Hansjörg Schmidt, «How to Read the First Epistle of John Non-Polemically», Vol. 85 (2004) 24-41
When reading 1 John most contemporary interpretors stress its polemical character and use the opponents as a key for the whole text. In contrast to them, this article proposes a non-polemical reading which treats the opponents only as a minor feature of 1 John and denies the possibility of mirror-reading the epistle. The article shows the merits, but also the inconsistencies of already existing non-polemical readings of 1 John. It describes the relationship between 1 John and John as an intertextual reading-process and views the opponents as literary contrasting figures. They form a part of an apocalyptic scenario and are related to the main ethical theme of 1 John. The pragmatic function of the excursus-like opponent texts(1 John 2,18-27; 4,1-6) is to strengthen and reassure the reader by demonstrating that he or she is immune to the opponent’s denial of the christological confession. On this basis, the ethical parenesis takes place, the urgency of which is stressed by the apocalyptic motifs. As a result, the reader tries to avoid an ethical transgression by which he or she would become like the christological opponents, who thus function as a counter-concept to the community.
How to Read the First Epistle of John Non-Polemically 39
but what he or she will become if he or she does not follow the basic
commandments and lines of the Johannine system. As a personification of
denial and border-crossing they illustrate the way of departure, which is
the opposite way to mission and joining the community so that the borders
of the Johannine system are neither absolute, yet always endangered.
This function of the opponents is linked with the theme of love and
faith in a characteristic manner. Whereas both love and faith are re-
quired by the community (3,23), border-crossing is illustrated in 1 John
in different ways: in the ethical field, it is the community itself that is
blamed (56), in the christological field, the offence is attributed to ex-
ternal opponents (57). In christology, the reader has certainty so that the
christological confessions can be proclaimed briefly and need not be
discussed (58). In the ethical field he or she has to become active while
being constantly endangered. The christological transgression of the
opponents is a paradigmatic transgression and a warning to the reader,
illustrating at the same time the detrimental consequences of border-
crossing. A hint of this is the fact that the vocabulary used in 2,18-27;
4,1-6 can be partly found again in 1,6.8.10: planavw (1,8 – 2,26),
yeuvdomai (1,6 – yeu'do" 2,21.27 and yeudoprofh'tai in 4,1) and
yeuvsth" (1,10 – 2,22). This makes the ethical border-crossing of the
‘we’ comparable to the opponent’s christological border-crossing. As a
result, the reader composes his or her own text by directly confronting
the two border-crossings.
On the pragmatic level, the opponents invite the reader to check his
or her relationship to the Johannine system. Looking at 2,19, where the
opponents are connected as close to the community as possible, makes
the reader reflect, if not he himself or she herself might be or become
one of the antichrists (59). The theme of 2,19 is that of belonging or not
belonging to the community. In a self-referential perspective, the
reader, not the opponents, is at the core of this verse. Knowing about
the double commandment of faith and love, the reader’s conclusion can
(56) This is a kind of first-person delimitation (1 John 1,6.8.10). In 2,4.6.9;
4,20 the delimitation is expressed in a neutral third person in the sense of
“anybody†and not referring (exclusively) to the opponents.
(57) Therefore, I only consider 2,18-27; 4,1-6 and nothing more as opponent
texts.
(58) This is evident in 3,23; 4,15; 5,1.5.20, but also in the passages 2,18-27;
4,1-6, which contain no real discussions about the identity of Christ like John, but
merely dialectical phrases. See also n. 51.
(59) This pragmatic interpretation shows that this verse, usually taken as
evidence for a historical event behind the text, can also be read differently.
FOLLOW US