1. The Epistles of John 1 The Epistles of John: INTRODUCTION New Testament Exegesis

2. The Epistles of John2 Introduction The First Epistle of John is a the fourth of the catholic or "general" epistles. The First Epistle of John is a the fourth of the catholic or "general" epistles.epistles It was written in Ephesus about 90-110 AD, apparently by the same author/authors who wrote the Gospel and the two Epistles of John. It was written in Ephesus about 90-110 AD, apparently by the same author/authors who wrote the Gospel and the two Epistles of John.EphesusGospelEpistlesEphesusGospelEpistles Not a letter, it is a sermon written to counter the heresy that Jesus did not come "in the flesh" but only as a spirit. It also defines how Christians are to discern true teachers: by their ethics, doctrine and love. Not a letter, it is a sermon written to counter the heresy that Jesus did not come "in the flesh" but only as a spirit. It also defines how Christians are to discern true teachers: by their ethics, doctrine and love.sermon heresysermon heresy

3. The Epistles of John3 Authorship The epistle is traditionally held to have been written by John the Evangelist, and probably also at Ephesus, and when the writer was in advanced age. The epistle is traditionally held to have been written by John the Evangelist, and probably also at Ephesus, and when the writer was in advanced age.John the EvangelistEphesusJohn the EvangelistEphesus The Epistle's content, language and conceptual style is an indication that a common authorship existed between this letter, the two other letters attributed to the Apostle John, as well as the Gospel of John. The Epistle's content, language and conceptual style is an indication that a common authorship existed between this letter, the two other letters attributed to the Apostle John, as well as the Gospel of John. Gospel of John Gospel of John

4. The Epistles of John4 John or someone else? Whether the author was the Apostle John himself, someone who wrote under his name and spoke "for him", or whether a body of authors contributed to the writing of all four Johannine texts is an open question. Whether the author was the Apostle John himself, someone who wrote under his name and spoke "for him", or whether a body of authors contributed to the writing of all four Johannine texts is an open question.

5. The Epistles of John5 However… "The three Epistles and the Gospel of John are so closely allied in diction, style, and general outlook that the burden of proof lies with the person who would deny their common authorship" (B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, rev. ed. (London: Macmillan, 1930) 460). "The three Epistles and the Gospel of John are so closely allied in diction, style, and general outlook that the burden of proof lies with the person who would deny their common authorship" (B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, rev. ed. (London: Macmillan, 1930) 460). Some modern scholars believe that the common author or authors did not include John himself. Some modern scholars believe that the common author or authors did not include John himself.

6. The Epistles of John6 Purpose (1) The author wrote the Epistle so that the joy of his audience would "be full" (1.4) and that they would "sin not" (2.1) and that "you who believe in the name of the Son of God... may know that you have eternal life." (5.13) The author wrote the Epistle so that the joy of his audience would "be full" (1.4) and that they would "sin not" (2.1) and that "you who believe in the name of the Son of God... may know that you have eternal life." (5.13)Son of Godeternal lifeSon of Godeternal life It appears as though the author was concerned about heretical teachers that had been influencing churches under his care. Such teachers were considered Antichrists (2.18-19) who had once been church leaders but whose teaching became heterodox. It appears as though the author was concerned about heretical teachers that had been influencing churches under his care. Such teachers were considered Antichrists (2.18-19) who had once been church leaders but whose teaching became heterodox.hereticalchurchesAntichristsheterodoxhereticalchurchesAntichristsheterodox

7. The Epistles of John7 Purpose (2) It appears that these teachers taught that Jesus Christ was a Spirit being without a body (4.2), that his death on the cross was not as an atonement for sins (1.7) and that they were no longer able to sin (1.8-10). It appears that these teachers taught that Jesus Christ was a Spirit being without a body (4.2), that his death on the cross was not as an atonement for sins (1.7) and that they were no longer able to sin (1.8-10). JesusChristatonement JesusChristatonement It appears that John might have also been rebuking a Gnostic named Cerinthus, who also denied the humanity of Christ. It appears that John might have also been rebuking a Gnostic named Cerinthus, who also denied the humanity of Christ.

8. The Epistles of John8 Purpose (3) The purpose of the author (1:1-4) is to declare the Word of Life to those to whom he writes, in order that they might be united in fellowship with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. The purpose of the author (1:1-4) is to declare the Word of Life to those to whom he writes, in order that they might be united in fellowship with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. He shows that the means of union with God are, (1) on the part of Christ, his atoning work (1:7; 2:2; 3:5; 4:10, 14; 5:11, 12) and his advocacy (2:1); and (2), on the part of man, holiness (1:6), obedience (2:3), purity (3:3), faith (3:23; 4:3; 5:5), and love (2:7, 8; 3:14; 4:7; 5:1). He shows that the means of union with God are, (1) on the part of Christ, his atoning work (1:7; 2:2; 3:5; 4:10, 14; 5:11, 12) and his advocacy (2:1); and (2), on the part of man, holiness (1:6), obedience (2:3), purity (3:3), faith (3:23; 4:3; 5:5), and love (2:7, 8; 3:14; 4:7; 5:1).God

9. The Epistles of John9 A problem area: The “Johannine comma” One of the most controversial verses of the Bible is an explicit reference to what some people consider the trinity (not an explicit biblical doctrine), the Comma Johanneum, (1 John 5:7-8). They do not appear in any version of the text prior to the sixteenth century, but do appear in the King James Bible, something Isaac Newton commented on in An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture. One of the most controversial verses of the Bible is an explicit reference to what some people consider the trinity (not an explicit biblical doctrine), the Comma Johanneum, (1 John 5:7-8). They do not appear in any version of the text prior to the sixteenth century, but do appear in the King James Bible, something Isaac Newton commented on in An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture.trinityComma Johanneumsixteenth centuryKing James BibleIsaac NewtonAn Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of ScripturetrinityComma Johanneumsixteenth centuryKing James BibleIsaac NewtonAn Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture

10. The Epistles of John10 This is sometimes used as evidence to counter the King-James-Only Movement. The majority of modern translations (for example New International Version, English Standard Version and New American Standard Bible,) do not include this text. Albert Barnes (1798-1870) said regarding its authenticity: This is sometimes used as evidence to counter the King-James-Only Movement. The majority of modern translations (for example New International Version, English Standard Version and New American Standard Bible,) do not include this text. Albert Barnes (1798-1870) said regarding its authenticity:King-James-Only MovementNew International VersionEnglish Standard VersionNew American Standard BibleAlbert Barnes17981870King-James-Only MovementNew International VersionEnglish Standard VersionNew American Standard BibleAlbert Barnes17981870 On the whole, therefore, the evidence seems to me to be clear that this passage is not a genuine portion of the inspired writings, and should not be appealed to in proof of the doctrine of the Trinity. On the whole, therefore, the evidence seems to me to be clear that this passage is not a genuine portion of the inspired writings, and should not be appealed to in proof of the doctrine of the Trinity.