Leading with Love
Leading with Love
Permalink:
At the outset of this chapter, it should be frankly acknowledged that the Johannine Letters were not originally intended primarily to provide a theology of leadership. Nevertheless, a closer examination of these three letters reveals the way in which the author relates to and provides leadership for the people in the congregations to which the letters are written. The author’s relationship with his recipients in these three letters does not directly correspond to a modern model of leadership because of his unique role in the churches to which he is writing. Yet his faithful and caring relationship can provide an example to Christian leaders in every age. In order to grasp the lessons on leadership in the Johannine Epistles, one must consider the identity of the author of these letters, the source of his authority, his relationship with his audience, and the nature of the conflict addressed in his third letter.
Original Setting
The Authorship of the Letters
The author of 1, 2 and 3 John is never named except for the title “elder” in 2 and 3 John. The early church accepted all three letters into the canon in the belief that John the apostle, the son of Zebedee, was the author.[1] While the author of these letters was doubtless known to his initial readers, the modern reader is indebted to the early church for preserving the tradition of authorship. Sources from the late second and early third centuries, such as the Muratorian Fragment (c. ad 180) and church fathers Tertullian (c. ad 160–215) and Clement of Alexandria (c. ad 155–220), ascribe authorship to John the son of Zebedee.
However, not only the external but also the internal evidence points to Johannine authorship. First, in 1 John 1:1–4 the author claims to be an eyewitness of Jesus. Although the first-person plural reference (“we”) in the author’s description of what he has heard, seen, and touched may include his audience because they share in the tradition that was handed down (alternatively, the reference is to the apostles; cf. John 1:14; 2:11), there is a clear distinction between the author and his recipients with regard to their firsthand knowledge of Jesus (cf.1 John 1:2–3). While the author may use the first-person plural reference to identify with his audience, 1 John 1:1–2 indicates that the author is a personal eyewitness of the incarnate Christ.[2]
Second, all three of the Johannine letters contain similar vocabulary, style, and theology. In fact, the relationship between the letters is so strong that the majority of modern scholars view them as coming from one author—albeit not all agree that their author is the same as the author of the Fourth Gospel.[3] For instance, among the Johannine letters one can identify a common background in which itinerant teachers with competing theological agendas threatened the confession of the Johannine churches.[4] In response to such threats, the Johannine letters demonstrate an emphasis on truth (1 John 1:6, 8; 2:4, 21; 3:18–19; 4:6; 5:6; 2 John 1:2–4; 3 John 1:1, 3–4, 8, 12), Jesus’ humanity and/or messianic nature (1 John 4:2; 2 John 7), the identity of the opponents as “antichrists” and “deceivers” (1 John 2:22, 26; 2 John 7), the importance of “abiding” (1 John 2:14, 24; 2 John 2), the priority of love (1 John 2:7, 3:11; 2 John 5–6), and ethics as a reflection of one’s relationship with God (1 John 3:6; 2 John 9; 3 John 11).[5] The classic defense of apostolic authorship comes from B. F. Westcott, who favors John the son of Zebedee as the author of all three letters and remarks regarding the relationship between them:
The second Epistle bears the closest resemblance in language and thought to the first. The third Epistle has the closest affinity to the second, though from its subject it is less like the first in general form. Nevertheless, it offers many striking parallels to the constructions and language of St. John.[6]
Third, all three letters contain similarities with John’s gospel. In the gospel and letters, one finds evidence of John’s characteristic dualistic thought. Johannine literature is noted for strong conceptual contrasts such as “life and death, truth and falsehood, light and darkness, children of God and children of the devil, love and hate.”[7]In addition to conceptual similarities, John uses the unique terms “one and only Son” (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9), “Word” as a title for Jesus (John 1:1; 1 John 1:1), as well as “‘eternal life” (John 3:15–16, 36, etc.; 1 John 1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20), “the spirit of truth” (John 14:17; 16:13; 1 John 4:6), among many others.[8] The detailed study by A. E. Brooke lists sixty-seven similarities in style, vocabulary and syntax between John’s gospel and letters.[9]
Fourth, while one would expect a later writer to emulate a particular style in order to pass off a document as genuine, each of the Johannine letters, though similar to the others, is unique.[10]Moreover, though some scholars argue that the gospel and/or letters were written or redacted by a Johannine community after the apostle’s death, it is unclear why such a community would have failed to use this standardized Johannine style outside of the Fourth Gospel and three letters. The stubborn fact remains that the Johannine corpus has no parallel in extrabiblical literature.[11]
For these reasons it is reasonable to conclude that the Gospel of John and 1–3 John are all the work of one single author—and as tradition, reflected in the respective titles of these works, suggests, that the author was John the son of Zebedee.[12] Why, then, does the author of 1 John fail to identify himself, while only calling himself “the elder” in 2 and 3 John? Apparently, the identity of the author was so well known that he did not need to identify himself by name.
The title “elder” or “presbyter” can refer literally to an elderly man or to an overseer in the church. Doubtless the term here, combined with the authority conveyed in 2 and 3 John, indicates that theauthor is more than a local pastor and holds a measure of authority over several churches.[13]It is likely that by designating himself with an authoritative title he identifies himself as holding a position of authority and life experience enabling him to transmit apostolic tradition in the face of heretical teachings threatening the church.[14]
Readers might find themselves asking why authorship matters in a book on leadership. Arguments for or against the Johannine authorship of 1–3 John do not affect the inspired, authoritative nature of these writings. Nevertheless, the identity of the author is important for the theology of leadership these letters contain, because the theology of leadership emanating from the Johannine Epistles flows from the role the author played in the churches to which he wrote. As the above discussion has shown, the evidence points decisively to John the apostle’s authorship of 1–3 John. Moreover, it is likely that John wrote in the late first century when “the author was advanced in years . . . and in keeping with this . . . referred to the congregations addressed in the letters as ‘dear children,’ including even those he calls ‘fathers.’”[15]
The Recipients
John’s repeated use of “little children,” along with other personal and intimate terms of address for groups within the congregation to which he writes, suggests he had a well-established relationship with his readers. Beyond this, one must note that 1 John appears to be slightly different from 2 and 3 John in that 1 John contains no specific names or places and seems to be more of a general treatise, whereas 2 and 3 John are personal letters (though 3 John is even more personal than 2 John).[16] Based on tradition, it is likely that all three epistles first circulated among churches in and around Ephesus, where John held considerable influence in the late first century.[17] Though it may be appropriate, then, to speak of Johannine churches, or churches over which John wielded considerable sway as a founder and apostle, it is important to distinguish the Johannine churches from the modern construct of a “Johannine community.” The “Johannine community” hypothesis is an attempt by scholars such as Raymond Brown and J. Louis Martyn to reconstruct the background of John’s gospel and letters by arguing that these documents reflect a sectarian community’s expulsion from a parent synagogue subsequent to the apostle’s death.[18] For our discussion, this differs from a Johannine church in that it is not directly attested in the New Testament and sectarian in nature, rather than part of the apostolic mainstream of the early church.
The Basis of John’s Leadership: Faithful Transmission of Tradition
How does John attempt to lead the churches to which he writes these letters? Or, rather, from where does John derive his authority to instruct his readers? In keeping with his status as an eyewitness, it is the tradition that John conveys as an eyewitness that is intrinsic to his authority. For example, in 1 John 1:1–4 the apostle most likely alludes to his own firsthand experience with Christ. It is through John that the audience is able to receive the revelation of Christ (“the Word of life”). As a mediator of apostolic tradition, John has authority to convey the basis on which people are admitted into the church (i.e., “what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us,” 1 John 1:3a). Thus, John’s leadership and authority consist in his reader’s dependence upon him for the revelation of Jesus. When one recalls the original setting of 1 John, it becomes clear that the “fellowship” John extends to his readers is none other than the Christian fellowship made possible by the gospel. The heretical teaching John counters in his theological treatise threatens to unravel the unity of the Johannine churches, but by maintaining the genuine, received gospel, the fellowship is preserved and kept intact.[19]
This mediatorial emphasis is likewise found in 1 John 1:5 where John describes his role in communicating the message he has heard to his audience. Thus John’s role as a leader in the community to which he writes consists to a significant extent in the faithful transmission of tradition. This observation can be bolstered by noting that John does not issue a “new commandment” but repeats what was from the beginning (1 John 2:7; 3:11, 23; 4:21; 2 John 5–7). What is more, John seeks to guard the truth about Jesus Christ by urging his readers to remain faithful to their original confession and not to accept a new tradition about Jesus (1 John 2:18–27; 4:1–3).
Especially important is the time reference used in 1 John 1:1–5 in relation to the origin of the eyewitness testimony. The “beginning” marks the start of Jesus’ ministry and almost certainly indicates that the author is one of the Twelve, who can relate all the necessary and correct details about Jesus.[20] The first-person plural reference in the prologue has stirred debate over whether it is used to identify the apostles/disciples [21] or authoritative bearers of tradition (and hence was written by someone other than John the apostle).[22] While an argument has already been made for apostolic authorship, even those who doubt apostolic authorship (such as Bauckham) note the eyewitness reference (either by firsthand experience or relating of a tradition) represented by the first-person plural reference. This suggests that the authority by which the author exhorts his readers is based on his access to and transmission of authentic tradition.
Forms of Address for John’s Audience
John’s leadership and authority are assumed in his epistles in several ways, which points to his status in the community. In conjunction with his role as eyewitness and preserver of tradition about Jesus, John’s authority can be seen by the forms of address he uses with his readers. Overall, John uses six different forms of address in his letters. The two most common ways in which John addresses his audience or parts of his audience are “my children”[23] or “children”[24] (1 John 2:1, 12, 13, 18, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:2, 21; 3 John 1:4) and “beloved”[25] (1 John 2:7; 3:2, 21; 4:1, 7, 11; 3 John 1:1, 2, 5, 11). Other designations include “lady”[26] (2 John 1:1, 5), “fathers”[27] (1 John 2:13–14), “young men”[28] (1 John 2:13–14), and “brothers”[29] (1 John 3:13).
Children
“Children” (teknion)—“my children” in 2:1—is a term of an endearment often used in John in the vocative plural (1 John 2:12, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21). It has the diminutive meaning of “little children” and speaks of the close relationship between John and his spiritual children.[30] John also uses teknon to denote people in relationship to a teacher—although not every use of teknon refers to the teacher-spiritual child relationship. For example, teknon can refer to “children of God” (cf. 1 John 3:1; 5:2) or “children of the devil” (cf. 1 John 3:10). The use of teknon as a term of endearment by a teacher to his congregation can be seen in 1 Corinthians 4:14–15, where Paul reminds the Corinthians that they are his children and he is their spiritual father because it was from him that they heard and received the gospel (cf. Acts 18).[31] Although Paul and John may not use teknon in exactly the same way, it is possible, if not probable, that John was responsible for establishing the churches to which he writes (cf. esp. 1 John 1:3).
In addition to teknion and teknon, John also uses paidion(1 John 2:14, 18), which is more common in the New Testament than either term.[32] The meaning of these words is virtually synonymous, and all three words are rendered “children” in English. It is not altogether clear why John varies his word choice; most likely, this is merely an instance of stylistic variation. In the context of 1 John 2:12–14, the pattern of children/fathers/young men seems to indicate that fathers and young men belong to the larger category of children. That is, everyone is the church is included in the term “children,” though John identifies some as “fathers” and others as “young men.”[33]
Peter Balla’s research on the parent-child relationship in Greco-Roman and Jewish sources demonstrates that John’s use of “children” as a term of endearment for his readers would have served to assert his authority over them, to communicate his love for them, and to convey the “expectation that they will obey him.”[34] If, as suggested earlier, one assumes that John spiritually fathered the church through his gospel proclamation, the use of the term “children” to accomplish this threefold purpose is further strengthened.
Beloved
“Beloved” (agapētos) is an equally important term of endearment in 1 John (1 John 2:7; 3:2, 21; 4:1, 7, 11; 3 John 1:1, 2, 5, 11). Though it can simply be used as a “homiletical form of address,” semantically it functions much like “child,” indicating one who is “dearly loved, prized or valued,” often denoting “a close relationship, especially that between parent and child.”[35]It is interesting that in the Johannine Epistles the use of “beloved” often occurs just before or in the middle of a section dealing with Christian love—though this is not invariably the case (cf. 3 John 1–2). Stott observes of the first usage of “beloved” in 1 John 2:7, “As he [John] is about to write of brotherly love, he appropriately addresses them as his agapētoi.”[36]
Lady
Twice in 2 John, one finds the rather curious term “lady” (kyría; cf. 2 John 1:1, 5). The word generally denotes “a woman of special status.”[37] Although some commentators (e.g., Westcott) believe the word refers to an individual, such as a lady in whose house the church met, the majority view is that it refers to a congregation of Christians.[38] R. Alan Culpepper writes, “It is now generally agreed that this title refers to a sister church.”[39] The view that the “elect lady” is an individual is the most ancient view, going back to Clement of Alexandria (d. 215) who believed the lady’s name was Electa, while others suggest her name was Kyria (cf. “elect” with a proper name in Romans 16:13).[40] However, the definite article is lacking, and the nature of the letter fits a corporate rather than individual or family setting.[41] The reference to the “chosen lady” probably refers to a congregation of believers, a church—and the chosen lady’s “children” refers to the members of the church.[42] Thus, at the outset of 2 John, the elder assumes his right to speak authoritatively to a local church to which he writes.
Fathers and Young Men
In 1 John 2:12–14, the apostle discusses the various reasons why he has written his epistle to several classes of people—children, fathers, and young men. Fathers (patēres) are mentioned twice in this passage (1 John 2:13–14). The term is almost certainly “a respectful address designating older male members of the church.”[43] Of course, it is difficult to know whether John refers to individuals who are literally advanced in years or spiritually mature, or both. Strecker observes that the general tone of the epistle hints that one should interpret the age designations such as “fathers” and “young men” in a more symbolic fashion.[44] Although both words are masculine, female readers may have understood the concepts as applying to them as well.[45] Thus, while as a leader John calls those under his authority “children,” he shows his high regard for those advanced in the faith by identifying them as “fathers.”
Likewise, young men (neaniskoi) are mentioned twice in 1 John 2:12–14. Literally,neaniskos refers to a young man, usually between twenty-four and forty years old.[46] However, based on the above observations John probably refers primarily to those who are young figuratively, that is, young in the faith. Nevertheless, it is important not to draw too fine a distinction between the literal and figurative senses of “fathers/young men,” since in most cases spiritual maturity comes with increasing age.
Brothers
The term of endearment adelphoi is only used once in the Johannine Epistles, in 1 John 3:13. Although the word is masculine, it should most likely be understood as conveying the sense “brothers and sisters.” The address demonstrates that John views the congregation not merely as his spiritual children but also as fellow believers who like him have placed their trust in Jesus as the Son of God and Messiah.[47] Nevertheless, the fact that John uses the designation adelphoi only once may suggest that he sees himself primarily in the role of a leader with regard to the congregation. Barker adds the following insight:
At this most critical point, the author appears to step past his relationship to them as “little children” and to openly proclaim them as his peers. Perhaps they have already experienced persecution with him. Or perhaps he associates himself with them this way because he knows that if they receive his letter and obey it, persecution will soon come because they have identified themselves with him rather than with his opponents.[48]
