Of all the books in the Bible, this short letter presents perhaps the most challenges in terms of its organization. Despite the questions of authorship and relationship to II and III John that surround this epistle, von Wahlde states that the structure of the letter is one of its “most disputed aspects.” “Attempts to trace a consecutive argument throughout I John have never succeeded,” states F. F. Bruce, a view echoed by Burge among others. That situation has led scholars to search for a more literary, rather than logical, structure to better follow the author’s flow of thought. But even that search has led to less than successful results. As van der Watt said, Ultimately it must be acknowledged that 1 John eludes clear structural description.” Culpepper's opinion is that “the clear structural markers one finds in the two shorter letters [II and III John] are missing from 1 John.” Actually, in a way, just the opposite is true. There are so many structural clues in the form of inclusions, repeated words and phrases, and addresses to the audience, that it is hard to discern which if any are intended to guide the reader.
Complicating this picture is the prevalent use of “hinge” verses (most notably at 2:27-29; 3:22-24 and 5:12-13) which serve as transitions from one literary unit to the next and make it nearly impossible to define exact limits to each. (R.E. Brown) Related to this issue is the problem with the nine “this is” passages in the letter; does “this” refer backwards or forwards? Even larger passages such as 2:18-27 and 4:1-6 have caused scholars grief in attempting to place them in their proper context, whether with the paragraphs immediately preceding or those following. In spite of these complicating factors, “even the most pessimistic critics attempt an analysis,” as Grayston has wryly observed.
Structural analysis usually begins by identifying the smaller literary units that make up the work. Even at this initial stage we are faced with apparent chaos in the scholarly literature. Raymond Brown charts some twenty-five different proposals for dividing up this small letter, and many more attempts at division could be added to this list. A “consensus view” means little in such a situation, but several verses seem to be favored as potential ending points for discrete passages: 2:17; 2:27-29; 3:24 and 4:6. Other than that weak agreement, the best meeting of minds is on the limits of the opening and closing portions of the letter.
Verses 1:1-4 are almost unanimously regarded as the prologue to the work, due to the strong parallels to the beginning of John’s Gospel of which, in Brown’s view, it “resembles a primitive sketch.” Kistemaker sees these verses as a Semitic Greek analog to the classical Greek introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews. There is almost as much agreement in viewing 5:13-21 as the epilogue of the epistle. It has been pointed out that these verses share similarities with the conclusion of John’s Gospel, especially in their statements of the author’s purpose in writing (compare John 20:31 with I John 5:13). Both of these framework sections also contain the phrase “eternal life.” One variation of this division should be considered: including 5:6-12 in the epilogue. Two reasons for thus expanding this final section are (a) the fact that “eternal life” appears in vv. 11 and 13, and (b) inclusion of these verses centering on “testimony” provide an apt parallel to the theme of the Introduction
Beyond this point, proposals abound for grouping and arranging the material in the body of the epistle in a coherent manner. The difficulty in finding larger literary blocks devoted to single themes has caused some commentators to resort to rearrangement of the text and others, such as Marshall, to merely identify a number of smaller literary divisions in the book without speculating on the possible relationships between them. Even Marshall, however, arrives at the significant number of fourteen divisions for 1 John, a multiple of the number seven which is so prominent elsewhere in the Johannine literature and also finds its place in this epistle in the number of appearances of “little children,” “I write,” “I wrote,” “life (zoe), “to be born of God,” “remain,” “everyone who,” “Son of God,” “Jesus Christ” and “believe.” Seven hymnal or credal passages have been detected in I John by Marshall. Also, “commandment” and gnosko (“knowledge”) appear 14 times each in this epistle; Jesus is called Son 21 times; and the root “know” appears exactly 42 (6 x 7) times. Other important symbolic appearances can be found in this letter, such as ten references each to “born,” “believe” and “eternal life” as well as 24 occurrences of “abide.” All of these suggest that there is indeed some sort of purposeful order to the letter.
A few other, more elaborate, approaches to the structure of this letter are worth rehearsing.
The parallelism between the opening and closing sections of I John mentioned above might be seen as the common starting point for two diverse approaches. One is to view these as the two outer elements of a chiastic structure ordering the epistle. Thus, Lohmeyer perceives the letter to take the form of a seven-membered chiasm centered around the passage 2:18-3:24. As attractive as this scheme might appear in light of other biblical structures discussed elsewhere, this proposal has been rightly criticized on a number of grounds. Raymond Brown takes the parallel with John’s Gospel
Raymond Brown takes the parallel with John’s Gospel one step further by formulating a simple four-part arrangement to 1 John:
A. Prologue (1:1-4)
B. God is Light (1:5-3:10)
B'. God is Love (3:11-5:12)
A'. Epilogue (5:13-21)
Sections B and B' both begin with the statement “This is the message we/you have heard” and take their major themes from the respective attributes of God spelled out in their initial statements. Akin lends his support to this particular formulation. Beyond this point Brown, like Marshall, is hesitant in identifying any more detailed structural plan to the letter. Berge offers a variation on Brown's chiasm based on God's attributes, demonstrating that even the same starting point does not yield identical results:
A. The word of life (1:1-4)
B. God is Light (1:5-4:6)
B'. God is Love (4:7-5:5)
A'. The witness of faith (5:6-21)
A more attractive and detailed chiastic structure is proposed by Thomas:
A. Prologue: Eternal Life (1:1-4)
B. Making Him a Liar (1:5-2:2)
C. New Commandment (2:3-17)
D. Antichrists (2:18-27)
E. Confidence (2:18-3:10)
F. Love One Another (3:11-18)
E'. Confidence (3:19-24)
D'. Antichrists (4:1-6)
C'. God's Love and Ours (4:7-5:5)
B'. Making Him a Liar (5:6-12)
A'. Conclusion: Eternal Life (5:13-21)
The major problem with this scheme is that it is based on neither the two attributes of God nor the three tests of a Christian, one or both of which major themes around which the epistle seems to be based.
Other two-part structures (ignoring the bracketing sections) have been proposed for I John based on the two tests of a Christian supposedly laid out in this letter. Grayston calls these the “two essential convictions,” and they are usually formulated as (a) belief in Jesus as the Son of God and (b) brotherly love within the Christian community. In his book on the subject, von Wahlde talks in terms of Johannine commandments. He rightly notes that although some would see only one commandment formulated in this literature, I John 3:23 clearly points to at least one other. In his mind, believing in the name of Jesus is equivalent to keeping his word. Others, such as Thompson connect love with belief as “two different expressions for the indwelling of God in us.” Finally, yet other commentators equate the commandments for love and obedience.
Smalley proposes a completely different two-fold division, but based on two similar themes and showing strict parallelism between the four “commandments” he sees in the text.
Part 1: Live in the Light (1:5-2:29) Part 2: Live as Children of God (3:1-5:13)
Thesis: God is light (1:5-7) Thesis: God is Father (3:1-3)
A. Renounce sin (1:8-2:2) A. Renounce sin (3:4-9)
B. Be obedient (2:3-11) B. Be obedient (3:10-24)
C. Reject worldliness (2:12-17) C. Reject worldliness (4:1-6)
D. Keep the faith (2:18-29) D. Keep the faith (5:5-13)
The symmetry itself has much to attract it, but a certain amount of force-fitting is necessary to achieve this structure, and there is no recognition in the above scheme of the importance of the concept of brotherly love in the epistle (especially in 4:7-21).
Three-fold schemes for this epistle are even more common, but are similar to the two-fold arrangements in disagreeing with one another. Some, such as that of P. R. Jones, are based on attributes of God. Thus, he sees three major sections to the letter: God is light (1:5-2:27), God is righteousness (2:28-4:6), and God is love (4:7-5:12). Barker follows this general tripartite division but begins the second section at 2:29 instead. Kistemaker discerns a different organization built around three commandments for Christians: Walk in the Light (1:5-2:17), Believe in Jesus (2:18-3:24) and Love God (4:1-5:12). Thompson pictures the body of the letter as basically an ABA structure: Walking in the Light (1:5-2:27), Remembering Who We Are (2:28-3:24), and Walking in the Light (4:1-5:12).
Perhaps closer to the mark are commentators such as R. Law who recognize that the same few themes in I John are repeated several times throughout the text and therefore a series of cycles is the only way to properly represent its organization. In Canedy’s words, “As the apostle John treated the life which is in union with Christ, he chose a spiral course for considering the manifold character of fellowship in the life of Christ. The subject is of such magnitude that a glance at it from one perspective will not suffice.” Similarly, Grayston notes, “The repetitions which every reader notices are deliberate. Nothing is acceptable until it has been said, and repeated, and confirmed.” Osborne labels this a “rondo style.”
Cycle 1: Walking in the Light (1:5-2:28)
A. Righteousness (1:5-2:6)
B. Love (2:7-17)
C. Belief (2:18-28)
Cycle 2: Divine Sonship (2:29-4:6)
A. Righteousness (2:29-3:10a)
B. Love (3:10b-24a)
C. Belief (3:24b-4:6)
Cycle 3: Correlation between three themes (4:7-5:21)
Variations on this approach begin the second cycle at 2:18 and the third at 4:1. As pointed out by many, Law’s scheme breaks down somewhat in the last cycle by using different language for the three basic themes. In addition, Painter notes that in all proposed spiral structures there is no argument consistently developed in moving from one cycle to the next.
Then there are those commentators who see the letter organized according to an alternating set of ethical and christological (doctrinal) sections. Unfortunately, even with this common approach, the major proponents of this view reach less than complete accord on the results:
Section Brooke Talbert
Ethical 1:5-2:17 1:6-2:17
Doctrinal 2:18-27 2:18-28
Ethical 2:28-3:24 2:29-3:24a
Doctrinal 4:1-6 3:24b-4:6
Ethical 4:7-21 4:7-12
Doctrinal ---- 4:13-16a
Ethical ---- 4:16b-5:4a
Doctrinal 5:1-12 5:4b-12
The same lack of agreement is seen among those such as D.L. Johnson who attempt to analyze this letter according to ancient rhetorical categories.
Culpepper’s perceptive summary after reviewing prior structural proposals bears quoting:
“ [I]t is obvious that the text is sufficiently open, ambivalent, obscure, or complex to allow for various constructions or readings...Each structure, therefore, represents a ‘reading strategy,’ a means of approaching the text and constructing meaning from its openness and ambiguity.”
For yet another such “reading strategy,” see my post titled “I John: Introduction to the Literary Structure” in which I can't even manage to agree with myself in regard to the organization intended by the author.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments