go back to Exod 33. (It should also be noted that verses 17 and 18 also contain references or allusions to the Old Testament, particularly Exod 33:23/John 1:18).

As for the difficult phrase cavrin ajntiV cavrito", the sense could be:

1. love/grace under the New Covenant in place of love/grace under the Sinai Covenant, thus replacement;

2. grace “on top of” grace, thus accumulation;

3. grace corresponding to grace, thus correspondence.

Probably the most commonly held view is (2) in one sense or another, and I would think this is probably the preferred explanation. This sense is supported by a fairly well-known use in Philo, On the Posterity of Cain and His Exile 145. Morna Hooker has suggested that Exod 33:13 provides the background for this expression: “How therefore, I pray Thee, if I have found cavri" (LXX) in Thy sight, let me know Thy ways, that I may know Thee, so that I may find cavri" (LXX) in Thy sight.”⁴⁷ Hooker proposes that it is this idea of favor given to one who has already received favor which lies behind 1:16, and in my view this seems very probable as a good explanation of the meaning of the phrase.

1:17 The Old and the New: Whatever we make of the allusions to Exod 33 in John 1:14-18, verse 17 seems to make it clear that the Old Covenant (Sinai) is being contrasted with the New. In Jewish sources the Law was regarded as a gift from God (Josephus, Antiquities VIII. 338; Pirke Aboth 1.1; Sifre Deut. 31.4 305).⁴⁸ The use of ejgevneto here (which was previously used in relation to the creative activity of the Lovgo" (1:3,10) may imply that Jesus is the Source and Creator of both cavri" and ajlhvqeia—they came into existence through him.

Note: This is the first use of the name =Ihsou" ; John uses it 237 times in all (compare 150 times in Matthew, 81 in Mark, and 89 in Luke). This is more than 25% of the NT occurrences (905 times). The compound title with Crivsto" occurs elsewhere in John only in 17:3 (though see 20:31). John uses Crivsto" alone 19 times (compared with 17 times in Matthew, 7 times in Mark, and 12 times in Luke).

1:18 Notice Qeovn is in emphatic position (as the first word in the clause). What about the Old Testament passages like Exod 24:9-11 that seem to state explicitly that some men have seen God? What John probably means here is that, in his essential being, God has never yet been seen by men. The theophanies described in the Old Testament did not and could not reveal God’s essential being. Calvin said, “When he says that no one has seen God, it is not to be understood of the outward seeing of the physical eye. He means that, since God dwells in inaccessible light, he cannot be known except in Christ, his living image.” Compare Jesus’ words in 6:46 and 14:9.

monogenhV" QeoV" (oJ monogenhV" uiJov") The textual problem is a notoriously difficult one! It appears that only one letter would have differentiated the readings in some manuscripts, since 66, one of the earliest manuscripts (2nd/3rd century), uses the abbreviation qMs; the alternative would have been uMs.⁴⁹

The external evidence is difficult to evaluate objectively because it is so evenly split between Alexandrian and Byzantine readings and one’s view toward the relative importance of these two text-types will probably decide one’s evaluation of the external evidence. Internally, uiJov" fits the immediate context more readily; Qeov" is much more difficult, but also explains the origin of the other reading (uiJov") more readily, because it is difficult to see why a scribe who found uiJov" in the text he was copying would alter it to Qeov".

On the whole I do not think either reading seriously alters the meaning of the text. But I have a preference for Qeov" as the older and more difficult reading.

As for translation, I think it makes the most sense to see the word Qeov" as in apposition to monogenhv", and the participle oJ w]n as in apposition to qeov", giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus rather than only two. The modern translations which best express this are the NEB (margin), TEV, and NET:

NEB margin: “No man has ever seen God; but the only one, himself God, the nearest one to the Father’s heart, has made him known.”

TEV: “No one has ever seen God. The only One, who is what God is, and who is near the Father’s side, has made him known.”

NET: “No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in the presence of the Father, has made God known.”

Several things should be noted: monogenhv" alone, without uiJov", can mean “only son,” “unique son,” “unique one,” etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, Qeov" is anarthrous. As such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where QeoV" h oJ lovgo" means “the Word was fully God” or “the Word was fully of the essence of deity” [see above discussion under 1:1].

Finally, oJ w]n occurs in Rev 1:4, 1:8, 4:8, 11:17, and 16:5, but even more significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together I would suggest the following translation for 1:18: “No one has seen God at any time. The unique One—fully God—the “I am” in the bosom of the Father, that One has explained him fully.”

In this final verse of the Prologue, the climactic and ultimate statement of the earthly career of the Lovgo", Jesus of Nazareth, is reached. The Unique One (cf. 1:14), the one who has taken on human form and nature (saVrx ejgevneto, 1:14), who is himself fully God (what God was, the Lovgo" was, 1:1c) and is to be identified with the Ever-living One of the Old Testament revelation (oJ w]n, Exod 3:14), who is in intimate relationship with the Father, this One and no other has fully revealed what God is like! As Jesus said to Phillip in 14:9, “The one who has seen Me has seen the Father.”

---

²⁶ Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, AB 29 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 1 [emphasis mine].

²⁷ R. P. Casey, Journal of Theological Studies 9 (1958): 270.

²⁸ Frag. 1, 50, 54, 114.

²⁹ William Barclay, Expository Times 70 (1958/59): 82.

³⁰ For further information see Martin McNamara, “Logos of the Fourth Gospel and Memra of the Palestinian Targum, Exod 12:42” (Expository Times 79 [1967/68]: 115-17).

³¹ William Temple, Readings in St John’s Gospel (London: 1947), 4.

³² BAGD 112.

³³ Argument against Hermogenes xix.

³⁴ Marcus Dods, “The Gospel of St. John,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament (London, 1897), 684.

³⁵ A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 623, 625.

³⁶ Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 256-63.

³⁷ Kurt Aland, “Eine Untersuchung zu Johannes 1, 3-4. ber die Bedeutung eines Punktes,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 59 (1968): 174-209.

³⁸ C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, 2d ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 157

³⁹ Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St. John, trans. K. Smyth (New York: Seabury, 1980), 1:239-40.

⁴⁰ See T. A. Hoffman, “1 John and the Qumran Scrolls,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 8 (1978): 177-21.

⁴¹ Cf. William Turner, “Believing and Everlasting Life—A Johannine Inquiry,” Expository Times 64 (1952/53): 50-52.

⁴² C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 183 [emphasis mine].

⁴³ E. C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, 2d ed. (London: Faber & Faber, 1947), 143.

⁴⁴ Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 101.

⁴⁵ Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, 13.

⁴⁶ Zane C. Hodges, “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John—Part 1: Grace after Grace—John 1:16,” Bibliotheca Sacra 135 (1978): 34-45.

⁴⁷ Morna J. Hooker, “The Johannine Prologue and the Messianic Secret,” New Testament Studies 21 (1974/75): 53.

⁴⁸ For further information see T. F. Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel (London 1960).

⁴⁹ The abbreviation consisted of the first and last letters of the word in the uncial script; the bar over the letters indicated that it was an abbreviation.