Raymond E. Brown, The Community of the Beloved Disciple.
Phase 3: When the Epistles Were written - Johannine Internal Struggles, p. 92-144

(Detailed summary)

The story of the community of the beloved disciple continues after the Gospel period through the epistles. Let us first give a brief description of these epistles, then the hypotheses about the author, and finally the reasons for dating them after the writing of the fourth Gospel.

1. A Description of the Three Epistles

   The second and third epistles are single-page epistles written by the same person who identifies himself as "the presbyter." In 2 Jn, while he is associated with one church (v. 13), he writes to another (v. 1 "to the chosen lady and her children") to suggest that they should not welcome people who deny that Jesus came in the flesh (vv. 7, 10-11). In 3 John, the presbyter addresses Gaius to praise his hospitality towards missionary preachers (vv. 1, 5-8) and to ask him to welcome Demetrius, who is about to arrive (v. 12). He addresses Gaius directly because a previous letter to "the church" (v. 9) was ignored by Diotrephes, the leader of the church, who refuses to receive the missionary preachers and excommunicates anyone who welcomes them. In both epistles, the presbyter announces an upcoming visit. And in 3 John, he warns that when he comes, he will bring up the matter of Diotrephes' hostility toward him (v. 10a).

   The author of the first epistle does not identify himself. His work is more of a treatise than a personal note. His main concern is to support his readers against a group that is doing the work of the devil and the antichrist (2:18; 4:1-6), a group that has seceded from the community (2:19) but is trying to win followers. The split is Christological and ethical: the group denies Jesus who came in the flesh and does not see the importance of keeping the commandments, while feeling guilty of no sin (1:6, 8; 2:4).

2. The Question of authorship

   We assume that the three epistles were written by the same person, whom we will refer to interchangeably as "the presbyter" or "the author." This is because the same doctrinal and moral issues are addressed in 1 Jn and 2 Jn, and both 2 Jn and 3 Jn are concerned with the reception of missionary preachers, so that we are dealing with the same phase of Johannine history. As for the author, it is reasonably certain that he is not the beloved disciple; it is unlikely that the beloved disciple would have called himself "presbyter," and it is unthinkable that the secessionists would have ignored such an imposing figure. Finally, despite certain stylistic and theological similarities, it is unlikely that the author of the epistles is the author of the fourth Gospel. But there was a Johannine school of writers who shared the same theological positions and style, and the authors of the fourth Gospel and the Johannine epistles were probably part of it.

3. The question of the Date

   Some biblical scholars have cited certain ancient motifs in the epistles (final eschatology, the humanity of Jesus, the sacrificial dimension of his death) as well as Jewish features (false prophets, the Antichrist, idolatry) to suggest a Jewish audience and a date earlier than that of the fourth Gospel. They have been misled by the oldest layer of the epistles and by the fact that the author, in order to correct the falsehoods of his opponents, must emphasize what was proclaimed "from the beginning" (1 Jn 1:1). This gives no indication of the date of composition. Similarly, it is normal for the author of the epistles not to emphasize the pre-existence of Jesus, precisely because opponents exaggerate this theological point to the point of denying his existence in the flesh.

   The decisive observation concerning the dating of the epistles is provided by the fact that the Johannine community is not confronted with external opponents, but with internal opponents. The secessionists have now replaced the "world" (1 Jn 4:5) and have become the children of the devil (3:10). If the epistles had been written before the fourth gospel, we would have a divided and decimated community in the gospel; but we have no evidence of such a situation. On the contrary, as we shall see later, it is the message embedded in the Gospel that led to a split in the Gospel, because two groups interpreted it in two different ways. Also, since the Gospel is thought to have been written around the year 90, we can date the epistles to around the year 100, halfway between the Gospel and the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (around the year 110).

1. The Life-Situation Envisaged in the Epistles
   1. The Johannine Churches

      The second and third epistles are sent to different churches some distance from the author (whom he intends to visit soon), and so we know that the Johannine communities were not all located in the same geographical area. Different cities or towns are therefore involved. And since they met in house churches, the number of people at these gatherings was limited. It is therefore likely that Gaius and Diotrephes in 1 John, even though they lived in the same town, belonged to different Johannine churches, and that the presbyter wanted his emissaries to be welcomed into one church after being rejected by the leader of another. The geographical area in question could not have been a remote corner of the world, because the fourth Gospel leads us to believe that non-Johannine churches (Jewish Christians, Apostolic Christians) could be found in the same region, as well as synagogues and disciples of John the Baptist.

      All this leads us to imagine a large metropolitan center (Ephesus?) with house churches comprising Johannine Christians, to whom 1 John is primarily addressed; and within a reasonable distance, there were also provincial settlements with Johannine churches, to which 2 John and 3 John are addressed. The conflict with the secessionists would have taken place in a large center, because 1 John seeks to strengthen those who are loyal to him there. As these secessionists also try to win over the provincial communities to their cause, the author sends 2 John to one of these communities to warn them of the arrival of these missionaries with false ideas. It was probably in another city that Diotrephes decided to refuse the emissaries of both the author and his opponents, and so 3 John was sent to another house church in the same city to obtain hospitality for his emissaries.

   2. The Johannine School

      What was the role in these churches of the author who identifies himself as “the presbyter”? We know that at the end of the 1st century, an ecclesiastical structure developed in which a group of ‘presbyters’ or “elders” were responsible for the administration and pastoral care of a church. But this does not really describe our author, who refers to himself as “the presbyter” in his fight against the secessionists, while addressing churches other than his own. Nor can we speak of a kind of bishop, or even archbishop, because this model does not yet exist in the New Testament. Moreover, the author cannot appeal to such a form of authority to discipline his opponents.

      There is another use of presbyteros attested by Irenaeus and Papias in the 2nd century. It refers to the generation of teachers after the disappearance of the eyewitnesses: these are people who saw and heard those who saw and heard Jesus; their authority comes from the fact that they were in contact with the first witnesses. In the Johannine community, after the death of the beloved disciple, the community understood that the work of the Paraclete was continuing through the disciples of the beloved disciple who had transmitted the tradition and helped to formulate it.

      This second meaning of presbyteros, as modified in the Johannine perspective, would explain why the presbyter of the Johannine epistles speaks as if he were part of a collective “we” who bears witness to what he has seen and heard from the beginning (1 Jn 1:1-2). All of this brings to the fore the idea of a “Johannine school.” The study of the term “school” among certain groups in antiquity (Pythagoras, Plato's Academy, Aristotle's Lyceum, the Essenes) has revealed a number of characteristics of these schools and led to the conclusion that the Johannine community meets these characteristics. Thus, on several occasions, the author of the epistles uses “we” to include his “brothers” on an equal footing. On other occasions, his ‘we’ represents all the bearers and interpreters of a tradition who are distinct from a “you,” those to whom he addresses himself and whom he also calls “little children.” Thus, “we” does not include everyone in the community, but those who were historically closest to the beloved disciple, just as some were more active in writing and bearing witness. It is for them that we reserve the term “Johannine school” at the heart of the greater Johannine community. This therefore includes the author of the Gospel, its editor (and all the writers involved), the author of the epistles, and all the bearers of the tradition with which they identify in their writings, in short, the “we” of John 21:24 (“This disciple is the one who testifies to these things and who wrote them down, and we know that his testimony is true”) and 1 John 1:3 (“What we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also”).

      It is as a representative of this Johannine school that the presbyter speaks. He can say “what we have heard... from the beginning,” not because he himself was an eyewitness, but because of the closeness of the Johannine school to the beloved disciple who did see Jesus. But at the time the epistles were written, two groups claimed to interpret the tradition of the beloved disciple. So the presbyter sought to correct his opponents by acting as the spokesperson for the Johannine school, which truly knew the thinking of the beloved disciple.

   3. The Intra-Johannine Schism

      The author of 1 John tells us: “They went out from us, but they did not belong to us” (1 John 2:19). Who are these people who “went out” from the community? Note that we have here the point of view of the presbyter, who considers them adversaries, secessionists, or schismatics. It is possible that, from their point of view, it was the presbyter's group that was schismatic, and they may have been right in that sense, since they had become more numerous, according to 1 John 4:5.

      Our only way of knowing the ideas of the secessionists is derived from the assumption that they held the positions that 1 John was fighting against and, by grouping them together, discerning a coherent line of thought. It must be acknowledged that these disputes led the secessionists to express themselves in pithy phrases that 1 John takes up in order to refute them. So it will be important to show that they are not without a certain logic and persuasive power, given their presuppositions; this will allow us to see both sides of the coin.

      But what were the presuppositions of the secessionists? What was the catalyst for this theological division that runs so strongly through 1 John? Biblical scholars have proposed various theories, such as that of external influence, such as the Gnostic, Docetist, or Cerinthian currents. But the characteristics of these currents do not fit with the ideas of the secessionists. Other biblical scholars have suggested the influence of a new group joining the community, either of pagan origin or Greek-speaking Jews, bringing with them ideas contaminated by a philosophical religion of Hellenistic origin. But 1 John never suggests that there was any outside influence.

      In our opinion, the best hypothesis to explain both the positions of the author of the epistles and the secessionists is this: both parties were familiar with this proclamation of Christianity, which is available to us through the fourth Gospel, but they interpreted it differently. Thus, the adversaries are not outsiders, but people formed by Johannine thought itself, justifying their positions by referring to the Johannine Gospel and its implications. Later, when the ecclesial community accepted 1 John into the canon of Scripture, it showed that it approved the author's interpretation rather than that of his opponents. Thus, the Gospel according to John is in a sense neutral, but it could not answer the new questions that arose, and in their effort to answer them, the two conflicting groups claimed that their interpretation of the Gospel was the most accurate.

      This hypothesis explains not only the secessionists' view, but also the style of argumentation in 1 John, which does not directly refute its opponents' slogans, but rather nuances them. This hypothesis also explains the constant appeal to “what you have had from the beginning” (1 Jn 2:7); for the opponents claim to know the Johannine Gospel, but they pervert it by ignoring the tradition that underlies it. In fact, a few years before this schism, the fourth Gospel was shaped by conflicts with outsiders, particularly with “the Jews,” so that the evangelist emphasizes what these people deny. From then on, the secessionists' thinking was based on this limited point of view and was not faithful to the presuppositions of the tradition that were not included in the Gospel during these disputes. This is why, by referring to “what you have had from the beginning,” the presbyter returns to points that are barely sketched out in the fourth Gospel but which are part of the original heritage of the community, a heritage shared equally with other Christian groups.

2. The Areas of Dispute
   1. Christology

      We saw earlier that the central point in the Johannine community's debates with Jews and other Christians concerned its high Christology. Belief in the pre-existence of the Son of God was key to the Johannine assertion that believers possess divine life. The fourth Gospel was written to support the Johannine Christians' faith on this point. Inevitably, a belief defended so ardently would have been transmitted to the community as the central Christian message. And this would have two consequences.

      1. The emphasis on divinity, exacerbated by controversy, overshadowed less contentious points, such as the humanity of Jesus.

      2. When a community accepts enormous reprisals for its Christology (exclusion from the synagogue and persecution), it will be very intolerant of deviations from that Christology.
      1. Position of the Secessionists

         Here is the data on the conflict in 1 John:

         • 1 Jn 2: 22: "Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ?” (see also 2: 23 in relationship with the Son)
         • 1 Jn 3: 23: "that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ”
         • 1 Jn 4: 15: "that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ”
         • 1 Jn 5: 1: "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ[a] has been born of God”
         • 1 Jn 5: 5: "Who is it who conquers the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?”

         Clearly, the author emphasizes Christ (the Messiah), Son of God. Isn't this exactly what the fourth Gospel affirms (20:31, “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”)? Despite the similarities, there are differences: the fourth Gospel takes the trouble to describe Jesus' earthly career in order to identify this Jesus at the heart of his ministry with the pre-existent Son of God, taking the opposite view to those who propose the titles “Christ” and “Son of God” without making an inseparable link with his earthly ministry. The question is therefore this: is the Jesus whose life and death we know the same as the pre-existent Son of God? And as a corollary: is it important that the Son of God lived and died as Jesus did? This question is well expressed in 1 John 4:2-3:

         Every who acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh
         reflects the Spirit which belongs to God,
         while everyone who negates the importance of Jesus
         reflects a spirit which does not belong to God.

         What does it mean to deny the importance of Jesus and deny his coming in the flesh? It must mean that opponents place so much emphasis on the divine principle in Jesus that they neglect the earthly career of that divine principle.

         We now have more information about this Christian Docetism through the Gnostic works discovered in Egypt at Nag Hammadi in 1945. For example, we read: “I clothed Jesus. I carried him from the accursed wood and set him in his Father's dwelling place. And those who watch over their dwellings did not recognize me” (Trimorphic Protennoia, 13, 50, 12-15, written around the year 200); thus, the Son of God simply clothed Jesus as one wears a garment. In another work, a very much alive Jesus laughs at his persecutors who torment an external Jesus (Apocalypse of Peter, 7, 81, 15-25) . But is this really the Docetism preached by the adversaries in 1 Jn? If it were, the presbyter would have had no difficulty refuting it, for there is no indication in the fourth Gospel that Jesus had a semblance of a body or that the Word and Jesus functioned as two distinct entities during his ministry. One need only think of John 20:24-29, when Jesus shows Thomas the nail marks and his wounded side, proof that his body was real after the resurrection. How could people who practiced such Docetism have been part of the Johannine community, knowing the tradition about Thomas? This is the danger of interpreting a situation in the light of a heresy that developed later.

         A more fruitful approach is to ask whether the secessionists did not draw from the fourth Gospel itself the elements to support their Christological claims that the presbyter finds dangerous. For, fundamentally, the secessionists believed that Jesus' human existence, although real, had no salvific value. According to them, his human existence was only one stage in the career of the divine Word and not an intrinsic component of redemption. What Jesus did in Palestine was not really important to them, nor was the fact that he died on the cross; salvation would not have been any different if the Word had been incarnated in a totally different human figure who would have led a different life and died a different death. What mattered to them was only that eternal life had come to men and women through the Son who passed into the world. But how could such an interpretation be based on the fourth Gospel?

         1. John gives us a portrait of Jesus that somehow relativizes his humanity. This is why it is dangerous to read a verse in isolation. For example, we cannot read Jn 1:14ab (“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us”) without adding Jn 1:14cd (“and we have seen his glory, that glory as of the only begotten Son from the Father, full of grace and truth”). There is no doubt that for John, Jesus' humanity is real, but he prefers to emphasize the glory of God that shines through this humanity. In the Synoptic Gospels, this glory is revealed at the Transfiguration. For John, it is revealed at the wedding at Cana. This high Christology colors his entire Gospel.

            The Jesus of the fourth gospel seems to have very few human traits:

            • When he speaks of food (Jn 4:32), bread (6:33), or water (Jn 4:7-14; 7:38; 9:7), he is referring to spiritual realities.
            • His love for Lazarus is strangely lacking in human sympathy, for he does not rush to see him when he is sick (Jn 11:5-6) or when he dies, and his death becomes a joyful moment to teach about faith (Jn 11:11-15).
            • The sight of Lazarus' sister weeping irritates him (Jn 11:33).
            • Even when Jesus weeps, we do not know if it is because of grief or because of lack of faith (Jn 11:35).
            • John's Jesus knows all things (Jn 16:30), so he does not need to be informed, as in the scene where he feeds the crowd (Jn 6:5).
            • He chooses Judas as a disciple, knowing from the outset that he will betray him (Jn 6:64, 70-71).

            Regarding Jesus' relationship with his father:

            • Jesus is one with the Father (Jn 10:30), so much so that he does not need to pray to him to change his will.
            • In Gethsemane, Jesus refuses to pray like the Jesus of the Synoptics, because there is no distinction between his will and that of his Father.

         2. There are elements in John that diminish the salvific significance of Jesus' ministry. According to the fourth Gospel, the Word brought eternal life from God to men and women, but the secessionists may have thought that this eternal life was made available by the mere presence of the Word in the world, and not through what the Word did while he was present; for them, it was enough that the Word became flesh, and the kind of life he led and the way he died were of little importance. Phrases such as Jn 17:3 (“eternal life is that they know you, the only true God, and the one you have sent, Jesus Christ”) and Jn 17:8 (“They have truly known that I came from you, and they have believed that you sent me”)—phrases focused on the sending, not on any particular action—may have led to this perception.

            The salvific value of Jesus' ministry comes through his baptism as well as his death. For the secessionists, these two realities are of secondary importance. This is why the presbyter writes this obscure sentence: “It is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with water alone, but with water and blood” (1 Jn 5:6); water refers to baptism, blood refers to the cross. In fact, the fourth Gospel does not describe Jesus' baptism. It makes an indirect reference to it (Jn 1:30-34) and makes it a moment of revelation of the presence of the pre-existing Son of God, for John the Baptist says: “After me comes a man who is ahead of me, because he was before me.” I myself did not know him, but it is in view of his manifestation to Israel that I have come to baptize with water."

            Similarly, the implications of Jesus' passion and death in the fourth Gospel differ from what we find in the other New Testament writings:

            • Whereas in the Synoptic Gospels, it is Jesus' action during his last week in Jerusalem, driving the merchants from the Temple, that causes his death (Jn 11:15-18; 14:55-61), John takes the trouble to move this scene to the beginning of Jesus' ministry (ch. 2), announcing his resurrection after three days, in order to reinterpret Jesus' passion and death as a victory or “elevation.”
            • In John, Jesus is no longer a victim: “No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again” (Jn 10:18).
            • In John, Jesus does not fall to the ground in Gethsemane in a gesture of supplication (see Mk 14:35); rather, it is the Roman soldiers and the Jewish police who fall to the ground before him when he utters his majestic “I am” (Jn 18:6).
            • John's Jesus clearly tells Pilate that he has no power over him (Jn 19:11).
            • On the cross, John's Jesus is surrounded by the original group of disciples, the beginning of the Church (Jn 19:25-27).
            • John's Jesus has such control that it is only when he says, “It is finished,” that he bows his head and gives up his spirit (Jn 19:30).
            • A phrase such as “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34) is inconceivable on the lips of John's Jesus, who said, “But I am not alone, for the Father is with me” (John 16:32).
            • In his death, John's Jesus is already “lifted up” in triumph and draws all people to himself (John 12:32-33).

            Thus, the concept of expiatory sacrifice for sins disappeared in favor of the concept of revelation.

            In short, for the secessionists, baptism is only a public reminder that the Son has come into the world. Death is only the necessary return of the Son to the Father. All of this is derived from the fourth gospel's emphasis on the concept of revelation.

      2. Refutation by the Author

         How can 1 John respond to his opponents who propose a theology that is not an impossible interpretation of the fourth Gospel? Thus, he is not free to deny the pre-existence of the Son of God on the pretext that the secessionists use it to diminish the importance of Jesus' career in the flesh. The presbyter also believes that eternal life has been revealed to us, that God sent his only Son into the world, and that Jesus is true God. But he will challenge the erroneous conclusions that his opponents draw from this, and so he will accompany the statements that imply pre-existence with other statements emphasizing the career of the Word made flesh, an emphasis that is more formal and explicit than that found in the fourth Gospel.

         A fine example is given to us by the respective prologues of John and 1 John:

         John

         1 John

         1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4 in him was life, and the life was the light of all people... 14 And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.

         1 We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life 2 this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us 3 what we have seen and heard we also declare to you so that you also may have fellowship with us, and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 We are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.

         Similar words are found in both prologues, but with different meanings: beginning, word, life. Whereas in the prologue to the fourth Gospel, “beginning” means before creation, in 1 John the word refers to “what we have heard... seen... contemplated... touched,” that is, the beginning of Jesus' ministry. but this meaning is not new, as it is also found in the fourth Gospel in Jn 2:11; 6:64 and 16:4. Similarly, regarding the words “Word” and “life,” the Gospel prologue tells us that the Word was turned toward God and that he was life, echoing the creation story in Genesis 1-3, and it is further on (John 1:14) that we learn that this Word became flesh. The prologue of 1 Jn, for its part, associates the expression “Word of life” with “what we have seen,” and thus emphasizes the revelation of this reality in the career of Jesus, who became the source of life. Finally, while the Johannine prologue presents the incarnation in a general way (Jn 1:14: “the Word became flesh”), 1 Jn personalizes this reality: “What we have seen with our eyes...” (1 Jn 1:1), to emphasize this human career.

         We have seen that the secessionists fail to grasp the salvific value of Jesus' death. How does the presbyter address this problem? This value is mentioned in a secondary and scattered manner in the fourth Gospel: 6:51 (“And the bread that I will give is my flesh, given so that the world may have life”); 11:51-52 (“Caiaphas made this prophecy that Jesus must die for the nation, and not only for the nation, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad”); 12:24 (“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit”); 18:14 (“It was this same Caiaphas who had suggested to the Jewish authorities that it was advantageous for one man to die for the people”). And in particular, we have this testimony from John the Baptist: “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29). The secessionists undoubtedly understood this passage as the elimination of sin through the coming of the light. But the presbyter certainly saw in it an evocation of the suffering servant or the Paschal lamb, which explains phrases such as:

         • 1 Jn 1: 7: "and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin”
         • 1 Jn 2: 2: "and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world”
         • 1 Jn 3: 16: "that he laid down his life for us"
         • 1 Jn 4: 10: "not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins"

         Thus, when Jesus gives his life, it is not only to take it back, but also to atone for sins. The importance of the blood shed is expressed in 1 John 5:6: “He came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not by water only, but by water and blood.” Thus, the presbyter, more clearly than the evangelist, presents Jesus as a redeemer, without forgetting that he is also a revealer.

         The change in emphasis compared to the Gospel is also expressed by the frequent use of the word “confess” rather than “believe.” Indeed, 1 Jn and his opponents agree that eternal life consists in recognizing that Jesus Christ is the one sent by God (see Jn 17:3), but the presbyter shows them their shortcomings by insisting on the coming in human flesh (1 Jn 4:2; 2 Jn 7). Without this human life, no revelation would have been possible (1 Jn 1:1-2).

   2. Ethics

      While Christology was the main battleground between the presbyter and the secessionists, there were also skirmishes over the implications of this Christology for Christian behavior.

      1. Intimacy with God and Sinlessness

         Opponents claimed such intimacy with God that they were perfect and sinless. Here are the passages from John that seem to reflect their point of view:

         • If we boast, “We are in communion with him” (1 Jn 1:6)
         • If we boast, “We are free from the guilt of sin” (1 Jn 1:8)
         • If we boast, “We have not sinned” (1 Jn 1:10)
         • If anyone claims, “I know him” (1 Jn 2:4)
         • If anyone claims to “abide in him” (1 Jn 2:6)
         • If anyone claims to be in the light (1 Jn 2:9)
         • Anyone who claims, “I love God” (1 Jn 4:20)

         All of the above statements can be justified by the fourth Gospel, except for 1 Jn 1:8 and 1 Jn 1:10, two passages that concern sin and may seem foreign to the Johannine tradition. However, let us take a closer look. In Jn 8:34 we read: " Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin,“ and in John 8:31-32: ”If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." Thus, while the unbeliever is a slave to sin, the believer is free from sin. This is also the meaning of the scene of the man born blind (accused of being born in sin, John 9:34) who receives enlightenment, while the Pharisees, who do not recognize their blindness, remain in sin (John 9:41). Thus, the secessionists consider that they have been enlightened like the blind man and are therefore free from the guilt of sin.

         What about the claim to be without sin (1 Jn 1:10)? Does this mean that they have never sinned in their lives, or rather that they have not sinned since becoming believers? The latter point may have a basis in the fourth Gospel, where we read in Jn 1:12: “But to those who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.” The secessionists may have claimed that by becoming children of God, they became sinless, just as the Son of God is sinless (Jn 8:46). Moreover, were not Johannine Christians taught that they had received the Spirit who gives authority over sin (Jn 20:22-23)? Then, “He who has bathed needs no washing, except for his feet, but is completely clean” (Jn 13:10).

         The Johannine tradition therefore lends itself to the thesis that there is no more sin after becoming a believer. And in fact, this is what the presbyter seems to be saying: "Whoever is born of God does not commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God " (1 Jn 3:9). If both 1 Jn and its opponents seem to claim sinlessness and perfectionism, what difference is there between them? If the presbyter recognizes that being born of God implies a sinless state, this at the same time gives rise to an obligation to remain in that state. It must be understood that the expression “he cannot sin” means that he cannot be a sinner all the time. Indeed, elsewhere he acknowledges that failures are possible, so much so that he responds to his perfectionist opponents as follows: "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, who is righteous" (1 Jn 2:1). The error of the adversaries is to consider their perfectionism as a realized truth, and not simply as a call and an obligation.

      2. Keeping the Commandments

         This is the reproach of the presbyter addressed to his adversaries: “Whoever says, ‘I know him,’ but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 Jn 2:4). What does this tell us about the ethics of the secessionists? Let us first distinguish between practice and theory. In practice, were the secessionists libertines, leading immoral lives? In 1 Jn 2:15-17, the author names all the vices that exist in the world. But this passage seems to be addressed to everyone and refers to a standard list of vices also used elsewhere in the New Testament. Otherwise, the author does not name any particular vice among the secessionists. Therefore, the secessionists' guilt regarding the commandments would be theoretical.

         The most plausible explanation for the secessionists' attitude toward the commandments is that they do not attribute any salvific value to ethical behavior, and this attitude stems from their Christology: if Jesus' earthly career had no salvific value, why should the Christian's earthly life have any? Isn't the essential thing simply to know God and the One He sent?

         It must be acknowledged that the fourth Gospel is deficient in moral teaching. While Matthew presents Jesus' ethical demands in his Sermon on the Mount, there is nothing like this in John. While Matthew 7:16 insists on the criterion of behavior (“By their fruits you will know them”), John 15:5 speaks rather of attaching oneself to Jesus: “Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit.” In the Synoptics, the disciple is the one who does the will of God (Mark 3:35; Matthew 12:50; Luke 8:21), but for John 8:31: “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples.” Terms such as repentance/change of behavior (metanoia) are not part of John's vocabulary. For the evangelist, the only great sin is not believing (John 8:24; 9:41). Is it surprising that the secessionists show no interest in the commandments?

         How can the presbyter correct his opponents' perception? Since he cannot refer to any specific directive from the Johannine tradition that would have been authoritative, he must refer to the example of Jesus' earthly life and propose it as a model for Christian life: “Whoever claims to abide in him must walk in the same way that he walked” (1 Jn 2:6). If the secessionists hope to see God as he is, they must make themselves pure “as” he is pure (1 Jn 3:3). It should be noted that the adverb “as” remains a vague notion in the ethical domain, but it reflects the vagueness of Johannine ethics and the challenge faced by the presbyter in his refutation of the secessionist vision.

      3. Brotherly Love

         If opponents did not attribute any salvific value to the commandments, could they justify their position on the basis of John's Gospel, since John's Jesus does indeed speak to his disciples about the commandments? But in the fourth Gospel, the commandments are linked to the commandment of love:

         • Jn 15: 12: "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you"
         • Jn 13: 35: "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another"

         The same is true in 1 John. Even when the author uses the word “commandment” in the plural, it all boils down to that of brotherly love:

         • 1 Jn 3: 23: "And this is his commandment, that we should … love one another, just as he has commanded us"
         • 1 Jn 4: 21: "The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also"

         Consequently, the only specific wrongdoing that the author accuses the secessionists of is that of not loving their brothers (1 Jn 2:9-11; 3:11-18; 4:20).

         But was this accusation justified? In what way did the secessionists not love their brothers? It all depends on the definition of “brother.” For the author of 1 Jn, brothers were those in the Johannine community who were in communion with him and accepted his interpretation of the Gospel; since the secessionists had left the community, they were no longer brothers, and even their departure was a sign that they lacked love for the author's community. But we can imagine that the secessionists had the same feelings: for them, brothers were those who remained united against the presbyter and his group, because it was the latter who had strayed from the authentic Johannine tradition and lacked love for them; moreover, the harsh tone of 1 John was proof of a lack of love.

         All this leads us to note a certain inconsistency on the part of the presbyter. On the one hand, the author preaches brotherly love with evangelical fervor: “We love because he first loved us” (1 Jn 4:19). On the other hand, he condemns in extremely harsh terms his opponents who were once members of his community but are no longer: they are demons, antichrists, false prophets, and they embody eschatological disorder (1 Jn 2:18, 22; 3:4-5). Likewise, he urges us not to receive them (2 Jn 10-11). While he asks us to pray for brothers who sin, but whose sin is not mortal, he does not want us to pray for those whose sin is mortal, i.e., those who are guilty of apostasy, like his opponents (1 Jn 5:15-17).

         If the presbyter and his opponents share the same vision of brotherly love, it is because they are inspired by the same Johannine Gospel. However, it is here that we see the dangers of the dualistic tendency of the fourth Gospel, especially when it is transplanted into debates between Christians. While Matthew's Jesus says, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you " (Mt 5:44), there is no equivalent in the Johannine tradition, because the commandment of love is not defined by love of neighbor (as in Mt 19:19), but by love of one another (Jn 13:34-35; 15:12, 17), and love “one another” refers to Christ's disciples who obey his commandments (Jn 15:13-15). And the attitude of the Johannine Jesus, who refuses to pray for the world (Jn 17:9), is translated in 1 Jn by the refusal to pray for other Christians who have seceded (1 Jn 5:16).

         When we compare the fourth Gospel and 1 John, we notice that the dualistic language used by Jesus in his attacks against the world or “the Jews” (love/hate; light/darkness; truth/lies; from above/from below; from God/from the devil) is now used to attack Christians with whom he disagrees.

         Gospel According to John	1 John
         Jesus assures his disciples that they do not walk in darkness (Jn 8:12; 12:46), for the world of darkness belongs to those who do not welcome Jesus (Jn 1:5; 3:19-21; 12:35).	Christians who disagree with the presbyter's ethics walk in darkness (1 John 2:9-11)
         The Paraclete convicts the world of righteousness (Jn 16:8, 10)	The presbyter offers a criterion for determining who is righteous and upright (1 Jn 3:7-8; 2:29), a criterion that, according to him, the secessionists do not meet.
         Jesus attacks Jews who say they believe in him, telling them that they belong to the devil, their father, who is a murderer and a liar (Jn 8:44).	The presbyter uses the same language toward the secessionists, telling them that they are children of the devil, that they are like Cain, who belongs to the Evil One and was a murderer from the beginning (1 Jn 3:8-15; 4:1-6; 2:22).
         Quoting Isaiah 6:10, the evangelist asserts that God has blinded the eyes of the Jews.	The presbyter applies this passage from Isaiah to the secessionists: darkness has blinded their eyes.

         Thus, in his fight against the secessionists, the presbyter took drastic measures, but this defense of the truth came at a certain price. For this attitude of complete rejection would fuel Christians throughout the ages who would feel justified in hating other Christians for the love of God.

   3. Eschatology

      There are no clear eschatological claims among the secessionists that the presbyter would condemn. But their claims to perfection indirectly contain eschatological implications, and it is a realized eschatology emphasizing what God has already done for those who believe in his Son, a dominant theme of the fourth Gospel:

      • The believer is not judged and will not face judgment (Jn 3:21; 8:12; 11:9; 12:46).
      • They already have eternal life (Jn 6:54; 8:12; 10:10, 28; 17:3).
      • They are children born of God (1:13; 3:3-8).
      • He is in union with God and with Jesus (Jn 6:56; 14:23; 15:4-5; 17:21)
      • He already knows God and sees him (Jn 3:3; 12:45; 14:7.9; 17:3)

      For secessionists, such an eschatology is consistent with their Christology and ethics, and they probably do not see what a future eschatology could add: they already have eternal life, they will not die, but they will pass from this world to which they do not really belong to the home that Jesus has prepared for them.

      The author of the Johannine epistles also professes a realized eschatology:

      • The evil one has already been defeated (1 Jn 2:13-14)
      • Eternal life has been revealed (1 Jn 1:2)
      • We are already walking in the light (1 Jn 1:7; 2:9-10)
      • Divine love has reached its perfection (1 Jn 2:5)
      • There is fellowship with God (1 John 1:3)
      • We are truly God's children (1 John 3:1)
      • God dwells in the believer (1 John 4:15)

      To avoid this complacency on the part of his opponents in such a realized eschatology, the presbyter takes a two-step approach.

      1. First, he makes eschatology contingent on ethical requirements.
         • We are in communion with God if we walk in the light (1 Jn 1:7)
         • Love reaches its perfection if we keep his word (1 Jn 2:5)
         • We remain in the light if we love our brother (1 Jn 2:10)
         • We are children of God if we act in righteousness (1 Jn 3:10)

      2. He then goes on to discuss future eschatology. It should be noted that future eschatology is a very minor theme in the fourth Gospel, because, being in conflict with the Jews, he did not need to mention what was already accepted throughout Judaism; what mattered was to affirm that the blessings promised in this eschatology were now being fulfilled in the person of Jesus. However, the presbyter finds himself in a different situation and must therefore refer to what was probably in a later stratum of the Gospel, but which was a minor theme precisely because it was not a subject of dispute.

         Here is what the presbyter writes:

         • 1 Jn 3: 2-3: "Beloved, we are God’s children now; what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is. And all who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure"
         • 1 Jn 2: 28: "And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he is revealed we may have confidence and not be put to shame before him at his coming"
         • 1 Jn 3: 18-19: "Little children, let us love not in word or speech but in deed and truth. And by this we will know that we are from the truth and will reassure our hearts before him"

         What does the presbyter say? Future blessings depend on how Christians live their lives. And a realized eschatology is not an end in itself (as it is for opponents), but simply assurance for the future.

         Because of the seriousness of the schism in the community, the author's description of future eschatology is very dark, as he draws on both Jewish and Christian apocalyptic imagery: the secessionists are the antichrists and false prophets foretold for the end times (1 Jn 2:18, 22; 4:1-3), their indifference to sin represents the final disruption of the final battle (1 Jn 3:4), it is the sign of the last hour (1 Jn 2:18), the time of judgment when Christ will reveal himself (1 Jn 2:8).

   4. Pneumatology

      We read in 1 John 4:1: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.” We can guess that the adversaries called themselves teachers and prophets, and claimed to speak under the guidance of the Spirit. Is such a claim justified by an appeal to the Johannine tradition that we know through the fourth Gospel?

      The personal role of the Spirit in John under the title of Paraclete is unique. He resembles Jesus so closely that we can say that the Paraclete is the permanent presence of Jesus after the latter returned to heaven, and his role as revealer in relation to Jesus is the same as that of Jesus in relation to the Father. The fact that this Paraclete remained forever (Jn 14:16) relativized the delay of the parousia, for in him Jesus had already returned to teach everything (Jn 14:26) and guide believers to the whole truth (Jn 16:13). We can assume that the secessionists justified their Christological proclamation by referring to this Paraclete.

      How does the presbyter respond to this claim? It is important to note what he does not say.

      1. He hardly mentions the Spirit. In fact, it is mentioned in two passages, first in 1 Jn 3:24 – 4:6,13, where the author insists on a test and criteria for distinguishing between the Spirit of God and the false spirit of the devil, and in 1 Jn 5: 6-8, addressed to his opponents, where the testimony of the Spirit is linked to the testimony given by the baptism and death of Jesus. Otherwise, he remains silent on the different roles of the Spirit in the fourth Gospel and refers only indirectly to the Paraclete when speaking of Jesus' role as intercessor with the Father (1 Jn 2:1-2).

      2. The second eloquent silence is the absence of the affirmative “I” as ecclesial authority entrusted with the responsibility of being guardian of the faith. We saw earlier that the apostolic churches had become institutionalized by the end of the first century, so that in many places presbyter-bishops had appeared in every city. Their role was to ensure that teaching was in accordance with doctrine and to refute those who contradicted it (see Titus 1:9). But there is nothing like this in the Johannine communities, where the role of authoritative teacher is entrusted to the Paraclete, and the gift of the Paraclete concerns all members of the community (“As for you, you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know” (1 John 2:20). Therefore, the presbyter cannot use his title to correct his opponents: he has no doctrinal authority. So what does he do? He appeals to all the members of the community: "As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you; but as his anointing teaches you about everything—and it is true and does not lie—since it has taught you, you remain in him" (1 Jn 2:27). It will therefore be up to the entire Johannine community to correct the adversaries, of whom the presbyter is of course a part; it is the communal ”we" that will be the instrument of the Paraclete. If the adversaries are wrong, it is because they have broken communion with the believers who have been anointed by the Word and the Spirit.

      This method of indirect correction was probably countered by the secessionists, who undoubtedly invoked their own communal “we,” which had also received the anointing, to justify their interpretation of tradition. Faced with such a situation, all the presbyter could do was ask for a test of the manifestation of the Spirit of God to determine which side was right, which side reflected the Spirit of God as opposed to the antichrist (1 Jn 4:1-3). But in fact, such a test is a doctrinal one that favors his own position: “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that divides Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist” (1 Jn 4:2-3); in other words, the criterion is to agree with one's own side.

      The clue that this test has been ineffective is given to us by the presbyter's admission that “the world” listens to his opponents (1 Jn 4:5). The term “world” used in the fourth Gospel to refer to non-believers now refers to the secessionists. And the mention of success in the world suggests that the adversaries are gaining followers at the expense of the author's community. How should this success be interpreted? For the secessionists, it is proof that they are the true Johannine community fulfilling the prayer of Jesus, who foresaw all the conversions to come (Jn 17:20), a gift from the Father to Jesus, who continues to make his name known as a sign in the world. On the other hand, the presbyter sees this success of the adversaries as confirmation that the world is incapable of accepting the Spirit of truth (Jn 14:17) and that they belong to the Prince of this world, not to Christ, a sign that the last hour has come.