Student Name Simon Patterson Module Code and Name B612 Independent Study Assignment Title Does 1 John Have Structure
Original Submission Date 12pm Friday 26th March 2010
Extension Deadline (if applicable)
Word Limit 10 000 plusmn 10 + 300 abstract
Actual Word Count 10 934 +280
I have read and understood the Unfair Practices and Plagiarism Regulations and confirm that this submission is the result of my own work Signed
Administrative use only Submitted on Time Recorded by (please print name)
ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET
Does 1 John Have Structure
Wales Evangelical School of Theology
B612 Independent Study
Simon Patterson
March 2010
ABSTRACT
This paper will address the subject of the structure of 1 John Analysis will be
undertaken in two parts Firstly some of the most popular existing proposals for
the structure of 1 John (Law Brown and Marshall) as well as proposals presented
in journal articles (Longacre Hansford and Thomas) will be critically assessed The
aim will be to learn from their research as well as the weaknesses in their work
Secondly a new structure will be proposed The newly proposed structure will be
based upon an analysis of various discourse features within the text of 1 John and
will divide the text into several large sections each made up of multiple units
Analysis with be present in both written and diagrammatic form and considerable
attention will be given to syntactic cola word clusters lexical cohesion
participant tracking boundary features and parallelisms Conclusions will be
drawn about the overall structure of the book
It will be argued that 1 John is made up of 7 sections and 18 units 11-4 form an
introduction and 513-21 a conclusion In between these two outer markers are a
number of sections of varying lengths (15-211 212-324 41-6 47-55 56-12) Of
the constituent units which make up these sections some are instantly
recognisable by their distinctive features (eg 212-14) while others require more
detailed inspection (eg 33-12) It is the aim of this study to elucidate the authorrsquos
intention in dividing up the text of 1 John It will finally be concluded that the
author of 1 John uses a wide variety of literary techniques to divide up his
material Of the various technique used word clusters inclusio and chiasm are the
most frequent
Contents
Introduction 1
Methodology 2 Nomenclature 4
Existing Structural Proposals 6 Views Presented in Major Commentaries 6
Robert Law ndash A Cyclical View 6 Raymond Brown ndash A Binary View 9 I H Marshall ndash A Linear View 11
View Presented in Articles 12 Robert E Longacre 13 Keir L Hansford 14 John Christopher Thomas 16
An Analysis of Discourse Features in 1 John 18 Inherent Structure 18 sect11-4 18 sect15-211 19
15-22 20 23-6 21 27-11 23 Summary of sect15-211 24
sect212-324 24 212-14 25 215-17 26 218-19 27 220-27 28 228-32 30 33-12 31 313-20 34 321-24 35 Summary of sect212-324 36
sect41-6 37 sect47-54a 38
47-11 38 412-16 39 417-54a 41 Summary of sect47-54a 42
sect54b-12 43 sect513-21 45
Conclusions 47
Bibliography 49
1
Introduction
It has long been recognised that 1 John poses a number of problems to its interpreters
There have been radically divergent views concerning authorship genre date and
historical context Similarly discussion of the structure and shape of 1 John has received
much attention yet found little common ground The challenge that now faces those who
wish to investigate the structure of 1 John is to learn from both the work of others and the
criticisms levelled at them
This essay aims to review some of the most popular proposals for structure within 1
John seeking to learn from both the positive and negative criticisms thereof Secondly this
essay seeks to propose a new structure for 1 John which is based entirely on features within
the text itself rather than those derived from outside sources
As with many subjects that have received much scholarly attention there are a
number of dangers to avoid The biggest danger is the proposal of a solution which is either
too speculative or based on too limited criteria Given the enigmatic nature of some of 1
John and its limited vocabulary there is a risk of deriving conclusions from presuppositions
rather than data This study seeks to be as rigorous as possible and whilst recognising that
all readers and writers will have some presuppositions it aims to build only upon what is
explicit in the text of 1 John1
1 The text used in this paper is that of UBS4 and NA27
2
Methodology
This essay will propose a new structure for 1 John based on features within the text The
methodology outlined below is one which seeks to allow as far as is possible the text to
speak for itself and assert its own boundaries and divisions It is recognised that no
examinations of this kind are free from an overarching theory and some presuppositions of
the analyst Therefore this methodology seeks to lay out plainly how the text of 1 John has
been handled
The first task in studying the text of 1 John is to gain a clear grasp of its syntax
Careful analysis of the syntax of a passage has a number of benefits the primary one being
that it forces the analyst to pay close attention to what the author actually wrote There is
often a tendency especially with those who are familiar with biblical texts to assume that
the content and meaning of a passage is known andor understood The ever present
danger is that we allow our existing lsquoframeworkrsquo of biblical and theological knowledge to
impose an interpretation onto a text In contrast responsible hermeneutics insists that a
text is in authority over our existing framework As Erickson notes
hellipthe text is all we have For this reason understanding language structure and semantic
structure which give texts their communicative power is an essential part of the
interpretive method2
If the author of a text intended it to be broken down into smaller units then there will be
evidence within the text itself (eg changes in topic vocabulary person number etc)
There are literary devices available to authors to mark where such breaks are made
Through care analysis of syntax such clues be uncovered Such is the aim of this essay
The primary means used for analysing the syntax of 1 John is diagrammatic
representation of the entire text A diagram of each unit of 1 John is provided alongside
discussion that unit The diagrams aim to systematically lay out the syntactic relationships
between clauses Semantic relationships such as the precise nature of adverbial clauses
are not highlighted in the diagrams but important semantic relationships will be
mentioned in the body of the essay Once the entire text of 1 John has been diagrammed
and syntactic relationships examined other cohesive and discourse features can be
analysed Analysis of the text has been groups into four categories
2 Richard J Erickson A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical Method
(Downers Grove IVP 2005) 57 Emphasis original
3
Firstly grammatical cohesion There are two specific types of grammatical cohesion
which will be examined Firstly analysis of tense-form person number of words especially
verbs Such analysis often yields results in spotting parallelisms (see below) A second sub-
group of grammatical cohesion is lexical cohesion When the same words or words of the
same root3 are used repeatedly over a concentrated span of verses this is an indication of
some level of cohesion between these verses (see for example πνεῦμα in 41-6) This is not
an absolute rule For example the words καί and ὅσι are so common that it is difficult to
find a verse where it does not appear Nevertheless when verbs nouns and adjectives
occur repeatedly note should be taken Similarly so with words within similar ranges of
meaning or from the same semantic domain4 The study of lexical cohesion is helped by
the use of morphologically tagged electronic texts A combination of searches based on
lexical root frequency voice aspect etc can provide comprehensive data which makes
analysis quick and reliable5
Secondly participant tracking can demonstrate breaks in a text When for example
one participant fades from view and another comes into focus it is possible to suggest some
kind of break Participant tracking involves not only noting direct references to characters
but also pronouns and verb endings (see for example notes on 321-24 below) It must be
recognised however that such a discourse feature is a relatively new field of study and
most of the research done has been carried out in the Gospels and narrative texts6
Thirdly various types of parallelism are significant The repetition of a single word or
phrase at the beginning or end of a unit (inclusio) the parallel use of specific grammatical
features simple chiastic structures extended chiastic structures or traditional parallelism
between two linesclauses all serve to join some cola together and separate them from
others Each of these features demonstrates some level of cohesion between their
constituent parts and a certain degree of disjunction7 with what comes before or after8
3 Lexical roots are designated by an asterisk eg δικ 4 Johannes P Louw and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic
Domains (2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989) 5 Morphological searches have been carried out with Bibleworks 7 6 Stephen H Levinsohn Discourse Features of New Testament Greek (2d ed Dallas SIL International 2000)
Grace E Sherman and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine Epistles (Dallas SIL
International 1994) 7 For lack of an exact opposite the words ldquodisunityrdquo and ldquodisjunctionrdquo are used throughout this essay
to mean the opposite of ldquocohesionrdquo 8 ldquoExtended chiasmrdquo is also know as ldquoinverted parallelismrdquo or ldquoconcentric symmetryrdquo For explanation
of this and other features such as simple chiasm and inclusio see John D Harvey Listening to the Text Oral
4
Finally there are a number of boundary features which are useful to observe While
these features on their own rarely provide enough evidence to decide on a textrsquos structure
when one or more are found in unison with other discourse features they add considerable
weight to the conclusion about cohesion For example coordinating conjunctions
asyndeton () vocatives imperatives all fall into this category Once again it must be kept
in mind that such analysis of boundary features and conjunctions is a relatively new
discipline
Nomenclature
Certain words phrases and symbols are used throughout this essay with specific meanings
It will be useful to give brief explanations of some such words at the outset
A lsquo(Word) Clusterrsquo refers to the repeated use of the same word or words of the same
root within close proximity Malcolm Coombes has identified that this feature is very
significant in determining the structure of 1 John9 The repetition of words close to each
other is a deliberate feature of Johnrsquos writing A number of passages could be cited in
support of this observation however three clear examples will suffice Firstly the verb
ἀπνέομαι occurs only three times in 1 John 2222 23 The significance of this cluster is
further emphasised when 43b is taken into consideration Here the author could have
added a further use of ἀπνέομαι instead μὴ ὁμολογεῖ is used Similarly the noun μαπστπία
occurs a total of 6 times and all of these occurrences are in 59-11 (accompanied by two
occurrences of the cognate verb μαπστπέψ in 56-7)10 Not all word clusters are exclusive or
unique as a third example will demonstrate The noun κόςμορ occurs 23 times throughout
the letter yet there are three notable clusters 215-16 43-5 and 54-5 The implications of
such clusters will be investigated and explained further as we examine the text of 1 John
and attempt to determine whether or not section or unit breaks occur at certain points
A further detail of vocabulary distribution which needs a brief introduction is that of
tail-head linkage This occurs when an author intends to forge some kind of connection
between two units It is best defined as a word cluster which spans a unit or section break Patterning in Pauls Letters (ETS Studies Leicester IVP 1998) 97-118 Craig Blomberg ldquoThe Structure of 2
Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1 (1998) 4-8 9 Malcolm Coombes ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo np Cited 19 March 2010
Online httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1Johnpdf 10 Other words occurring on only one cluster are ἀνθπψποκσόνορ (3152) ἀνομία (342) διάβολορ (383
10) διδάςκψ (2273) ἐπιθτμία (2162 17) ἔςφασορ (2182) καθαπίζψ (17 9) καινόρ (27 8) καπδία (319 202
21) κασαγινώςκψ (320 21) παλαιόρ (272) ςυάζψ (3122) σίθημι (3162) σπεῖρ (57 8) ὕδψπ (563 8) υόβορ
(4183) χτφή (3162) ὥπα (2182)
5
In other words a tail-head linkage in 1 John usually consists of a cluster of three or four
occurrences of the same word or words of the same root words occurring at the end of a
section or unit There will be at least one occurrence of the word in the first unit and at
least one further in the second See 324e and 41bc for an example using πνεῦμα where the
word occurs once at the end of a unit and twice more at the beginning of the next11
A lsquocolonrsquo is a term used to refer to ldquoa sentence unit consisting of a nominal and
verbal element together with all their syntactically dependent expansionsrdquo12 A colon can
be identified on purely syntactical grounds The cola of 1 John are clear from the diagram
The purpose of this essay is to examine how such cola relate to one another
A lsquounitrsquo () is a fairly small yet distinct portion of text (usually 2-5 verses) which is
held together by any number of cohesive factors (eg clusters inclusio chiasm) Each
individual unit will be examined explained and defined in the body of this essay
Finally a lsquosectionrsquo (sect) refers to a larger portion of text made up of multiple units
which tie themselves together in some manner
The term lsquopartsrsquo is used to refer to divisions made by others or to breaks without
the technical senses mentioned above This term is adopted to avoid confusion in using
terms such as lsquounitrsquo or lsquosectionrsquo in describing the work of others
Superscript Arabic numerals immediately following a verse reference signify the
number of times a given word or phrase occurs within that verse These notes should not
be confused with bibliographic footnote references (which usually occur after a comma or
period) or edition information for standard SBL abbreviations (eg USB4 NA27)13
11 George Guthrie The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis (Brill 1994) 96-97 12 Peter Cotterell and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove IVP 1998) 201 13 In order to avoid unnecessary confusion some bibliographic footnote references have been placed
immediately after the relevant word or phrase rather than being shifted to the end of the clause or sentence
as recommended by SBLHS
6
Existing Structural Proposals
It is far beyond the scope of this essay to cite exhaustively all writers and all structural
proposals for 1 John However over time three main groups have emerged into which one
can divide most writings on the subject One significant proponent of each group will be
presented and evaluated Firstly a lsquocyclical viewrsquo like that of Robert Law secondly a two-
part structure pioneered by Raymond Brown (lsquoa bipartite viewrsquo) and finally a less
conclusive proposal like that of I Howard Marshall (lsquoa linear viewrsquo)
Views Presented in Major Commentaries
Robert Law ndash A Cyclical View
Lawrsquos work although first published in 1909 has found considerable support amongst
scholars His proposal is characteristic of those which seek to divide and arrange the
material of 1 John according to themes or theological content Although quite dated his
proposal is considered worthy of attention due to the following it has received Brown calls
it ldquoone of the most famous and influential divisionsrdquo14 One or another form of cyclical
structure is proposed by Bruce Burdick and Stott15 Lawrsquos structure is also remarkably
14 Raymond E Brown The Epistles of John (vol 30 AB London Doubleday 1982) 121 15 F F Bruce The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992) 29 Donald W Burdick The Epistles of John
(Chicago Moody Press 1970) 14-17 John Stott The Letters of John (2d ed TNTC Leicester IVP 1990) 61
7
similar to the work of Theodor Haumlring although they worked and published
independently16
Law uses two words to summarise his view of the structure of 1 John ldquospiralrdquo and
ldquotestsrdquo It is ldquospiralrdquo because the progression of thought is not simply linear one idea after
the next in a straight line as is usually the case in Western literature Rather the work is
arranged around a centre ldquoalways recurring to the same topics but at a higher levelrdquo He
goes on to illustrate ldquo[the author takes] two or three melodieshellip[and by]introducing
themhelliprepeating them inverting them skilfully interlacing themhelliprears up from them an
edifice of stately harmoniesrdquo Secondly Law summarises 1 John as a series of ldquotestsrdquo The
book is comprised of numerous sets of criteria by which believers may ldquosatisfy themselves
of their being ldquobegotten of Godrdquordquo17
The combination of these two ideas leads to Lawrsquos overall structure of the book
there are three cyclesspirals each of which consists of three tests ldquodoing righteousness
loving one another and believing that Jesus is the Christrdquo18
While it is true that Law (and those who follow variations of his structure) has provided a
useful summary of the content of the book and has no doubt made 1 John meaningful and
accessible to many readers since publication there are a number of problems with his
proposal
Firstly a number of section breaks occur at seemingly inappropriate points The
divisions between the major sections are not problematic and occur at logical places within
the book (eg 22829 and 467) However a number of Lawrsquos subdivisions are less
straightforward The start of Paragraph A (18) in the First Cycle is problematic ndash even Law
himself seems somewhat confused on the matter He recognises that there are ldquothree
parallel pairs of antithesisrdquo within 16-2219 yet suggests that 18 marks the start of
16 Theodor Haring ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo in Theologische
Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet (ed Adolf von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892) 171-200 For further
comment and comparison see A E Brooke The Johannine Epistles (ICC Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1912) xxxiv-
xxxvii Robert Law The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John (2d ed Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1909) 24 17 Law Tests 6 18 Law Tests 5-6 19 Law Tests 65
8
Paragraph A20 To suggest that a new paragraph or section starts between the first and
second of three parallel antithesis is awkward
Secondly Lawrsquos structure falls down towards the end of 1 John where the three tests
are reduced in number to only two and their order is reversed Law admits regarding the
closing section that ldquothe logical analysis of it is the hardest part of our taskrdquo21 If a cyclical
structure was in Johnrsquos mind as he wrote one might expect him to have maintained some
consistency in his presentation of the tests But according to Law this is not the case
Rather in the Third Cycle the number of main themes is reduced to two Law states that
ldquorighteousness takes a subordinate placerdquo22 The previously primary theme of
righteousness drops out completely as it is absent from both the section headings and the
synopsis of the third major division spanning from 47 to 521
Thirdly Lawrsquos structure fails to take account of or adequately deal with difficult
passages within 1 John the most notable of these being 212-14 According to Law these
verses are a mere parenthesis and his structure requires that they are ldquoomittedrdquo in order to
maintain ldquothe unity of the paragraphrdquo23 While there are parentheses in 1 John verses
should not be categorised as such without considerable support There is strong evidence
that 212-14 mark the start of a major new section on 1 John (see on page 25) Lawrsquos
degradation of these verses is unnecessary
20 Law Tests 8 It is clear from the context that by ldquoparagraphrdquo Law means something similar to the
concept of ldquounitrdquo as defined above 21 Law Tests 15 22 Law Tests 15 23 Law Tests 10
9
Raymond Brown ndash A Binary View
A second major group of proposals are those that divide the body (15-512) of 1 John into
two parts (usually with an introduction (11-4) and conclusion (513-21))24 Of those who see
two halves in the body of 1 John many propose that the division is based on a certain
connection with the Gospel of John Of such authors Brown is the most prominent25
Brownrsquos division of 1 John is tied closely to his understanding of the authorship and
historical context of the letter In Brownrsquos view 1 John has been written by an author who
is part of the Johannine community which due to differing interpretations of the Gospel of
John had divided The author of 1 John regards the secessionists as heterodox and is
writing to his own community26 Regarding structure specifically Brown writes
If the epistolary author is drawing upon the theology and wording of the Johannine
tradition embodied in GJohn and assumes the mantle of evangelist as an interpreter of
that traditionhellip a priori it is not inconceivable that he used GJohn as a model in
structuring his comments in 1 John27
Brown then goes on to elaborate this theory into true structure show above
There are a number of problems with Brownrsquos theory The first is that his structure is so
tightly linked to his view of authorship The structure and authorship of 1 John are two of
24 Brown Epistles 764 Stephen S Smalley 1 2 3 John (WBC Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984) 25 See also W Hall Harris III 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis (Dallas Biblical Studies
2003) 26 Brown Epistles 69-70 27 Brown Epistles 124
10
the most uncertain and debated aspects of Johannine scholarship Given the difficult
textual grammatical and linguistic issues related to such a structure it seems that Brownrsquos
proposal based on little more than a presupposition that 1 John is intended to imitate the
Gospel of John
A second issue with Brownrsquos proposal is his own seeming uncertainty about it When
stating his view he only does so negatively ldquoa priori it is not inconceivable that he used
GJohn as a modelhelliprdquo28 That a proposal is ldquonot inconceivablerdquo does not make it necessarily
true It may well be the case that the author used the style and vocabulary of the Gospel of
John as his starting point but this does not necessitate that he also borrowed the structure
And without strong evidence within the text to support it the theory is not adequate In
this same connection when Brown explains his divisions his own confession is that
determining the point of division of the body of 1 John into two parts is much more
difficult than identifying an introduction and conclusion29
In addition to these general objections given above there are both syntactical and
lexical problems with Brownrsquos divisions
The syntactical issue with Brownrsquos proposal is that he makes the second major
section of the book begin with an ὅσι clause He argues that 311 and 15 are grammatically
parallel phrases and should therefore each be understood as introducing the themes of part
one and part two of the book The primary problem here is that ὅσι is a subordinating
conjunction and therefore necessitates that it is connected with a superordinate clause (ie
310)30 As Culy comments ldquoAlthough such an analysis may make good sense of the themes
of the letter it ignores the surface structure The ὅσι makes it clear that syntactically 311 is
subordinate to 310rdquo31 A secondary problem with this assertion is that although there are
many grammatical and lexical links between 15 and 311 the claim that these two verses
alone are parallel does not take account of all the data and similar occurrences in 1 John32
A lexical issue with Brownrsquos division is his correlation of 1 John 513 and John 2031
It is claimed that these two verses parallel one another Although there are a number of
lexical links between the two verses there are three issue to consider Firstly it is widely
recognised that 1 John has similar vocabulary to the Gospel of John and so some too much
28 Brown Epistles 124 29 Brown Epistles 125 30 BDF lists ὅσι in ch11 part 3c ldquoSubordinating (Hypotactic) Conjunctionsrdquo 31 Martin M Culy I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco Baylor 2004) 80 32 See comments below on 225 and the occurrences of αὕση
11
should not be read into lexical links between John 2031 and 1 John 513 Secondly given
the frequency and variety of use of the verb γπάυψ in 1 John it is dangerous to read too
much into this one occurrence Finally there is a considerable number of differences
between these two verses which one would not expect to find if the epistolary author was
intending to use John 2031 as the model for 513 For example the verb tense-form in John
is perfect while in 1 John it is aorist Also the clause structure in 1 John is unusual (see
diagram) with the verb γπάυψ having two parallel direct objects one at either end of the
verse John 2031 has no such complex structure
Thus it can be concluded that Brown does little to convince his readers that his
theory is robust enough to allow for the difficult issues surrounding 1 John There are a
significant number of theological and grammatical issues which make his structural
proposal dubious
I H Marshall ndash A Linear View
Finally the work of more recent commentators has been content to stop short of a rigid or
hierarchical proposal Marshall surveys a number of existing proposals and concludes
12
ldquoit seems preferable to regard the Epistle as being composed of a series of connected
paragraphs whose relation to one another is governed by association of ideas rather
than by a logical plan This does not mean that John is illogical but rather that his
Epistle is not meant to be divided into large sections on a logical basisrdquo33
Such a lsquolinearrsquo structure is also adopted by Kruse Johnson and a number of others34
One the one hand Marshall is very wise to be cautious about dividing 1 John Given the
plethora of differing theories and the voluminous writing on the subject his
lsquoindecisivenessrsquo is refreshing Also Marshallrsquos recognition that some of the connections
between paragraphs may not seem ldquologicalrdquo to us (ie ldquoassociation of ideasrdquo) is insightful A
further benefit of Marshallrsquos work is his refusal to arrange paragraphs hierarchically
Marshallrsquos structure simply divides the text into units and makes little comment on their
interrelationships
On the other hand there are still a number of issues with such a proposal Whereas
other writers have made proposals in which thematic or theological considerations dictate
the divisions (eg Law) Marshallrsquos divisions seem to be determined by convenience (eg
seeking a limited number of paragraphs of similar length) in order to structure his
commentary This works out in two ways in some instances Marshall joins together verses
which do not demonstrate any connection to one another For example he connects of
212-14 and 215-17 These two units are treated together by many commentators even
though apart from their proximity to one another there are no indications that they
should be treated as such Rather each unit as its own distinct structure and vocabulary
Alternatively Marshall sometimes divides paragraphs despite strong textual evidence that
they are connected An example is the division between 412 and 1335 As will be explained
below these verses form part of one unit having a distinct structure which is within a
larger section characterised by ἀγαπ roots
View Presented in Articles
In recent years with the development of discourse analysis and text-linguistics there has
been a movement away from attempting to establish the structure of 1 John based upon
33 I Howard Marshall The Epistles of John (NICNT Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978) 26 34 Colin G Kruse The Letters of John (The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester Apollos 2000)
21 Thomas F Johnson 1 2 and 3 John (New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle Paternoster 1995) 15-
16 35 Marshall Epistles 26 See below for a fuller treatment of these units
13
thematic andor theological considerations Instead various writers have attempted to
determine the structure based upon linguistic theory and discourse features We shall
briefly review and critique three such attempts
Robert E Longacre
Longacre claims that ldquodiscourse analysis can suggest a natural outline of the bookrdquo36 He
goes on to outline a number of discourse features which he will analyse to elucidate such a
structure 1 John he claims is divided into sixteen paragraphs based on the position of
vocatives These sixteen paragraphs are subsequently grouped further into three sections
based on the distribution of γπάυψ an introduction (11-229) a body (31-512) and a
conclusion (513-21) Other features such as the genre of 1 John which Longacre takes to be
hortatory discourse the concept of peaks (ie ldquopoints of cumulative developmentrdquo)37 and
the macrostructure of the book (ldquoa summaryhellipof a text which is stated so that it gives the
central thrust of the whole workrdquo)38 are also brought to bear on the structure of the text
Longacre argues for a doctrinal and an ethical peak in both the introduction and the
body of the book Thus 212-17 and 41-6 form the ethical peaks and 218-27 and 47-21 the
doctrinal peaks The macrostructure of 1 John is seen to be 319-24 which immediately
precedes the dual peaks of the body
Longacrersquos commitment to deriving a structure of 1 John from discourse features of the
text itself is admirable and his work highlights a number of significant characteristics of 1
John Nevertheless there are some weaknesses with his approach The primary issue with
is Longacrersquos over-emphasis on a limited number of discourse features Although five
discourse features are outlined at the beginning of his paper the derivation of a structure
for 1 John is based upon only two of these features the use of vocatives and the distribution
of γπάυψ The other three discourse features are merely analysed to clarify the structure
In this regard Culy helpfully points out
36 Robert Longacre ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Textrdquo
in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed David Alan Black Katherine
Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 271 37 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 279 38 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 280
14
ldquoGiven this distribution of vocatives it is not inappropriate to recognize that this
particular writer frequently uses vocatives to help mark boundaries Such an observation
does not require that vocatives were always used in this wayrdquo39
Not only are vocatives not an absolute marker of boundaries but there are numerous other
features which Longacre largely ignores (eg lexical cohesion and participant reference)
A second major weakness in Longacrersquos proposal is his treatment of 212-14 Given
his focus on vocatives and γπάυψ it is significant that these three verses contain six
occurrences of each Longacre does claim that 212-17 is ldquoan ethical peakrdquo but this
conclusion is based on ldquoa strong exhortation not to love the worldrdquo (ie vv15-17) and not
on the vocatives or repetition of γπάυψ Similarly Longacre notes that the verb γπάυψ
switches from present to aorist use between 213 and 14 and that it does not occur again
until 513 While such data seems important Longacre fails to deal with it adequately since
his first major division of the book does not occur until 22931 Inexplicably it seems that
two verses which contain such a high concentration of Longacrersquos primary criteria are of
no special significance to him
Keir L Hansford
Hansfordrsquos basic premise is that 1 John is poetic He believes a structure can and should be
derived from treating and dividing 1 John in such a way His work is unusual in that he does
not provide an overall outline of the book but rather presents the entire text of the book
laid out in lines columns and strophes ldquoLinesrdquo are clauses or phrases in parallelism ldquoI
arguethe whole of the epistle was constructed out of parallelismsrdquo40 Hansford then
groups and divides lines in two ways horizontally and vertically Horizontally lines are
grouped into eighteen ldquostrophesrdquo which share certain key words At the same time lines
are divided into one of three vertical columns ldquothe authority of the apostlerdquo ldquohuman
actionsJesusrsquo ministryrdquo and ldquoGodrsquos creation and judgementrdquo Hansford also seeks to mark
all chiasms
As with many structural proposals for 1 John Hansfordrsquos has some beneficial
insights In attempting to structure the whole of 1 John he has paid acute attention to
details within the text This has proved to be a fruitful exercise especially in his
39 Culy A Handbook xvi 40 Keir L Hansford ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo JOTT 5 no 2 (1992) 128
15
identification of number of lsquomicro-parallelismrsquo and chiasms which have often been
overlooked
Despite these insights Hansfordrsquos overall structure and broad divisions are
problematic The first criticism is that under close inspection it becomes noticeable that a
number of Hansfordrsquos decisions are forced An example of a forced chiasm can be seen in
410-12 where ἠγαπήκαμεν in 410 is linked with σεθέασαι in 412 The two words have no
semantic overlap and it is difficult to see how they can be related other than they both
have θεὸν as their object Similarly issues regarding the column divisions can be seen at
39 The initial part of the verse πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ (the subject of the clause)
is placed in the second column (ldquohuman actionJesusrsquo ministryrdquo) while the second part
ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιει (the predicate and object) is placed in the third column (ldquoGodrsquos reaction
and judgementrdquo) These phrases do not naturally fit with the thematic topics of the
columns into which they are placed
Secondly the ldquokeywordsrdquo that are listed for each strophe seem arbitrary Each of the
eighteen strophes has on average between 15-20 keywords While some of these keywords
are unique to that portion of text other words such as ldquotruthrdquo ldquoJesusrdquo ldquoChristrdquo ldquoFatherrdquo
ldquoknowrdquo and ldquobelieverdquo occur in multiple strophes When the general and rather limited
vocabulary of the whole book is considered it becomes evident that some of the keywords
are not particular to any strophe but rather to the whole of 1 John
Thirdly it is possible that what Hansford considers to be poetic features of the text
could be explained in other ways For example the reversal of word order of verb and
subject is mentioned twice in his article as evidence of parallelism and chiasm41 It is
possible however that such a switch can be justified by other discourse features and issues
of information structure Hansford does not give details or references to the clauses he is
referring to and so it is difficult to decide either way However it must be kept in mind that
there may be other explanations for such features
Finally if the author intended such rigid parallelism it seems strange that not all
the parallels are as clear as those in 212-14 Hansford fails to take account of the clear
differences between portions of the text In Hansfordrsquos outline 212-14 which without
doubt demonstrate the clearest parallelisms blend in to his poetry and do not stand out at
all as they do when the text of 1 John is read as a whole
41 Hansford ldquoPoetic Structurerdquo 129 135
16
John Christopher Thomas
Thomas admirably sets out to focus ldquoattention on the structure of 1 John as revealed by
the text itself and seeks as far as possible to allow the text to reveal its shape on its own
termsrdquo42 The outcome of Thomas work is to suggest a chiastic structure to the book as a
whole Thomas makes clear that he is well aware of the dangers and criticisms that such
proposals have faced in the past Nevertheless he suggests that 1 John divides into 11
sections 10 of which are parallel one being central The overall chiastic structure is shown
above Thomas understands each parallel section to vaguely share a common theme or
topic eg making God a liar antichrists confidence with the central section being entitled
ldquoLove one anotherrdquo43
There are a number of problems with Thomasrsquo extended chiasm Firstly Thomas claims
that the central section of the book (section F 311-18) is focussed on loving one another
Not only does this begin a new unit with an ὅσι clause (see the treatment of Brownrsquos work
above and the discussion on 225 below for the syntactical problems associated with such a
division) but it also fails to take note that the ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλοτρ occurs more frequently
outside of this section than inside44 Similarly so with sections E and E` (228-310 and 319-
24) which are entitled ldquoConfidencerdquo The noun παππηςία occurs four times in 1 John but
only two occurrences are with these units45
42 John Christopher Thomas ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo NT 40 no 4 (1998) 371 43 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 373 44 This ἵνα clause occurs at 311 but also at 323 47 and 12 45 See 228 321 417 and 514
17
Secondly although Thomas seeks not to overstretch the links between the parallel
sections of his chiasm46 his claim that ldquothe use of similar catch wordsphraseswhich
parallel one anotherrdquo indicate that he expects his parallel sections to have to a greater or
lesser degree similar words and phrases If such is the case it is very strange that the
primary and central theme of 15-22 (ie light and darkness which occurs 13 times in those
verses) does not reappear in its parallel section (56-12) While it is true that Thomasrsquo
criteria allows that not every detail of every section will be parallel a parallelism where the
primary these are not paralleled is perculiar
A further problem with sections B and B` is Thomasrsquo comment ldquoA final point of
contact is that both passages begin with similar statements ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo in
15 and ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo in 56rdquo47 In both English and Greek it is difficult to
see how these two phrases can be correlated
Καὶ ἔςσιν αὕση ἡ ἀγγελία Οὗσόρ ἐςσιν ὁ ἐλθὼν
ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo
Although both have ἔςσιν and a demonstrative pronoun the similarity ends there The
word orders are different as is the gender of the pronoun One begins with a coordinating
conjunction the other with asyndeton One has as its subject a feminine abstract noun the
other an articular participle
Thus even with Thomasrsquo relatively loose criteria of what constitutes an extended
chiasm it is clear that 1 John as a whole refuses to be organised so neatly
46 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 372 47 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 379
18
An Analysis of Discourse Features in 1 John
Inherent Structure
Despite the widely varying theories for structure in 1 John most writers recognise that
structure is not absolutely alien to the author48 There are some portions of the book which
are unanimously agreed upon as distinct parts The two most obvious examples are 11-4
and 212-14 Aside from its complex grammatical and syntactical issues 11-4 is universally
recognised by writers and commentators as a single part which introduces the main
topic(s) of Johnrsquos first letter Similarly the lexical cohesion and repetition of 212-14 prove
beyond any doubt that John was able skilfully and carefully to construct literary units
We shall now proceed through the text of 1 John identifying major sections and
particular units using the methodology outlined above derived from cohesive features of
the text before drawing conclusions about an overall structure of the book
sect11-4
1 John 11-4 forms an introduction to the whole book49 The main clause (3c) is introduced
by an initial relative clause which is subsequently modified by three parallel relative
clauses (1b c d) in turn modified by a prepositional phrase (1f) and a parenthetical
48 See Brown Epistles 118 49 Smalley 1 2 3 John 4 15
19
comment (2a-f)50 3a starts with a resumptive relative clause before introducing the main
indicative verb (ἀπαγγέλλομεν)51 11a-3c form one complex colon and are therefore
syntactically cohesive
There are a number of additional cohesive features within these verses There is
inclusio of the verbs ἀκούψ and ὀπάψ in 1c3b and 1d3a respectively Similarly so the use
of υανεπόψ at the beginning and end of the parenthetic v2 (a and f) Also 1st person plural
verbs are used repeatedly throughout and are juxtaposed with 2nd person pronominal
references to the recipients This combination of 1st and 2nd person reference introduces the
two primary lsquocharactersrsquo in the letter Lastly the feminine noun ζψή is introduced
immediately prior to the parenthesis of v2 (1f) and is referred to in all four cola within the
parenthesis ndash twice by repetition of the noun (forming another inclusio) and twice by
ellipsis of the direct object of the transitive verbs ὀπάψ and μαπστπέψ
The complexities of the grammar52 and the textual issues53 make no difference to the
structure or cohesion of the passage
sect15-211
After an initial introduction 1 Johnrsquos first section starts at 15 and continues through to
211 This section is made up of three units
50 Judith M Lieu I II amp III John A Commentary (NTL Louisville Westminster John Knox 2008) 37 51 Culy A Handbook 7 52 Stott Letters 62 53 Bruce M Metzger A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed Stuttgart Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft 2002) 639
20
15-22
Unanimously agreed unit boundaries such as those of 11-4 do more than simply
demonstrate Johnrsquos literary abilities They also provide certain markers from which other
literary units can be determined If the introduction ends at 14 then 15 must begin a new
section Similarly if a new unit begins at 212 then the previous unit must end at 211 It
will be argued below that the verses in between (ie 15-211) form one large section
comprised of three units (15-22 23-7 28-11)
Callow has already done much of the work on 15-211 and it is unnecessary to repeat
all of his findings54 Rather a few complementary observations will be made
15-10 are tied together by their use of 3rd class conditional sentences 16a 7a 8a 9a
and 10a all introduce a protasis with ἐὰν55 Vv6 8 and 10 make negative assertions while
54 John Callow ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament Approaches and
Results (ed Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed JSNTSupp Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1999) esp 402-
4 55 See Culy A Handbook xvii-xx on the nature of these conditionals as mitigated exhortations
21
vv7 and 9 are positive forming an alternating pattern Repetition of words and phrases
such as κοινψνία πεπιπασέψ and ldquoκαθαπίζει ἡμᾶρ ἀπὸ πάςηρ ἁμαπσίαρrdquo also tie these verses
together
The relation of 21-2 to 15-10 is debated Some see 21 as a parenthesis and v2
returning to the preceding thought as a sixth conditional clause adding a final positive
element56 Others understand both of these verses to be a parenthesis given that the
conditional clause is of a different nature to the preceding ones57 Given the shift from 1st
person verbs in the preceding conditionals to the 3rd person σὶρ in 21d it seems that the
latter is preferable In which case 21-2 form a parenthetical comment in between 110 and
23
23-6
56 Marshall Epistles 115-16 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 396-97 57 Stott Letters 84
22
23-6 are held together by the inclusio of ἐν σούσῳ γινώςκομεν in 23a and 5c58 These two
independent clauses are both elaborated on in 23b-5b and 6a-d respectively The
introduction and repetition of the ideas of keeping (σηπέψ) commands (ἐνσολή) tie vv3-5
together
23-6 at first glance seems distinct from 15-10 However the repetition of ὁ λέγψν
followed by both a negative (v4) and a positive (v6) claim has strong links back to the
conditional clauses of 15-10 Similarly although the vocabulary has changed from
κοινψνία to γινώςκψ the concept of relationship to God is still present Further still 15
and 23 can both be understood as introducing their individual units Each verse makes a
stark claim which is then elucidated and illustrated both positively and negatively A final
cohesive feature is that if 21-2 are a parenthesis as suggested above then there is
referential cohesion between 15 through to 2659 Θεόρ is introduced in 15 and thereafter
only referred to with pronominal references60
Given the cohesive features and the links with 15-10 it is therefore legitimate to
conclude that ldquothis section is in several aspects parallel tohellipthe preceding sectionrdquo61 23-6
constitute a new unit That the unit begins with καὶ need not raise concern Although this
is somewhat unexpected at boundary features the presence of καὶ alone does not carry
enough weight to rule out a unit boundary (cf 15)62 Paragraphs initiated with καὶ seem to
be a feature of 1 John63
58 The prepositional clause ἐν σούσῳ is also repeated in 4e and 5b however these occurrences are
anaphoric with a personal antecedent in 4a and 5a respectively The phrases in 3a and 5c are cataphoric and
refer to abstract concepts rather than specific individuals See Culy A Handbook 25 59 There is also a lone pronominal reference to God in 8b 60 The sole exception being the genitive phrase of 25b ἡ ἀγάπη σοῦ θεοῦ 61 C Haas M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for
Translators London United Bible Societies 1972) 43 62 Levinsohn Discourse Features 275 Kermit Titrud ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament
and an Application to 2 Peterrdquo in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed
David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 240-70 63 See 15 220 28 33 13 19 514
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
Does 1 John Have Structure
Wales Evangelical School of Theology
B612 Independent Study
Simon Patterson
March 2010
ABSTRACT
This paper will address the subject of the structure of 1 John Analysis will be
undertaken in two parts Firstly some of the most popular existing proposals for
the structure of 1 John (Law Brown and Marshall) as well as proposals presented
in journal articles (Longacre Hansford and Thomas) will be critically assessed The
aim will be to learn from their research as well as the weaknesses in their work
Secondly a new structure will be proposed The newly proposed structure will be
based upon an analysis of various discourse features within the text of 1 John and
will divide the text into several large sections each made up of multiple units
Analysis with be present in both written and diagrammatic form and considerable
attention will be given to syntactic cola word clusters lexical cohesion
participant tracking boundary features and parallelisms Conclusions will be
drawn about the overall structure of the book
It will be argued that 1 John is made up of 7 sections and 18 units 11-4 form an
introduction and 513-21 a conclusion In between these two outer markers are a
number of sections of varying lengths (15-211 212-324 41-6 47-55 56-12) Of
the constituent units which make up these sections some are instantly
recognisable by their distinctive features (eg 212-14) while others require more
detailed inspection (eg 33-12) It is the aim of this study to elucidate the authorrsquos
intention in dividing up the text of 1 John It will finally be concluded that the
author of 1 John uses a wide variety of literary techniques to divide up his
material Of the various technique used word clusters inclusio and chiasm are the
most frequent
Contents
Introduction 1
Methodology 2 Nomenclature 4
Existing Structural Proposals 6 Views Presented in Major Commentaries 6
Robert Law ndash A Cyclical View 6 Raymond Brown ndash A Binary View 9 I H Marshall ndash A Linear View 11
View Presented in Articles 12 Robert E Longacre 13 Keir L Hansford 14 John Christopher Thomas 16
An Analysis of Discourse Features in 1 John 18 Inherent Structure 18 sect11-4 18 sect15-211 19
15-22 20 23-6 21 27-11 23 Summary of sect15-211 24
sect212-324 24 212-14 25 215-17 26 218-19 27 220-27 28 228-32 30 33-12 31 313-20 34 321-24 35 Summary of sect212-324 36
sect41-6 37 sect47-54a 38
47-11 38 412-16 39 417-54a 41 Summary of sect47-54a 42
sect54b-12 43 sect513-21 45
Conclusions 47
Bibliography 49
1
Introduction
It has long been recognised that 1 John poses a number of problems to its interpreters
There have been radically divergent views concerning authorship genre date and
historical context Similarly discussion of the structure and shape of 1 John has received
much attention yet found little common ground The challenge that now faces those who
wish to investigate the structure of 1 John is to learn from both the work of others and the
criticisms levelled at them
This essay aims to review some of the most popular proposals for structure within 1
John seeking to learn from both the positive and negative criticisms thereof Secondly this
essay seeks to propose a new structure for 1 John which is based entirely on features within
the text itself rather than those derived from outside sources
As with many subjects that have received much scholarly attention there are a
number of dangers to avoid The biggest danger is the proposal of a solution which is either
too speculative or based on too limited criteria Given the enigmatic nature of some of 1
John and its limited vocabulary there is a risk of deriving conclusions from presuppositions
rather than data This study seeks to be as rigorous as possible and whilst recognising that
all readers and writers will have some presuppositions it aims to build only upon what is
explicit in the text of 1 John1
1 The text used in this paper is that of UBS4 and NA27
2
Methodology
This essay will propose a new structure for 1 John based on features within the text The
methodology outlined below is one which seeks to allow as far as is possible the text to
speak for itself and assert its own boundaries and divisions It is recognised that no
examinations of this kind are free from an overarching theory and some presuppositions of
the analyst Therefore this methodology seeks to lay out plainly how the text of 1 John has
been handled
The first task in studying the text of 1 John is to gain a clear grasp of its syntax
Careful analysis of the syntax of a passage has a number of benefits the primary one being
that it forces the analyst to pay close attention to what the author actually wrote There is
often a tendency especially with those who are familiar with biblical texts to assume that
the content and meaning of a passage is known andor understood The ever present
danger is that we allow our existing lsquoframeworkrsquo of biblical and theological knowledge to
impose an interpretation onto a text In contrast responsible hermeneutics insists that a
text is in authority over our existing framework As Erickson notes
hellipthe text is all we have For this reason understanding language structure and semantic
structure which give texts their communicative power is an essential part of the
interpretive method2
If the author of a text intended it to be broken down into smaller units then there will be
evidence within the text itself (eg changes in topic vocabulary person number etc)
There are literary devices available to authors to mark where such breaks are made
Through care analysis of syntax such clues be uncovered Such is the aim of this essay
The primary means used for analysing the syntax of 1 John is diagrammatic
representation of the entire text A diagram of each unit of 1 John is provided alongside
discussion that unit The diagrams aim to systematically lay out the syntactic relationships
between clauses Semantic relationships such as the precise nature of adverbial clauses
are not highlighted in the diagrams but important semantic relationships will be
mentioned in the body of the essay Once the entire text of 1 John has been diagrammed
and syntactic relationships examined other cohesive and discourse features can be
analysed Analysis of the text has been groups into four categories
2 Richard J Erickson A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical Method
(Downers Grove IVP 2005) 57 Emphasis original
3
Firstly grammatical cohesion There are two specific types of grammatical cohesion
which will be examined Firstly analysis of tense-form person number of words especially
verbs Such analysis often yields results in spotting parallelisms (see below) A second sub-
group of grammatical cohesion is lexical cohesion When the same words or words of the
same root3 are used repeatedly over a concentrated span of verses this is an indication of
some level of cohesion between these verses (see for example πνεῦμα in 41-6) This is not
an absolute rule For example the words καί and ὅσι are so common that it is difficult to
find a verse where it does not appear Nevertheless when verbs nouns and adjectives
occur repeatedly note should be taken Similarly so with words within similar ranges of
meaning or from the same semantic domain4 The study of lexical cohesion is helped by
the use of morphologically tagged electronic texts A combination of searches based on
lexical root frequency voice aspect etc can provide comprehensive data which makes
analysis quick and reliable5
Secondly participant tracking can demonstrate breaks in a text When for example
one participant fades from view and another comes into focus it is possible to suggest some
kind of break Participant tracking involves not only noting direct references to characters
but also pronouns and verb endings (see for example notes on 321-24 below) It must be
recognised however that such a discourse feature is a relatively new field of study and
most of the research done has been carried out in the Gospels and narrative texts6
Thirdly various types of parallelism are significant The repetition of a single word or
phrase at the beginning or end of a unit (inclusio) the parallel use of specific grammatical
features simple chiastic structures extended chiastic structures or traditional parallelism
between two linesclauses all serve to join some cola together and separate them from
others Each of these features demonstrates some level of cohesion between their
constituent parts and a certain degree of disjunction7 with what comes before or after8
3 Lexical roots are designated by an asterisk eg δικ 4 Johannes P Louw and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic
Domains (2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989) 5 Morphological searches have been carried out with Bibleworks 7 6 Stephen H Levinsohn Discourse Features of New Testament Greek (2d ed Dallas SIL International 2000)
Grace E Sherman and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine Epistles (Dallas SIL
International 1994) 7 For lack of an exact opposite the words ldquodisunityrdquo and ldquodisjunctionrdquo are used throughout this essay
to mean the opposite of ldquocohesionrdquo 8 ldquoExtended chiasmrdquo is also know as ldquoinverted parallelismrdquo or ldquoconcentric symmetryrdquo For explanation
of this and other features such as simple chiasm and inclusio see John D Harvey Listening to the Text Oral
4
Finally there are a number of boundary features which are useful to observe While
these features on their own rarely provide enough evidence to decide on a textrsquos structure
when one or more are found in unison with other discourse features they add considerable
weight to the conclusion about cohesion For example coordinating conjunctions
asyndeton () vocatives imperatives all fall into this category Once again it must be kept
in mind that such analysis of boundary features and conjunctions is a relatively new
discipline
Nomenclature
Certain words phrases and symbols are used throughout this essay with specific meanings
It will be useful to give brief explanations of some such words at the outset
A lsquo(Word) Clusterrsquo refers to the repeated use of the same word or words of the same
root within close proximity Malcolm Coombes has identified that this feature is very
significant in determining the structure of 1 John9 The repetition of words close to each
other is a deliberate feature of Johnrsquos writing A number of passages could be cited in
support of this observation however three clear examples will suffice Firstly the verb
ἀπνέομαι occurs only three times in 1 John 2222 23 The significance of this cluster is
further emphasised when 43b is taken into consideration Here the author could have
added a further use of ἀπνέομαι instead μὴ ὁμολογεῖ is used Similarly the noun μαπστπία
occurs a total of 6 times and all of these occurrences are in 59-11 (accompanied by two
occurrences of the cognate verb μαπστπέψ in 56-7)10 Not all word clusters are exclusive or
unique as a third example will demonstrate The noun κόςμορ occurs 23 times throughout
the letter yet there are three notable clusters 215-16 43-5 and 54-5 The implications of
such clusters will be investigated and explained further as we examine the text of 1 John
and attempt to determine whether or not section or unit breaks occur at certain points
A further detail of vocabulary distribution which needs a brief introduction is that of
tail-head linkage This occurs when an author intends to forge some kind of connection
between two units It is best defined as a word cluster which spans a unit or section break Patterning in Pauls Letters (ETS Studies Leicester IVP 1998) 97-118 Craig Blomberg ldquoThe Structure of 2
Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1 (1998) 4-8 9 Malcolm Coombes ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo np Cited 19 March 2010
Online httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1Johnpdf 10 Other words occurring on only one cluster are ἀνθπψποκσόνορ (3152) ἀνομία (342) διάβολορ (383
10) διδάςκψ (2273) ἐπιθτμία (2162 17) ἔςφασορ (2182) καθαπίζψ (17 9) καινόρ (27 8) καπδία (319 202
21) κασαγινώςκψ (320 21) παλαιόρ (272) ςυάζψ (3122) σίθημι (3162) σπεῖρ (57 8) ὕδψπ (563 8) υόβορ
(4183) χτφή (3162) ὥπα (2182)
5
In other words a tail-head linkage in 1 John usually consists of a cluster of three or four
occurrences of the same word or words of the same root words occurring at the end of a
section or unit There will be at least one occurrence of the word in the first unit and at
least one further in the second See 324e and 41bc for an example using πνεῦμα where the
word occurs once at the end of a unit and twice more at the beginning of the next11
A lsquocolonrsquo is a term used to refer to ldquoa sentence unit consisting of a nominal and
verbal element together with all their syntactically dependent expansionsrdquo12 A colon can
be identified on purely syntactical grounds The cola of 1 John are clear from the diagram
The purpose of this essay is to examine how such cola relate to one another
A lsquounitrsquo () is a fairly small yet distinct portion of text (usually 2-5 verses) which is
held together by any number of cohesive factors (eg clusters inclusio chiasm) Each
individual unit will be examined explained and defined in the body of this essay
Finally a lsquosectionrsquo (sect) refers to a larger portion of text made up of multiple units
which tie themselves together in some manner
The term lsquopartsrsquo is used to refer to divisions made by others or to breaks without
the technical senses mentioned above This term is adopted to avoid confusion in using
terms such as lsquounitrsquo or lsquosectionrsquo in describing the work of others
Superscript Arabic numerals immediately following a verse reference signify the
number of times a given word or phrase occurs within that verse These notes should not
be confused with bibliographic footnote references (which usually occur after a comma or
period) or edition information for standard SBL abbreviations (eg USB4 NA27)13
11 George Guthrie The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis (Brill 1994) 96-97 12 Peter Cotterell and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove IVP 1998) 201 13 In order to avoid unnecessary confusion some bibliographic footnote references have been placed
immediately after the relevant word or phrase rather than being shifted to the end of the clause or sentence
as recommended by SBLHS
6
Existing Structural Proposals
It is far beyond the scope of this essay to cite exhaustively all writers and all structural
proposals for 1 John However over time three main groups have emerged into which one
can divide most writings on the subject One significant proponent of each group will be
presented and evaluated Firstly a lsquocyclical viewrsquo like that of Robert Law secondly a two-
part structure pioneered by Raymond Brown (lsquoa bipartite viewrsquo) and finally a less
conclusive proposal like that of I Howard Marshall (lsquoa linear viewrsquo)
Views Presented in Major Commentaries
Robert Law ndash A Cyclical View
Lawrsquos work although first published in 1909 has found considerable support amongst
scholars His proposal is characteristic of those which seek to divide and arrange the
material of 1 John according to themes or theological content Although quite dated his
proposal is considered worthy of attention due to the following it has received Brown calls
it ldquoone of the most famous and influential divisionsrdquo14 One or another form of cyclical
structure is proposed by Bruce Burdick and Stott15 Lawrsquos structure is also remarkably
14 Raymond E Brown The Epistles of John (vol 30 AB London Doubleday 1982) 121 15 F F Bruce The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992) 29 Donald W Burdick The Epistles of John
(Chicago Moody Press 1970) 14-17 John Stott The Letters of John (2d ed TNTC Leicester IVP 1990) 61
7
similar to the work of Theodor Haumlring although they worked and published
independently16
Law uses two words to summarise his view of the structure of 1 John ldquospiralrdquo and
ldquotestsrdquo It is ldquospiralrdquo because the progression of thought is not simply linear one idea after
the next in a straight line as is usually the case in Western literature Rather the work is
arranged around a centre ldquoalways recurring to the same topics but at a higher levelrdquo He
goes on to illustrate ldquo[the author takes] two or three melodieshellip[and by]introducing
themhelliprepeating them inverting them skilfully interlacing themhelliprears up from them an
edifice of stately harmoniesrdquo Secondly Law summarises 1 John as a series of ldquotestsrdquo The
book is comprised of numerous sets of criteria by which believers may ldquosatisfy themselves
of their being ldquobegotten of Godrdquordquo17
The combination of these two ideas leads to Lawrsquos overall structure of the book
there are three cyclesspirals each of which consists of three tests ldquodoing righteousness
loving one another and believing that Jesus is the Christrdquo18
While it is true that Law (and those who follow variations of his structure) has provided a
useful summary of the content of the book and has no doubt made 1 John meaningful and
accessible to many readers since publication there are a number of problems with his
proposal
Firstly a number of section breaks occur at seemingly inappropriate points The
divisions between the major sections are not problematic and occur at logical places within
the book (eg 22829 and 467) However a number of Lawrsquos subdivisions are less
straightforward The start of Paragraph A (18) in the First Cycle is problematic ndash even Law
himself seems somewhat confused on the matter He recognises that there are ldquothree
parallel pairs of antithesisrdquo within 16-2219 yet suggests that 18 marks the start of
16 Theodor Haring ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo in Theologische
Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet (ed Adolf von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892) 171-200 For further
comment and comparison see A E Brooke The Johannine Epistles (ICC Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1912) xxxiv-
xxxvii Robert Law The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John (2d ed Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1909) 24 17 Law Tests 6 18 Law Tests 5-6 19 Law Tests 65
8
Paragraph A20 To suggest that a new paragraph or section starts between the first and
second of three parallel antithesis is awkward
Secondly Lawrsquos structure falls down towards the end of 1 John where the three tests
are reduced in number to only two and their order is reversed Law admits regarding the
closing section that ldquothe logical analysis of it is the hardest part of our taskrdquo21 If a cyclical
structure was in Johnrsquos mind as he wrote one might expect him to have maintained some
consistency in his presentation of the tests But according to Law this is not the case
Rather in the Third Cycle the number of main themes is reduced to two Law states that
ldquorighteousness takes a subordinate placerdquo22 The previously primary theme of
righteousness drops out completely as it is absent from both the section headings and the
synopsis of the third major division spanning from 47 to 521
Thirdly Lawrsquos structure fails to take account of or adequately deal with difficult
passages within 1 John the most notable of these being 212-14 According to Law these
verses are a mere parenthesis and his structure requires that they are ldquoomittedrdquo in order to
maintain ldquothe unity of the paragraphrdquo23 While there are parentheses in 1 John verses
should not be categorised as such without considerable support There is strong evidence
that 212-14 mark the start of a major new section on 1 John (see on page 25) Lawrsquos
degradation of these verses is unnecessary
20 Law Tests 8 It is clear from the context that by ldquoparagraphrdquo Law means something similar to the
concept of ldquounitrdquo as defined above 21 Law Tests 15 22 Law Tests 15 23 Law Tests 10
9
Raymond Brown ndash A Binary View
A second major group of proposals are those that divide the body (15-512) of 1 John into
two parts (usually with an introduction (11-4) and conclusion (513-21))24 Of those who see
two halves in the body of 1 John many propose that the division is based on a certain
connection with the Gospel of John Of such authors Brown is the most prominent25
Brownrsquos division of 1 John is tied closely to his understanding of the authorship and
historical context of the letter In Brownrsquos view 1 John has been written by an author who
is part of the Johannine community which due to differing interpretations of the Gospel of
John had divided The author of 1 John regards the secessionists as heterodox and is
writing to his own community26 Regarding structure specifically Brown writes
If the epistolary author is drawing upon the theology and wording of the Johannine
tradition embodied in GJohn and assumes the mantle of evangelist as an interpreter of
that traditionhellip a priori it is not inconceivable that he used GJohn as a model in
structuring his comments in 1 John27
Brown then goes on to elaborate this theory into true structure show above
There are a number of problems with Brownrsquos theory The first is that his structure is so
tightly linked to his view of authorship The structure and authorship of 1 John are two of
24 Brown Epistles 764 Stephen S Smalley 1 2 3 John (WBC Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984) 25 See also W Hall Harris III 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis (Dallas Biblical Studies
2003) 26 Brown Epistles 69-70 27 Brown Epistles 124
10
the most uncertain and debated aspects of Johannine scholarship Given the difficult
textual grammatical and linguistic issues related to such a structure it seems that Brownrsquos
proposal based on little more than a presupposition that 1 John is intended to imitate the
Gospel of John
A second issue with Brownrsquos proposal is his own seeming uncertainty about it When
stating his view he only does so negatively ldquoa priori it is not inconceivable that he used
GJohn as a modelhelliprdquo28 That a proposal is ldquonot inconceivablerdquo does not make it necessarily
true It may well be the case that the author used the style and vocabulary of the Gospel of
John as his starting point but this does not necessitate that he also borrowed the structure
And without strong evidence within the text to support it the theory is not adequate In
this same connection when Brown explains his divisions his own confession is that
determining the point of division of the body of 1 John into two parts is much more
difficult than identifying an introduction and conclusion29
In addition to these general objections given above there are both syntactical and
lexical problems with Brownrsquos divisions
The syntactical issue with Brownrsquos proposal is that he makes the second major
section of the book begin with an ὅσι clause He argues that 311 and 15 are grammatically
parallel phrases and should therefore each be understood as introducing the themes of part
one and part two of the book The primary problem here is that ὅσι is a subordinating
conjunction and therefore necessitates that it is connected with a superordinate clause (ie
310)30 As Culy comments ldquoAlthough such an analysis may make good sense of the themes
of the letter it ignores the surface structure The ὅσι makes it clear that syntactically 311 is
subordinate to 310rdquo31 A secondary problem with this assertion is that although there are
many grammatical and lexical links between 15 and 311 the claim that these two verses
alone are parallel does not take account of all the data and similar occurrences in 1 John32
A lexical issue with Brownrsquos division is his correlation of 1 John 513 and John 2031
It is claimed that these two verses parallel one another Although there are a number of
lexical links between the two verses there are three issue to consider Firstly it is widely
recognised that 1 John has similar vocabulary to the Gospel of John and so some too much
28 Brown Epistles 124 29 Brown Epistles 125 30 BDF lists ὅσι in ch11 part 3c ldquoSubordinating (Hypotactic) Conjunctionsrdquo 31 Martin M Culy I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco Baylor 2004) 80 32 See comments below on 225 and the occurrences of αὕση
11
should not be read into lexical links between John 2031 and 1 John 513 Secondly given
the frequency and variety of use of the verb γπάυψ in 1 John it is dangerous to read too
much into this one occurrence Finally there is a considerable number of differences
between these two verses which one would not expect to find if the epistolary author was
intending to use John 2031 as the model for 513 For example the verb tense-form in John
is perfect while in 1 John it is aorist Also the clause structure in 1 John is unusual (see
diagram) with the verb γπάυψ having two parallel direct objects one at either end of the
verse John 2031 has no such complex structure
Thus it can be concluded that Brown does little to convince his readers that his
theory is robust enough to allow for the difficult issues surrounding 1 John There are a
significant number of theological and grammatical issues which make his structural
proposal dubious
I H Marshall ndash A Linear View
Finally the work of more recent commentators has been content to stop short of a rigid or
hierarchical proposal Marshall surveys a number of existing proposals and concludes
12
ldquoit seems preferable to regard the Epistle as being composed of a series of connected
paragraphs whose relation to one another is governed by association of ideas rather
than by a logical plan This does not mean that John is illogical but rather that his
Epistle is not meant to be divided into large sections on a logical basisrdquo33
Such a lsquolinearrsquo structure is also adopted by Kruse Johnson and a number of others34
One the one hand Marshall is very wise to be cautious about dividing 1 John Given the
plethora of differing theories and the voluminous writing on the subject his
lsquoindecisivenessrsquo is refreshing Also Marshallrsquos recognition that some of the connections
between paragraphs may not seem ldquologicalrdquo to us (ie ldquoassociation of ideasrdquo) is insightful A
further benefit of Marshallrsquos work is his refusal to arrange paragraphs hierarchically
Marshallrsquos structure simply divides the text into units and makes little comment on their
interrelationships
On the other hand there are still a number of issues with such a proposal Whereas
other writers have made proposals in which thematic or theological considerations dictate
the divisions (eg Law) Marshallrsquos divisions seem to be determined by convenience (eg
seeking a limited number of paragraphs of similar length) in order to structure his
commentary This works out in two ways in some instances Marshall joins together verses
which do not demonstrate any connection to one another For example he connects of
212-14 and 215-17 These two units are treated together by many commentators even
though apart from their proximity to one another there are no indications that they
should be treated as such Rather each unit as its own distinct structure and vocabulary
Alternatively Marshall sometimes divides paragraphs despite strong textual evidence that
they are connected An example is the division between 412 and 1335 As will be explained
below these verses form part of one unit having a distinct structure which is within a
larger section characterised by ἀγαπ roots
View Presented in Articles
In recent years with the development of discourse analysis and text-linguistics there has
been a movement away from attempting to establish the structure of 1 John based upon
33 I Howard Marshall The Epistles of John (NICNT Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978) 26 34 Colin G Kruse The Letters of John (The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester Apollos 2000)
21 Thomas F Johnson 1 2 and 3 John (New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle Paternoster 1995) 15-
16 35 Marshall Epistles 26 See below for a fuller treatment of these units
13
thematic andor theological considerations Instead various writers have attempted to
determine the structure based upon linguistic theory and discourse features We shall
briefly review and critique three such attempts
Robert E Longacre
Longacre claims that ldquodiscourse analysis can suggest a natural outline of the bookrdquo36 He
goes on to outline a number of discourse features which he will analyse to elucidate such a
structure 1 John he claims is divided into sixteen paragraphs based on the position of
vocatives These sixteen paragraphs are subsequently grouped further into three sections
based on the distribution of γπάυψ an introduction (11-229) a body (31-512) and a
conclusion (513-21) Other features such as the genre of 1 John which Longacre takes to be
hortatory discourse the concept of peaks (ie ldquopoints of cumulative developmentrdquo)37 and
the macrostructure of the book (ldquoa summaryhellipof a text which is stated so that it gives the
central thrust of the whole workrdquo)38 are also brought to bear on the structure of the text
Longacre argues for a doctrinal and an ethical peak in both the introduction and the
body of the book Thus 212-17 and 41-6 form the ethical peaks and 218-27 and 47-21 the
doctrinal peaks The macrostructure of 1 John is seen to be 319-24 which immediately
precedes the dual peaks of the body
Longacrersquos commitment to deriving a structure of 1 John from discourse features of the
text itself is admirable and his work highlights a number of significant characteristics of 1
John Nevertheless there are some weaknesses with his approach The primary issue with
is Longacrersquos over-emphasis on a limited number of discourse features Although five
discourse features are outlined at the beginning of his paper the derivation of a structure
for 1 John is based upon only two of these features the use of vocatives and the distribution
of γπάυψ The other three discourse features are merely analysed to clarify the structure
In this regard Culy helpfully points out
36 Robert Longacre ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Textrdquo
in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed David Alan Black Katherine
Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 271 37 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 279 38 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 280
14
ldquoGiven this distribution of vocatives it is not inappropriate to recognize that this
particular writer frequently uses vocatives to help mark boundaries Such an observation
does not require that vocatives were always used in this wayrdquo39
Not only are vocatives not an absolute marker of boundaries but there are numerous other
features which Longacre largely ignores (eg lexical cohesion and participant reference)
A second major weakness in Longacrersquos proposal is his treatment of 212-14 Given
his focus on vocatives and γπάυψ it is significant that these three verses contain six
occurrences of each Longacre does claim that 212-17 is ldquoan ethical peakrdquo but this
conclusion is based on ldquoa strong exhortation not to love the worldrdquo (ie vv15-17) and not
on the vocatives or repetition of γπάυψ Similarly Longacre notes that the verb γπάυψ
switches from present to aorist use between 213 and 14 and that it does not occur again
until 513 While such data seems important Longacre fails to deal with it adequately since
his first major division of the book does not occur until 22931 Inexplicably it seems that
two verses which contain such a high concentration of Longacrersquos primary criteria are of
no special significance to him
Keir L Hansford
Hansfordrsquos basic premise is that 1 John is poetic He believes a structure can and should be
derived from treating and dividing 1 John in such a way His work is unusual in that he does
not provide an overall outline of the book but rather presents the entire text of the book
laid out in lines columns and strophes ldquoLinesrdquo are clauses or phrases in parallelism ldquoI
arguethe whole of the epistle was constructed out of parallelismsrdquo40 Hansford then
groups and divides lines in two ways horizontally and vertically Horizontally lines are
grouped into eighteen ldquostrophesrdquo which share certain key words At the same time lines
are divided into one of three vertical columns ldquothe authority of the apostlerdquo ldquohuman
actionsJesusrsquo ministryrdquo and ldquoGodrsquos creation and judgementrdquo Hansford also seeks to mark
all chiasms
As with many structural proposals for 1 John Hansfordrsquos has some beneficial
insights In attempting to structure the whole of 1 John he has paid acute attention to
details within the text This has proved to be a fruitful exercise especially in his
39 Culy A Handbook xvi 40 Keir L Hansford ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo JOTT 5 no 2 (1992) 128
15
identification of number of lsquomicro-parallelismrsquo and chiasms which have often been
overlooked
Despite these insights Hansfordrsquos overall structure and broad divisions are
problematic The first criticism is that under close inspection it becomes noticeable that a
number of Hansfordrsquos decisions are forced An example of a forced chiasm can be seen in
410-12 where ἠγαπήκαμεν in 410 is linked with σεθέασαι in 412 The two words have no
semantic overlap and it is difficult to see how they can be related other than they both
have θεὸν as their object Similarly issues regarding the column divisions can be seen at
39 The initial part of the verse πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ (the subject of the clause)
is placed in the second column (ldquohuman actionJesusrsquo ministryrdquo) while the second part
ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιει (the predicate and object) is placed in the third column (ldquoGodrsquos reaction
and judgementrdquo) These phrases do not naturally fit with the thematic topics of the
columns into which they are placed
Secondly the ldquokeywordsrdquo that are listed for each strophe seem arbitrary Each of the
eighteen strophes has on average between 15-20 keywords While some of these keywords
are unique to that portion of text other words such as ldquotruthrdquo ldquoJesusrdquo ldquoChristrdquo ldquoFatherrdquo
ldquoknowrdquo and ldquobelieverdquo occur in multiple strophes When the general and rather limited
vocabulary of the whole book is considered it becomes evident that some of the keywords
are not particular to any strophe but rather to the whole of 1 John
Thirdly it is possible that what Hansford considers to be poetic features of the text
could be explained in other ways For example the reversal of word order of verb and
subject is mentioned twice in his article as evidence of parallelism and chiasm41 It is
possible however that such a switch can be justified by other discourse features and issues
of information structure Hansford does not give details or references to the clauses he is
referring to and so it is difficult to decide either way However it must be kept in mind that
there may be other explanations for such features
Finally if the author intended such rigid parallelism it seems strange that not all
the parallels are as clear as those in 212-14 Hansford fails to take account of the clear
differences between portions of the text In Hansfordrsquos outline 212-14 which without
doubt demonstrate the clearest parallelisms blend in to his poetry and do not stand out at
all as they do when the text of 1 John is read as a whole
41 Hansford ldquoPoetic Structurerdquo 129 135
16
John Christopher Thomas
Thomas admirably sets out to focus ldquoattention on the structure of 1 John as revealed by
the text itself and seeks as far as possible to allow the text to reveal its shape on its own
termsrdquo42 The outcome of Thomas work is to suggest a chiastic structure to the book as a
whole Thomas makes clear that he is well aware of the dangers and criticisms that such
proposals have faced in the past Nevertheless he suggests that 1 John divides into 11
sections 10 of which are parallel one being central The overall chiastic structure is shown
above Thomas understands each parallel section to vaguely share a common theme or
topic eg making God a liar antichrists confidence with the central section being entitled
ldquoLove one anotherrdquo43
There are a number of problems with Thomasrsquo extended chiasm Firstly Thomas claims
that the central section of the book (section F 311-18) is focussed on loving one another
Not only does this begin a new unit with an ὅσι clause (see the treatment of Brownrsquos work
above and the discussion on 225 below for the syntactical problems associated with such a
division) but it also fails to take note that the ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλοτρ occurs more frequently
outside of this section than inside44 Similarly so with sections E and E` (228-310 and 319-
24) which are entitled ldquoConfidencerdquo The noun παππηςία occurs four times in 1 John but
only two occurrences are with these units45
42 John Christopher Thomas ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo NT 40 no 4 (1998) 371 43 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 373 44 This ἵνα clause occurs at 311 but also at 323 47 and 12 45 See 228 321 417 and 514
17
Secondly although Thomas seeks not to overstretch the links between the parallel
sections of his chiasm46 his claim that ldquothe use of similar catch wordsphraseswhich
parallel one anotherrdquo indicate that he expects his parallel sections to have to a greater or
lesser degree similar words and phrases If such is the case it is very strange that the
primary and central theme of 15-22 (ie light and darkness which occurs 13 times in those
verses) does not reappear in its parallel section (56-12) While it is true that Thomasrsquo
criteria allows that not every detail of every section will be parallel a parallelism where the
primary these are not paralleled is perculiar
A further problem with sections B and B` is Thomasrsquo comment ldquoA final point of
contact is that both passages begin with similar statements ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo in
15 and ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo in 56rdquo47 In both English and Greek it is difficult to
see how these two phrases can be correlated
Καὶ ἔςσιν αὕση ἡ ἀγγελία Οὗσόρ ἐςσιν ὁ ἐλθὼν
ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo
Although both have ἔςσιν and a demonstrative pronoun the similarity ends there The
word orders are different as is the gender of the pronoun One begins with a coordinating
conjunction the other with asyndeton One has as its subject a feminine abstract noun the
other an articular participle
Thus even with Thomasrsquo relatively loose criteria of what constitutes an extended
chiasm it is clear that 1 John as a whole refuses to be organised so neatly
46 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 372 47 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 379
18
An Analysis of Discourse Features in 1 John
Inherent Structure
Despite the widely varying theories for structure in 1 John most writers recognise that
structure is not absolutely alien to the author48 There are some portions of the book which
are unanimously agreed upon as distinct parts The two most obvious examples are 11-4
and 212-14 Aside from its complex grammatical and syntactical issues 11-4 is universally
recognised by writers and commentators as a single part which introduces the main
topic(s) of Johnrsquos first letter Similarly the lexical cohesion and repetition of 212-14 prove
beyond any doubt that John was able skilfully and carefully to construct literary units
We shall now proceed through the text of 1 John identifying major sections and
particular units using the methodology outlined above derived from cohesive features of
the text before drawing conclusions about an overall structure of the book
sect11-4
1 John 11-4 forms an introduction to the whole book49 The main clause (3c) is introduced
by an initial relative clause which is subsequently modified by three parallel relative
clauses (1b c d) in turn modified by a prepositional phrase (1f) and a parenthetical
48 See Brown Epistles 118 49 Smalley 1 2 3 John 4 15
19
comment (2a-f)50 3a starts with a resumptive relative clause before introducing the main
indicative verb (ἀπαγγέλλομεν)51 11a-3c form one complex colon and are therefore
syntactically cohesive
There are a number of additional cohesive features within these verses There is
inclusio of the verbs ἀκούψ and ὀπάψ in 1c3b and 1d3a respectively Similarly so the use
of υανεπόψ at the beginning and end of the parenthetic v2 (a and f) Also 1st person plural
verbs are used repeatedly throughout and are juxtaposed with 2nd person pronominal
references to the recipients This combination of 1st and 2nd person reference introduces the
two primary lsquocharactersrsquo in the letter Lastly the feminine noun ζψή is introduced
immediately prior to the parenthesis of v2 (1f) and is referred to in all four cola within the
parenthesis ndash twice by repetition of the noun (forming another inclusio) and twice by
ellipsis of the direct object of the transitive verbs ὀπάψ and μαπστπέψ
The complexities of the grammar52 and the textual issues53 make no difference to the
structure or cohesion of the passage
sect15-211
After an initial introduction 1 Johnrsquos first section starts at 15 and continues through to
211 This section is made up of three units
50 Judith M Lieu I II amp III John A Commentary (NTL Louisville Westminster John Knox 2008) 37 51 Culy A Handbook 7 52 Stott Letters 62 53 Bruce M Metzger A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed Stuttgart Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft 2002) 639
20
15-22
Unanimously agreed unit boundaries such as those of 11-4 do more than simply
demonstrate Johnrsquos literary abilities They also provide certain markers from which other
literary units can be determined If the introduction ends at 14 then 15 must begin a new
section Similarly if a new unit begins at 212 then the previous unit must end at 211 It
will be argued below that the verses in between (ie 15-211) form one large section
comprised of three units (15-22 23-7 28-11)
Callow has already done much of the work on 15-211 and it is unnecessary to repeat
all of his findings54 Rather a few complementary observations will be made
15-10 are tied together by their use of 3rd class conditional sentences 16a 7a 8a 9a
and 10a all introduce a protasis with ἐὰν55 Vv6 8 and 10 make negative assertions while
54 John Callow ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament Approaches and
Results (ed Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed JSNTSupp Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1999) esp 402-
4 55 See Culy A Handbook xvii-xx on the nature of these conditionals as mitigated exhortations
21
vv7 and 9 are positive forming an alternating pattern Repetition of words and phrases
such as κοινψνία πεπιπασέψ and ldquoκαθαπίζει ἡμᾶρ ἀπὸ πάςηρ ἁμαπσίαρrdquo also tie these verses
together
The relation of 21-2 to 15-10 is debated Some see 21 as a parenthesis and v2
returning to the preceding thought as a sixth conditional clause adding a final positive
element56 Others understand both of these verses to be a parenthesis given that the
conditional clause is of a different nature to the preceding ones57 Given the shift from 1st
person verbs in the preceding conditionals to the 3rd person σὶρ in 21d it seems that the
latter is preferable In which case 21-2 form a parenthetical comment in between 110 and
23
23-6
56 Marshall Epistles 115-16 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 396-97 57 Stott Letters 84
22
23-6 are held together by the inclusio of ἐν σούσῳ γινώςκομεν in 23a and 5c58 These two
independent clauses are both elaborated on in 23b-5b and 6a-d respectively The
introduction and repetition of the ideas of keeping (σηπέψ) commands (ἐνσολή) tie vv3-5
together
23-6 at first glance seems distinct from 15-10 However the repetition of ὁ λέγψν
followed by both a negative (v4) and a positive (v6) claim has strong links back to the
conditional clauses of 15-10 Similarly although the vocabulary has changed from
κοινψνία to γινώςκψ the concept of relationship to God is still present Further still 15
and 23 can both be understood as introducing their individual units Each verse makes a
stark claim which is then elucidated and illustrated both positively and negatively A final
cohesive feature is that if 21-2 are a parenthesis as suggested above then there is
referential cohesion between 15 through to 2659 Θεόρ is introduced in 15 and thereafter
only referred to with pronominal references60
Given the cohesive features and the links with 15-10 it is therefore legitimate to
conclude that ldquothis section is in several aspects parallel tohellipthe preceding sectionrdquo61 23-6
constitute a new unit That the unit begins with καὶ need not raise concern Although this
is somewhat unexpected at boundary features the presence of καὶ alone does not carry
enough weight to rule out a unit boundary (cf 15)62 Paragraphs initiated with καὶ seem to
be a feature of 1 John63
58 The prepositional clause ἐν σούσῳ is also repeated in 4e and 5b however these occurrences are
anaphoric with a personal antecedent in 4a and 5a respectively The phrases in 3a and 5c are cataphoric and
refer to abstract concepts rather than specific individuals See Culy A Handbook 25 59 There is also a lone pronominal reference to God in 8b 60 The sole exception being the genitive phrase of 25b ἡ ἀγάπη σοῦ θεοῦ 61 C Haas M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for
Translators London United Bible Societies 1972) 43 62 Levinsohn Discourse Features 275 Kermit Titrud ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament
and an Application to 2 Peterrdquo in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed
David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 240-70 63 See 15 220 28 33 13 19 514
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
ABSTRACT
This paper will address the subject of the structure of 1 John Analysis will be
undertaken in two parts Firstly some of the most popular existing proposals for
the structure of 1 John (Law Brown and Marshall) as well as proposals presented
in journal articles (Longacre Hansford and Thomas) will be critically assessed The
aim will be to learn from their research as well as the weaknesses in their work
Secondly a new structure will be proposed The newly proposed structure will be
based upon an analysis of various discourse features within the text of 1 John and
will divide the text into several large sections each made up of multiple units
Analysis with be present in both written and diagrammatic form and considerable
attention will be given to syntactic cola word clusters lexical cohesion
participant tracking boundary features and parallelisms Conclusions will be
drawn about the overall structure of the book
It will be argued that 1 John is made up of 7 sections and 18 units 11-4 form an
introduction and 513-21 a conclusion In between these two outer markers are a
number of sections of varying lengths (15-211 212-324 41-6 47-55 56-12) Of
the constituent units which make up these sections some are instantly
recognisable by their distinctive features (eg 212-14) while others require more
detailed inspection (eg 33-12) It is the aim of this study to elucidate the authorrsquos
intention in dividing up the text of 1 John It will finally be concluded that the
author of 1 John uses a wide variety of literary techniques to divide up his
material Of the various technique used word clusters inclusio and chiasm are the
most frequent
Contents
Introduction 1
Methodology 2 Nomenclature 4
Existing Structural Proposals 6 Views Presented in Major Commentaries 6
Robert Law ndash A Cyclical View 6 Raymond Brown ndash A Binary View 9 I H Marshall ndash A Linear View 11
View Presented in Articles 12 Robert E Longacre 13 Keir L Hansford 14 John Christopher Thomas 16
An Analysis of Discourse Features in 1 John 18 Inherent Structure 18 sect11-4 18 sect15-211 19
15-22 20 23-6 21 27-11 23 Summary of sect15-211 24
sect212-324 24 212-14 25 215-17 26 218-19 27 220-27 28 228-32 30 33-12 31 313-20 34 321-24 35 Summary of sect212-324 36
sect41-6 37 sect47-54a 38
47-11 38 412-16 39 417-54a 41 Summary of sect47-54a 42
sect54b-12 43 sect513-21 45
Conclusions 47
Bibliography 49
1
Introduction
It has long been recognised that 1 John poses a number of problems to its interpreters
There have been radically divergent views concerning authorship genre date and
historical context Similarly discussion of the structure and shape of 1 John has received
much attention yet found little common ground The challenge that now faces those who
wish to investigate the structure of 1 John is to learn from both the work of others and the
criticisms levelled at them
This essay aims to review some of the most popular proposals for structure within 1
John seeking to learn from both the positive and negative criticisms thereof Secondly this
essay seeks to propose a new structure for 1 John which is based entirely on features within
the text itself rather than those derived from outside sources
As with many subjects that have received much scholarly attention there are a
number of dangers to avoid The biggest danger is the proposal of a solution which is either
too speculative or based on too limited criteria Given the enigmatic nature of some of 1
John and its limited vocabulary there is a risk of deriving conclusions from presuppositions
rather than data This study seeks to be as rigorous as possible and whilst recognising that
all readers and writers will have some presuppositions it aims to build only upon what is
explicit in the text of 1 John1
1 The text used in this paper is that of UBS4 and NA27
2
Methodology
This essay will propose a new structure for 1 John based on features within the text The
methodology outlined below is one which seeks to allow as far as is possible the text to
speak for itself and assert its own boundaries and divisions It is recognised that no
examinations of this kind are free from an overarching theory and some presuppositions of
the analyst Therefore this methodology seeks to lay out plainly how the text of 1 John has
been handled
The first task in studying the text of 1 John is to gain a clear grasp of its syntax
Careful analysis of the syntax of a passage has a number of benefits the primary one being
that it forces the analyst to pay close attention to what the author actually wrote There is
often a tendency especially with those who are familiar with biblical texts to assume that
the content and meaning of a passage is known andor understood The ever present
danger is that we allow our existing lsquoframeworkrsquo of biblical and theological knowledge to
impose an interpretation onto a text In contrast responsible hermeneutics insists that a
text is in authority over our existing framework As Erickson notes
hellipthe text is all we have For this reason understanding language structure and semantic
structure which give texts their communicative power is an essential part of the
interpretive method2
If the author of a text intended it to be broken down into smaller units then there will be
evidence within the text itself (eg changes in topic vocabulary person number etc)
There are literary devices available to authors to mark where such breaks are made
Through care analysis of syntax such clues be uncovered Such is the aim of this essay
The primary means used for analysing the syntax of 1 John is diagrammatic
representation of the entire text A diagram of each unit of 1 John is provided alongside
discussion that unit The diagrams aim to systematically lay out the syntactic relationships
between clauses Semantic relationships such as the precise nature of adverbial clauses
are not highlighted in the diagrams but important semantic relationships will be
mentioned in the body of the essay Once the entire text of 1 John has been diagrammed
and syntactic relationships examined other cohesive and discourse features can be
analysed Analysis of the text has been groups into four categories
2 Richard J Erickson A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical Method
(Downers Grove IVP 2005) 57 Emphasis original
3
Firstly grammatical cohesion There are two specific types of grammatical cohesion
which will be examined Firstly analysis of tense-form person number of words especially
verbs Such analysis often yields results in spotting parallelisms (see below) A second sub-
group of grammatical cohesion is lexical cohesion When the same words or words of the
same root3 are used repeatedly over a concentrated span of verses this is an indication of
some level of cohesion between these verses (see for example πνεῦμα in 41-6) This is not
an absolute rule For example the words καί and ὅσι are so common that it is difficult to
find a verse where it does not appear Nevertheless when verbs nouns and adjectives
occur repeatedly note should be taken Similarly so with words within similar ranges of
meaning or from the same semantic domain4 The study of lexical cohesion is helped by
the use of morphologically tagged electronic texts A combination of searches based on
lexical root frequency voice aspect etc can provide comprehensive data which makes
analysis quick and reliable5
Secondly participant tracking can demonstrate breaks in a text When for example
one participant fades from view and another comes into focus it is possible to suggest some
kind of break Participant tracking involves not only noting direct references to characters
but also pronouns and verb endings (see for example notes on 321-24 below) It must be
recognised however that such a discourse feature is a relatively new field of study and
most of the research done has been carried out in the Gospels and narrative texts6
Thirdly various types of parallelism are significant The repetition of a single word or
phrase at the beginning or end of a unit (inclusio) the parallel use of specific grammatical
features simple chiastic structures extended chiastic structures or traditional parallelism
between two linesclauses all serve to join some cola together and separate them from
others Each of these features demonstrates some level of cohesion between their
constituent parts and a certain degree of disjunction7 with what comes before or after8
3 Lexical roots are designated by an asterisk eg δικ 4 Johannes P Louw and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic
Domains (2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989) 5 Morphological searches have been carried out with Bibleworks 7 6 Stephen H Levinsohn Discourse Features of New Testament Greek (2d ed Dallas SIL International 2000)
Grace E Sherman and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine Epistles (Dallas SIL
International 1994) 7 For lack of an exact opposite the words ldquodisunityrdquo and ldquodisjunctionrdquo are used throughout this essay
to mean the opposite of ldquocohesionrdquo 8 ldquoExtended chiasmrdquo is also know as ldquoinverted parallelismrdquo or ldquoconcentric symmetryrdquo For explanation
of this and other features such as simple chiasm and inclusio see John D Harvey Listening to the Text Oral
4
Finally there are a number of boundary features which are useful to observe While
these features on their own rarely provide enough evidence to decide on a textrsquos structure
when one or more are found in unison with other discourse features they add considerable
weight to the conclusion about cohesion For example coordinating conjunctions
asyndeton () vocatives imperatives all fall into this category Once again it must be kept
in mind that such analysis of boundary features and conjunctions is a relatively new
discipline
Nomenclature
Certain words phrases and symbols are used throughout this essay with specific meanings
It will be useful to give brief explanations of some such words at the outset
A lsquo(Word) Clusterrsquo refers to the repeated use of the same word or words of the same
root within close proximity Malcolm Coombes has identified that this feature is very
significant in determining the structure of 1 John9 The repetition of words close to each
other is a deliberate feature of Johnrsquos writing A number of passages could be cited in
support of this observation however three clear examples will suffice Firstly the verb
ἀπνέομαι occurs only three times in 1 John 2222 23 The significance of this cluster is
further emphasised when 43b is taken into consideration Here the author could have
added a further use of ἀπνέομαι instead μὴ ὁμολογεῖ is used Similarly the noun μαπστπία
occurs a total of 6 times and all of these occurrences are in 59-11 (accompanied by two
occurrences of the cognate verb μαπστπέψ in 56-7)10 Not all word clusters are exclusive or
unique as a third example will demonstrate The noun κόςμορ occurs 23 times throughout
the letter yet there are three notable clusters 215-16 43-5 and 54-5 The implications of
such clusters will be investigated and explained further as we examine the text of 1 John
and attempt to determine whether or not section or unit breaks occur at certain points
A further detail of vocabulary distribution which needs a brief introduction is that of
tail-head linkage This occurs when an author intends to forge some kind of connection
between two units It is best defined as a word cluster which spans a unit or section break Patterning in Pauls Letters (ETS Studies Leicester IVP 1998) 97-118 Craig Blomberg ldquoThe Structure of 2
Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1 (1998) 4-8 9 Malcolm Coombes ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo np Cited 19 March 2010
Online httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1Johnpdf 10 Other words occurring on only one cluster are ἀνθπψποκσόνορ (3152) ἀνομία (342) διάβολορ (383
10) διδάςκψ (2273) ἐπιθτμία (2162 17) ἔςφασορ (2182) καθαπίζψ (17 9) καινόρ (27 8) καπδία (319 202
21) κασαγινώςκψ (320 21) παλαιόρ (272) ςυάζψ (3122) σίθημι (3162) σπεῖρ (57 8) ὕδψπ (563 8) υόβορ
(4183) χτφή (3162) ὥπα (2182)
5
In other words a tail-head linkage in 1 John usually consists of a cluster of three or four
occurrences of the same word or words of the same root words occurring at the end of a
section or unit There will be at least one occurrence of the word in the first unit and at
least one further in the second See 324e and 41bc for an example using πνεῦμα where the
word occurs once at the end of a unit and twice more at the beginning of the next11
A lsquocolonrsquo is a term used to refer to ldquoa sentence unit consisting of a nominal and
verbal element together with all their syntactically dependent expansionsrdquo12 A colon can
be identified on purely syntactical grounds The cola of 1 John are clear from the diagram
The purpose of this essay is to examine how such cola relate to one another
A lsquounitrsquo () is a fairly small yet distinct portion of text (usually 2-5 verses) which is
held together by any number of cohesive factors (eg clusters inclusio chiasm) Each
individual unit will be examined explained and defined in the body of this essay
Finally a lsquosectionrsquo (sect) refers to a larger portion of text made up of multiple units
which tie themselves together in some manner
The term lsquopartsrsquo is used to refer to divisions made by others or to breaks without
the technical senses mentioned above This term is adopted to avoid confusion in using
terms such as lsquounitrsquo or lsquosectionrsquo in describing the work of others
Superscript Arabic numerals immediately following a verse reference signify the
number of times a given word or phrase occurs within that verse These notes should not
be confused with bibliographic footnote references (which usually occur after a comma or
period) or edition information for standard SBL abbreviations (eg USB4 NA27)13
11 George Guthrie The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis (Brill 1994) 96-97 12 Peter Cotterell and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove IVP 1998) 201 13 In order to avoid unnecessary confusion some bibliographic footnote references have been placed
immediately after the relevant word or phrase rather than being shifted to the end of the clause or sentence
as recommended by SBLHS
6
Existing Structural Proposals
It is far beyond the scope of this essay to cite exhaustively all writers and all structural
proposals for 1 John However over time three main groups have emerged into which one
can divide most writings on the subject One significant proponent of each group will be
presented and evaluated Firstly a lsquocyclical viewrsquo like that of Robert Law secondly a two-
part structure pioneered by Raymond Brown (lsquoa bipartite viewrsquo) and finally a less
conclusive proposal like that of I Howard Marshall (lsquoa linear viewrsquo)
Views Presented in Major Commentaries
Robert Law ndash A Cyclical View
Lawrsquos work although first published in 1909 has found considerable support amongst
scholars His proposal is characteristic of those which seek to divide and arrange the
material of 1 John according to themes or theological content Although quite dated his
proposal is considered worthy of attention due to the following it has received Brown calls
it ldquoone of the most famous and influential divisionsrdquo14 One or another form of cyclical
structure is proposed by Bruce Burdick and Stott15 Lawrsquos structure is also remarkably
14 Raymond E Brown The Epistles of John (vol 30 AB London Doubleday 1982) 121 15 F F Bruce The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992) 29 Donald W Burdick The Epistles of John
(Chicago Moody Press 1970) 14-17 John Stott The Letters of John (2d ed TNTC Leicester IVP 1990) 61
7
similar to the work of Theodor Haumlring although they worked and published
independently16
Law uses two words to summarise his view of the structure of 1 John ldquospiralrdquo and
ldquotestsrdquo It is ldquospiralrdquo because the progression of thought is not simply linear one idea after
the next in a straight line as is usually the case in Western literature Rather the work is
arranged around a centre ldquoalways recurring to the same topics but at a higher levelrdquo He
goes on to illustrate ldquo[the author takes] two or three melodieshellip[and by]introducing
themhelliprepeating them inverting them skilfully interlacing themhelliprears up from them an
edifice of stately harmoniesrdquo Secondly Law summarises 1 John as a series of ldquotestsrdquo The
book is comprised of numerous sets of criteria by which believers may ldquosatisfy themselves
of their being ldquobegotten of Godrdquordquo17
The combination of these two ideas leads to Lawrsquos overall structure of the book
there are three cyclesspirals each of which consists of three tests ldquodoing righteousness
loving one another and believing that Jesus is the Christrdquo18
While it is true that Law (and those who follow variations of his structure) has provided a
useful summary of the content of the book and has no doubt made 1 John meaningful and
accessible to many readers since publication there are a number of problems with his
proposal
Firstly a number of section breaks occur at seemingly inappropriate points The
divisions between the major sections are not problematic and occur at logical places within
the book (eg 22829 and 467) However a number of Lawrsquos subdivisions are less
straightforward The start of Paragraph A (18) in the First Cycle is problematic ndash even Law
himself seems somewhat confused on the matter He recognises that there are ldquothree
parallel pairs of antithesisrdquo within 16-2219 yet suggests that 18 marks the start of
16 Theodor Haring ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo in Theologische
Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet (ed Adolf von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892) 171-200 For further
comment and comparison see A E Brooke The Johannine Epistles (ICC Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1912) xxxiv-
xxxvii Robert Law The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John (2d ed Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1909) 24 17 Law Tests 6 18 Law Tests 5-6 19 Law Tests 65
8
Paragraph A20 To suggest that a new paragraph or section starts between the first and
second of three parallel antithesis is awkward
Secondly Lawrsquos structure falls down towards the end of 1 John where the three tests
are reduced in number to only two and their order is reversed Law admits regarding the
closing section that ldquothe logical analysis of it is the hardest part of our taskrdquo21 If a cyclical
structure was in Johnrsquos mind as he wrote one might expect him to have maintained some
consistency in his presentation of the tests But according to Law this is not the case
Rather in the Third Cycle the number of main themes is reduced to two Law states that
ldquorighteousness takes a subordinate placerdquo22 The previously primary theme of
righteousness drops out completely as it is absent from both the section headings and the
synopsis of the third major division spanning from 47 to 521
Thirdly Lawrsquos structure fails to take account of or adequately deal with difficult
passages within 1 John the most notable of these being 212-14 According to Law these
verses are a mere parenthesis and his structure requires that they are ldquoomittedrdquo in order to
maintain ldquothe unity of the paragraphrdquo23 While there are parentheses in 1 John verses
should not be categorised as such without considerable support There is strong evidence
that 212-14 mark the start of a major new section on 1 John (see on page 25) Lawrsquos
degradation of these verses is unnecessary
20 Law Tests 8 It is clear from the context that by ldquoparagraphrdquo Law means something similar to the
concept of ldquounitrdquo as defined above 21 Law Tests 15 22 Law Tests 15 23 Law Tests 10
9
Raymond Brown ndash A Binary View
A second major group of proposals are those that divide the body (15-512) of 1 John into
two parts (usually with an introduction (11-4) and conclusion (513-21))24 Of those who see
two halves in the body of 1 John many propose that the division is based on a certain
connection with the Gospel of John Of such authors Brown is the most prominent25
Brownrsquos division of 1 John is tied closely to his understanding of the authorship and
historical context of the letter In Brownrsquos view 1 John has been written by an author who
is part of the Johannine community which due to differing interpretations of the Gospel of
John had divided The author of 1 John regards the secessionists as heterodox and is
writing to his own community26 Regarding structure specifically Brown writes
If the epistolary author is drawing upon the theology and wording of the Johannine
tradition embodied in GJohn and assumes the mantle of evangelist as an interpreter of
that traditionhellip a priori it is not inconceivable that he used GJohn as a model in
structuring his comments in 1 John27
Brown then goes on to elaborate this theory into true structure show above
There are a number of problems with Brownrsquos theory The first is that his structure is so
tightly linked to his view of authorship The structure and authorship of 1 John are two of
24 Brown Epistles 764 Stephen S Smalley 1 2 3 John (WBC Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984) 25 See also W Hall Harris III 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis (Dallas Biblical Studies
2003) 26 Brown Epistles 69-70 27 Brown Epistles 124
10
the most uncertain and debated aspects of Johannine scholarship Given the difficult
textual grammatical and linguistic issues related to such a structure it seems that Brownrsquos
proposal based on little more than a presupposition that 1 John is intended to imitate the
Gospel of John
A second issue with Brownrsquos proposal is his own seeming uncertainty about it When
stating his view he only does so negatively ldquoa priori it is not inconceivable that he used
GJohn as a modelhelliprdquo28 That a proposal is ldquonot inconceivablerdquo does not make it necessarily
true It may well be the case that the author used the style and vocabulary of the Gospel of
John as his starting point but this does not necessitate that he also borrowed the structure
And without strong evidence within the text to support it the theory is not adequate In
this same connection when Brown explains his divisions his own confession is that
determining the point of division of the body of 1 John into two parts is much more
difficult than identifying an introduction and conclusion29
In addition to these general objections given above there are both syntactical and
lexical problems with Brownrsquos divisions
The syntactical issue with Brownrsquos proposal is that he makes the second major
section of the book begin with an ὅσι clause He argues that 311 and 15 are grammatically
parallel phrases and should therefore each be understood as introducing the themes of part
one and part two of the book The primary problem here is that ὅσι is a subordinating
conjunction and therefore necessitates that it is connected with a superordinate clause (ie
310)30 As Culy comments ldquoAlthough such an analysis may make good sense of the themes
of the letter it ignores the surface structure The ὅσι makes it clear that syntactically 311 is
subordinate to 310rdquo31 A secondary problem with this assertion is that although there are
many grammatical and lexical links between 15 and 311 the claim that these two verses
alone are parallel does not take account of all the data and similar occurrences in 1 John32
A lexical issue with Brownrsquos division is his correlation of 1 John 513 and John 2031
It is claimed that these two verses parallel one another Although there are a number of
lexical links between the two verses there are three issue to consider Firstly it is widely
recognised that 1 John has similar vocabulary to the Gospel of John and so some too much
28 Brown Epistles 124 29 Brown Epistles 125 30 BDF lists ὅσι in ch11 part 3c ldquoSubordinating (Hypotactic) Conjunctionsrdquo 31 Martin M Culy I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco Baylor 2004) 80 32 See comments below on 225 and the occurrences of αὕση
11
should not be read into lexical links between John 2031 and 1 John 513 Secondly given
the frequency and variety of use of the verb γπάυψ in 1 John it is dangerous to read too
much into this one occurrence Finally there is a considerable number of differences
between these two verses which one would not expect to find if the epistolary author was
intending to use John 2031 as the model for 513 For example the verb tense-form in John
is perfect while in 1 John it is aorist Also the clause structure in 1 John is unusual (see
diagram) with the verb γπάυψ having two parallel direct objects one at either end of the
verse John 2031 has no such complex structure
Thus it can be concluded that Brown does little to convince his readers that his
theory is robust enough to allow for the difficult issues surrounding 1 John There are a
significant number of theological and grammatical issues which make his structural
proposal dubious
I H Marshall ndash A Linear View
Finally the work of more recent commentators has been content to stop short of a rigid or
hierarchical proposal Marshall surveys a number of existing proposals and concludes
12
ldquoit seems preferable to regard the Epistle as being composed of a series of connected
paragraphs whose relation to one another is governed by association of ideas rather
than by a logical plan This does not mean that John is illogical but rather that his
Epistle is not meant to be divided into large sections on a logical basisrdquo33
Such a lsquolinearrsquo structure is also adopted by Kruse Johnson and a number of others34
One the one hand Marshall is very wise to be cautious about dividing 1 John Given the
plethora of differing theories and the voluminous writing on the subject his
lsquoindecisivenessrsquo is refreshing Also Marshallrsquos recognition that some of the connections
between paragraphs may not seem ldquologicalrdquo to us (ie ldquoassociation of ideasrdquo) is insightful A
further benefit of Marshallrsquos work is his refusal to arrange paragraphs hierarchically
Marshallrsquos structure simply divides the text into units and makes little comment on their
interrelationships
On the other hand there are still a number of issues with such a proposal Whereas
other writers have made proposals in which thematic or theological considerations dictate
the divisions (eg Law) Marshallrsquos divisions seem to be determined by convenience (eg
seeking a limited number of paragraphs of similar length) in order to structure his
commentary This works out in two ways in some instances Marshall joins together verses
which do not demonstrate any connection to one another For example he connects of
212-14 and 215-17 These two units are treated together by many commentators even
though apart from their proximity to one another there are no indications that they
should be treated as such Rather each unit as its own distinct structure and vocabulary
Alternatively Marshall sometimes divides paragraphs despite strong textual evidence that
they are connected An example is the division between 412 and 1335 As will be explained
below these verses form part of one unit having a distinct structure which is within a
larger section characterised by ἀγαπ roots
View Presented in Articles
In recent years with the development of discourse analysis and text-linguistics there has
been a movement away from attempting to establish the structure of 1 John based upon
33 I Howard Marshall The Epistles of John (NICNT Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978) 26 34 Colin G Kruse The Letters of John (The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester Apollos 2000)
21 Thomas F Johnson 1 2 and 3 John (New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle Paternoster 1995) 15-
16 35 Marshall Epistles 26 See below for a fuller treatment of these units
13
thematic andor theological considerations Instead various writers have attempted to
determine the structure based upon linguistic theory and discourse features We shall
briefly review and critique three such attempts
Robert E Longacre
Longacre claims that ldquodiscourse analysis can suggest a natural outline of the bookrdquo36 He
goes on to outline a number of discourse features which he will analyse to elucidate such a
structure 1 John he claims is divided into sixteen paragraphs based on the position of
vocatives These sixteen paragraphs are subsequently grouped further into three sections
based on the distribution of γπάυψ an introduction (11-229) a body (31-512) and a
conclusion (513-21) Other features such as the genre of 1 John which Longacre takes to be
hortatory discourse the concept of peaks (ie ldquopoints of cumulative developmentrdquo)37 and
the macrostructure of the book (ldquoa summaryhellipof a text which is stated so that it gives the
central thrust of the whole workrdquo)38 are also brought to bear on the structure of the text
Longacre argues for a doctrinal and an ethical peak in both the introduction and the
body of the book Thus 212-17 and 41-6 form the ethical peaks and 218-27 and 47-21 the
doctrinal peaks The macrostructure of 1 John is seen to be 319-24 which immediately
precedes the dual peaks of the body
Longacrersquos commitment to deriving a structure of 1 John from discourse features of the
text itself is admirable and his work highlights a number of significant characteristics of 1
John Nevertheless there are some weaknesses with his approach The primary issue with
is Longacrersquos over-emphasis on a limited number of discourse features Although five
discourse features are outlined at the beginning of his paper the derivation of a structure
for 1 John is based upon only two of these features the use of vocatives and the distribution
of γπάυψ The other three discourse features are merely analysed to clarify the structure
In this regard Culy helpfully points out
36 Robert Longacre ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Textrdquo
in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed David Alan Black Katherine
Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 271 37 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 279 38 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 280
14
ldquoGiven this distribution of vocatives it is not inappropriate to recognize that this
particular writer frequently uses vocatives to help mark boundaries Such an observation
does not require that vocatives were always used in this wayrdquo39
Not only are vocatives not an absolute marker of boundaries but there are numerous other
features which Longacre largely ignores (eg lexical cohesion and participant reference)
A second major weakness in Longacrersquos proposal is his treatment of 212-14 Given
his focus on vocatives and γπάυψ it is significant that these three verses contain six
occurrences of each Longacre does claim that 212-17 is ldquoan ethical peakrdquo but this
conclusion is based on ldquoa strong exhortation not to love the worldrdquo (ie vv15-17) and not
on the vocatives or repetition of γπάυψ Similarly Longacre notes that the verb γπάυψ
switches from present to aorist use between 213 and 14 and that it does not occur again
until 513 While such data seems important Longacre fails to deal with it adequately since
his first major division of the book does not occur until 22931 Inexplicably it seems that
two verses which contain such a high concentration of Longacrersquos primary criteria are of
no special significance to him
Keir L Hansford
Hansfordrsquos basic premise is that 1 John is poetic He believes a structure can and should be
derived from treating and dividing 1 John in such a way His work is unusual in that he does
not provide an overall outline of the book but rather presents the entire text of the book
laid out in lines columns and strophes ldquoLinesrdquo are clauses or phrases in parallelism ldquoI
arguethe whole of the epistle was constructed out of parallelismsrdquo40 Hansford then
groups and divides lines in two ways horizontally and vertically Horizontally lines are
grouped into eighteen ldquostrophesrdquo which share certain key words At the same time lines
are divided into one of three vertical columns ldquothe authority of the apostlerdquo ldquohuman
actionsJesusrsquo ministryrdquo and ldquoGodrsquos creation and judgementrdquo Hansford also seeks to mark
all chiasms
As with many structural proposals for 1 John Hansfordrsquos has some beneficial
insights In attempting to structure the whole of 1 John he has paid acute attention to
details within the text This has proved to be a fruitful exercise especially in his
39 Culy A Handbook xvi 40 Keir L Hansford ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo JOTT 5 no 2 (1992) 128
15
identification of number of lsquomicro-parallelismrsquo and chiasms which have often been
overlooked
Despite these insights Hansfordrsquos overall structure and broad divisions are
problematic The first criticism is that under close inspection it becomes noticeable that a
number of Hansfordrsquos decisions are forced An example of a forced chiasm can be seen in
410-12 where ἠγαπήκαμεν in 410 is linked with σεθέασαι in 412 The two words have no
semantic overlap and it is difficult to see how they can be related other than they both
have θεὸν as their object Similarly issues regarding the column divisions can be seen at
39 The initial part of the verse πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ (the subject of the clause)
is placed in the second column (ldquohuman actionJesusrsquo ministryrdquo) while the second part
ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιει (the predicate and object) is placed in the third column (ldquoGodrsquos reaction
and judgementrdquo) These phrases do not naturally fit with the thematic topics of the
columns into which they are placed
Secondly the ldquokeywordsrdquo that are listed for each strophe seem arbitrary Each of the
eighteen strophes has on average between 15-20 keywords While some of these keywords
are unique to that portion of text other words such as ldquotruthrdquo ldquoJesusrdquo ldquoChristrdquo ldquoFatherrdquo
ldquoknowrdquo and ldquobelieverdquo occur in multiple strophes When the general and rather limited
vocabulary of the whole book is considered it becomes evident that some of the keywords
are not particular to any strophe but rather to the whole of 1 John
Thirdly it is possible that what Hansford considers to be poetic features of the text
could be explained in other ways For example the reversal of word order of verb and
subject is mentioned twice in his article as evidence of parallelism and chiasm41 It is
possible however that such a switch can be justified by other discourse features and issues
of information structure Hansford does not give details or references to the clauses he is
referring to and so it is difficult to decide either way However it must be kept in mind that
there may be other explanations for such features
Finally if the author intended such rigid parallelism it seems strange that not all
the parallels are as clear as those in 212-14 Hansford fails to take account of the clear
differences between portions of the text In Hansfordrsquos outline 212-14 which without
doubt demonstrate the clearest parallelisms blend in to his poetry and do not stand out at
all as they do when the text of 1 John is read as a whole
41 Hansford ldquoPoetic Structurerdquo 129 135
16
John Christopher Thomas
Thomas admirably sets out to focus ldquoattention on the structure of 1 John as revealed by
the text itself and seeks as far as possible to allow the text to reveal its shape on its own
termsrdquo42 The outcome of Thomas work is to suggest a chiastic structure to the book as a
whole Thomas makes clear that he is well aware of the dangers and criticisms that such
proposals have faced in the past Nevertheless he suggests that 1 John divides into 11
sections 10 of which are parallel one being central The overall chiastic structure is shown
above Thomas understands each parallel section to vaguely share a common theme or
topic eg making God a liar antichrists confidence with the central section being entitled
ldquoLove one anotherrdquo43
There are a number of problems with Thomasrsquo extended chiasm Firstly Thomas claims
that the central section of the book (section F 311-18) is focussed on loving one another
Not only does this begin a new unit with an ὅσι clause (see the treatment of Brownrsquos work
above and the discussion on 225 below for the syntactical problems associated with such a
division) but it also fails to take note that the ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλοτρ occurs more frequently
outside of this section than inside44 Similarly so with sections E and E` (228-310 and 319-
24) which are entitled ldquoConfidencerdquo The noun παππηςία occurs four times in 1 John but
only two occurrences are with these units45
42 John Christopher Thomas ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo NT 40 no 4 (1998) 371 43 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 373 44 This ἵνα clause occurs at 311 but also at 323 47 and 12 45 See 228 321 417 and 514
17
Secondly although Thomas seeks not to overstretch the links between the parallel
sections of his chiasm46 his claim that ldquothe use of similar catch wordsphraseswhich
parallel one anotherrdquo indicate that he expects his parallel sections to have to a greater or
lesser degree similar words and phrases If such is the case it is very strange that the
primary and central theme of 15-22 (ie light and darkness which occurs 13 times in those
verses) does not reappear in its parallel section (56-12) While it is true that Thomasrsquo
criteria allows that not every detail of every section will be parallel a parallelism where the
primary these are not paralleled is perculiar
A further problem with sections B and B` is Thomasrsquo comment ldquoA final point of
contact is that both passages begin with similar statements ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo in
15 and ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo in 56rdquo47 In both English and Greek it is difficult to
see how these two phrases can be correlated
Καὶ ἔςσιν αὕση ἡ ἀγγελία Οὗσόρ ἐςσιν ὁ ἐλθὼν
ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo
Although both have ἔςσιν and a demonstrative pronoun the similarity ends there The
word orders are different as is the gender of the pronoun One begins with a coordinating
conjunction the other with asyndeton One has as its subject a feminine abstract noun the
other an articular participle
Thus even with Thomasrsquo relatively loose criteria of what constitutes an extended
chiasm it is clear that 1 John as a whole refuses to be organised so neatly
46 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 372 47 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 379
18
An Analysis of Discourse Features in 1 John
Inherent Structure
Despite the widely varying theories for structure in 1 John most writers recognise that
structure is not absolutely alien to the author48 There are some portions of the book which
are unanimously agreed upon as distinct parts The two most obvious examples are 11-4
and 212-14 Aside from its complex grammatical and syntactical issues 11-4 is universally
recognised by writers and commentators as a single part which introduces the main
topic(s) of Johnrsquos first letter Similarly the lexical cohesion and repetition of 212-14 prove
beyond any doubt that John was able skilfully and carefully to construct literary units
We shall now proceed through the text of 1 John identifying major sections and
particular units using the methodology outlined above derived from cohesive features of
the text before drawing conclusions about an overall structure of the book
sect11-4
1 John 11-4 forms an introduction to the whole book49 The main clause (3c) is introduced
by an initial relative clause which is subsequently modified by three parallel relative
clauses (1b c d) in turn modified by a prepositional phrase (1f) and a parenthetical
48 See Brown Epistles 118 49 Smalley 1 2 3 John 4 15
19
comment (2a-f)50 3a starts with a resumptive relative clause before introducing the main
indicative verb (ἀπαγγέλλομεν)51 11a-3c form one complex colon and are therefore
syntactically cohesive
There are a number of additional cohesive features within these verses There is
inclusio of the verbs ἀκούψ and ὀπάψ in 1c3b and 1d3a respectively Similarly so the use
of υανεπόψ at the beginning and end of the parenthetic v2 (a and f) Also 1st person plural
verbs are used repeatedly throughout and are juxtaposed with 2nd person pronominal
references to the recipients This combination of 1st and 2nd person reference introduces the
two primary lsquocharactersrsquo in the letter Lastly the feminine noun ζψή is introduced
immediately prior to the parenthesis of v2 (1f) and is referred to in all four cola within the
parenthesis ndash twice by repetition of the noun (forming another inclusio) and twice by
ellipsis of the direct object of the transitive verbs ὀπάψ and μαπστπέψ
The complexities of the grammar52 and the textual issues53 make no difference to the
structure or cohesion of the passage
sect15-211
After an initial introduction 1 Johnrsquos first section starts at 15 and continues through to
211 This section is made up of three units
50 Judith M Lieu I II amp III John A Commentary (NTL Louisville Westminster John Knox 2008) 37 51 Culy A Handbook 7 52 Stott Letters 62 53 Bruce M Metzger A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed Stuttgart Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft 2002) 639
20
15-22
Unanimously agreed unit boundaries such as those of 11-4 do more than simply
demonstrate Johnrsquos literary abilities They also provide certain markers from which other
literary units can be determined If the introduction ends at 14 then 15 must begin a new
section Similarly if a new unit begins at 212 then the previous unit must end at 211 It
will be argued below that the verses in between (ie 15-211) form one large section
comprised of three units (15-22 23-7 28-11)
Callow has already done much of the work on 15-211 and it is unnecessary to repeat
all of his findings54 Rather a few complementary observations will be made
15-10 are tied together by their use of 3rd class conditional sentences 16a 7a 8a 9a
and 10a all introduce a protasis with ἐὰν55 Vv6 8 and 10 make negative assertions while
54 John Callow ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament Approaches and
Results (ed Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed JSNTSupp Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1999) esp 402-
4 55 See Culy A Handbook xvii-xx on the nature of these conditionals as mitigated exhortations
21
vv7 and 9 are positive forming an alternating pattern Repetition of words and phrases
such as κοινψνία πεπιπασέψ and ldquoκαθαπίζει ἡμᾶρ ἀπὸ πάςηρ ἁμαπσίαρrdquo also tie these verses
together
The relation of 21-2 to 15-10 is debated Some see 21 as a parenthesis and v2
returning to the preceding thought as a sixth conditional clause adding a final positive
element56 Others understand both of these verses to be a parenthesis given that the
conditional clause is of a different nature to the preceding ones57 Given the shift from 1st
person verbs in the preceding conditionals to the 3rd person σὶρ in 21d it seems that the
latter is preferable In which case 21-2 form a parenthetical comment in between 110 and
23
23-6
56 Marshall Epistles 115-16 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 396-97 57 Stott Letters 84
22
23-6 are held together by the inclusio of ἐν σούσῳ γινώςκομεν in 23a and 5c58 These two
independent clauses are both elaborated on in 23b-5b and 6a-d respectively The
introduction and repetition of the ideas of keeping (σηπέψ) commands (ἐνσολή) tie vv3-5
together
23-6 at first glance seems distinct from 15-10 However the repetition of ὁ λέγψν
followed by both a negative (v4) and a positive (v6) claim has strong links back to the
conditional clauses of 15-10 Similarly although the vocabulary has changed from
κοινψνία to γινώςκψ the concept of relationship to God is still present Further still 15
and 23 can both be understood as introducing their individual units Each verse makes a
stark claim which is then elucidated and illustrated both positively and negatively A final
cohesive feature is that if 21-2 are a parenthesis as suggested above then there is
referential cohesion between 15 through to 2659 Θεόρ is introduced in 15 and thereafter
only referred to with pronominal references60
Given the cohesive features and the links with 15-10 it is therefore legitimate to
conclude that ldquothis section is in several aspects parallel tohellipthe preceding sectionrdquo61 23-6
constitute a new unit That the unit begins with καὶ need not raise concern Although this
is somewhat unexpected at boundary features the presence of καὶ alone does not carry
enough weight to rule out a unit boundary (cf 15)62 Paragraphs initiated with καὶ seem to
be a feature of 1 John63
58 The prepositional clause ἐν σούσῳ is also repeated in 4e and 5b however these occurrences are
anaphoric with a personal antecedent in 4a and 5a respectively The phrases in 3a and 5c are cataphoric and
refer to abstract concepts rather than specific individuals See Culy A Handbook 25 59 There is also a lone pronominal reference to God in 8b 60 The sole exception being the genitive phrase of 25b ἡ ἀγάπη σοῦ θεοῦ 61 C Haas M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for
Translators London United Bible Societies 1972) 43 62 Levinsohn Discourse Features 275 Kermit Titrud ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament
and an Application to 2 Peterrdquo in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed
David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 240-70 63 See 15 220 28 33 13 19 514
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
Contents
Introduction 1
Methodology 2 Nomenclature 4
Existing Structural Proposals 6 Views Presented in Major Commentaries 6
Robert Law ndash A Cyclical View 6 Raymond Brown ndash A Binary View 9 I H Marshall ndash A Linear View 11
View Presented in Articles 12 Robert E Longacre 13 Keir L Hansford 14 John Christopher Thomas 16
An Analysis of Discourse Features in 1 John 18 Inherent Structure 18 sect11-4 18 sect15-211 19
15-22 20 23-6 21 27-11 23 Summary of sect15-211 24
sect212-324 24 212-14 25 215-17 26 218-19 27 220-27 28 228-32 30 33-12 31 313-20 34 321-24 35 Summary of sect212-324 36
sect41-6 37 sect47-54a 38
47-11 38 412-16 39 417-54a 41 Summary of sect47-54a 42
sect54b-12 43 sect513-21 45
Conclusions 47
Bibliography 49
1
Introduction
It has long been recognised that 1 John poses a number of problems to its interpreters
There have been radically divergent views concerning authorship genre date and
historical context Similarly discussion of the structure and shape of 1 John has received
much attention yet found little common ground The challenge that now faces those who
wish to investigate the structure of 1 John is to learn from both the work of others and the
criticisms levelled at them
This essay aims to review some of the most popular proposals for structure within 1
John seeking to learn from both the positive and negative criticisms thereof Secondly this
essay seeks to propose a new structure for 1 John which is based entirely on features within
the text itself rather than those derived from outside sources
As with many subjects that have received much scholarly attention there are a
number of dangers to avoid The biggest danger is the proposal of a solution which is either
too speculative or based on too limited criteria Given the enigmatic nature of some of 1
John and its limited vocabulary there is a risk of deriving conclusions from presuppositions
rather than data This study seeks to be as rigorous as possible and whilst recognising that
all readers and writers will have some presuppositions it aims to build only upon what is
explicit in the text of 1 John1
1 The text used in this paper is that of UBS4 and NA27
2
Methodology
This essay will propose a new structure for 1 John based on features within the text The
methodology outlined below is one which seeks to allow as far as is possible the text to
speak for itself and assert its own boundaries and divisions It is recognised that no
examinations of this kind are free from an overarching theory and some presuppositions of
the analyst Therefore this methodology seeks to lay out plainly how the text of 1 John has
been handled
The first task in studying the text of 1 John is to gain a clear grasp of its syntax
Careful analysis of the syntax of a passage has a number of benefits the primary one being
that it forces the analyst to pay close attention to what the author actually wrote There is
often a tendency especially with those who are familiar with biblical texts to assume that
the content and meaning of a passage is known andor understood The ever present
danger is that we allow our existing lsquoframeworkrsquo of biblical and theological knowledge to
impose an interpretation onto a text In contrast responsible hermeneutics insists that a
text is in authority over our existing framework As Erickson notes
hellipthe text is all we have For this reason understanding language structure and semantic
structure which give texts their communicative power is an essential part of the
interpretive method2
If the author of a text intended it to be broken down into smaller units then there will be
evidence within the text itself (eg changes in topic vocabulary person number etc)
There are literary devices available to authors to mark where such breaks are made
Through care analysis of syntax such clues be uncovered Such is the aim of this essay
The primary means used for analysing the syntax of 1 John is diagrammatic
representation of the entire text A diagram of each unit of 1 John is provided alongside
discussion that unit The diagrams aim to systematically lay out the syntactic relationships
between clauses Semantic relationships such as the precise nature of adverbial clauses
are not highlighted in the diagrams but important semantic relationships will be
mentioned in the body of the essay Once the entire text of 1 John has been diagrammed
and syntactic relationships examined other cohesive and discourse features can be
analysed Analysis of the text has been groups into four categories
2 Richard J Erickson A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical Method
(Downers Grove IVP 2005) 57 Emphasis original
3
Firstly grammatical cohesion There are two specific types of grammatical cohesion
which will be examined Firstly analysis of tense-form person number of words especially
verbs Such analysis often yields results in spotting parallelisms (see below) A second sub-
group of grammatical cohesion is lexical cohesion When the same words or words of the
same root3 are used repeatedly over a concentrated span of verses this is an indication of
some level of cohesion between these verses (see for example πνεῦμα in 41-6) This is not
an absolute rule For example the words καί and ὅσι are so common that it is difficult to
find a verse where it does not appear Nevertheless when verbs nouns and adjectives
occur repeatedly note should be taken Similarly so with words within similar ranges of
meaning or from the same semantic domain4 The study of lexical cohesion is helped by
the use of morphologically tagged electronic texts A combination of searches based on
lexical root frequency voice aspect etc can provide comprehensive data which makes
analysis quick and reliable5
Secondly participant tracking can demonstrate breaks in a text When for example
one participant fades from view and another comes into focus it is possible to suggest some
kind of break Participant tracking involves not only noting direct references to characters
but also pronouns and verb endings (see for example notes on 321-24 below) It must be
recognised however that such a discourse feature is a relatively new field of study and
most of the research done has been carried out in the Gospels and narrative texts6
Thirdly various types of parallelism are significant The repetition of a single word or
phrase at the beginning or end of a unit (inclusio) the parallel use of specific grammatical
features simple chiastic structures extended chiastic structures or traditional parallelism
between two linesclauses all serve to join some cola together and separate them from
others Each of these features demonstrates some level of cohesion between their
constituent parts and a certain degree of disjunction7 with what comes before or after8
3 Lexical roots are designated by an asterisk eg δικ 4 Johannes P Louw and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic
Domains (2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989) 5 Morphological searches have been carried out with Bibleworks 7 6 Stephen H Levinsohn Discourse Features of New Testament Greek (2d ed Dallas SIL International 2000)
Grace E Sherman and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine Epistles (Dallas SIL
International 1994) 7 For lack of an exact opposite the words ldquodisunityrdquo and ldquodisjunctionrdquo are used throughout this essay
to mean the opposite of ldquocohesionrdquo 8 ldquoExtended chiasmrdquo is also know as ldquoinverted parallelismrdquo or ldquoconcentric symmetryrdquo For explanation
of this and other features such as simple chiasm and inclusio see John D Harvey Listening to the Text Oral
4
Finally there are a number of boundary features which are useful to observe While
these features on their own rarely provide enough evidence to decide on a textrsquos structure
when one or more are found in unison with other discourse features they add considerable
weight to the conclusion about cohesion For example coordinating conjunctions
asyndeton () vocatives imperatives all fall into this category Once again it must be kept
in mind that such analysis of boundary features and conjunctions is a relatively new
discipline
Nomenclature
Certain words phrases and symbols are used throughout this essay with specific meanings
It will be useful to give brief explanations of some such words at the outset
A lsquo(Word) Clusterrsquo refers to the repeated use of the same word or words of the same
root within close proximity Malcolm Coombes has identified that this feature is very
significant in determining the structure of 1 John9 The repetition of words close to each
other is a deliberate feature of Johnrsquos writing A number of passages could be cited in
support of this observation however three clear examples will suffice Firstly the verb
ἀπνέομαι occurs only three times in 1 John 2222 23 The significance of this cluster is
further emphasised when 43b is taken into consideration Here the author could have
added a further use of ἀπνέομαι instead μὴ ὁμολογεῖ is used Similarly the noun μαπστπία
occurs a total of 6 times and all of these occurrences are in 59-11 (accompanied by two
occurrences of the cognate verb μαπστπέψ in 56-7)10 Not all word clusters are exclusive or
unique as a third example will demonstrate The noun κόςμορ occurs 23 times throughout
the letter yet there are three notable clusters 215-16 43-5 and 54-5 The implications of
such clusters will be investigated and explained further as we examine the text of 1 John
and attempt to determine whether or not section or unit breaks occur at certain points
A further detail of vocabulary distribution which needs a brief introduction is that of
tail-head linkage This occurs when an author intends to forge some kind of connection
between two units It is best defined as a word cluster which spans a unit or section break Patterning in Pauls Letters (ETS Studies Leicester IVP 1998) 97-118 Craig Blomberg ldquoThe Structure of 2
Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1 (1998) 4-8 9 Malcolm Coombes ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo np Cited 19 March 2010
Online httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1Johnpdf 10 Other words occurring on only one cluster are ἀνθπψποκσόνορ (3152) ἀνομία (342) διάβολορ (383
10) διδάςκψ (2273) ἐπιθτμία (2162 17) ἔςφασορ (2182) καθαπίζψ (17 9) καινόρ (27 8) καπδία (319 202
21) κασαγινώςκψ (320 21) παλαιόρ (272) ςυάζψ (3122) σίθημι (3162) σπεῖρ (57 8) ὕδψπ (563 8) υόβορ
(4183) χτφή (3162) ὥπα (2182)
5
In other words a tail-head linkage in 1 John usually consists of a cluster of three or four
occurrences of the same word or words of the same root words occurring at the end of a
section or unit There will be at least one occurrence of the word in the first unit and at
least one further in the second See 324e and 41bc for an example using πνεῦμα where the
word occurs once at the end of a unit and twice more at the beginning of the next11
A lsquocolonrsquo is a term used to refer to ldquoa sentence unit consisting of a nominal and
verbal element together with all their syntactically dependent expansionsrdquo12 A colon can
be identified on purely syntactical grounds The cola of 1 John are clear from the diagram
The purpose of this essay is to examine how such cola relate to one another
A lsquounitrsquo () is a fairly small yet distinct portion of text (usually 2-5 verses) which is
held together by any number of cohesive factors (eg clusters inclusio chiasm) Each
individual unit will be examined explained and defined in the body of this essay
Finally a lsquosectionrsquo (sect) refers to a larger portion of text made up of multiple units
which tie themselves together in some manner
The term lsquopartsrsquo is used to refer to divisions made by others or to breaks without
the technical senses mentioned above This term is adopted to avoid confusion in using
terms such as lsquounitrsquo or lsquosectionrsquo in describing the work of others
Superscript Arabic numerals immediately following a verse reference signify the
number of times a given word or phrase occurs within that verse These notes should not
be confused with bibliographic footnote references (which usually occur after a comma or
period) or edition information for standard SBL abbreviations (eg USB4 NA27)13
11 George Guthrie The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis (Brill 1994) 96-97 12 Peter Cotterell and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove IVP 1998) 201 13 In order to avoid unnecessary confusion some bibliographic footnote references have been placed
immediately after the relevant word or phrase rather than being shifted to the end of the clause or sentence
as recommended by SBLHS
6
Existing Structural Proposals
It is far beyond the scope of this essay to cite exhaustively all writers and all structural
proposals for 1 John However over time three main groups have emerged into which one
can divide most writings on the subject One significant proponent of each group will be
presented and evaluated Firstly a lsquocyclical viewrsquo like that of Robert Law secondly a two-
part structure pioneered by Raymond Brown (lsquoa bipartite viewrsquo) and finally a less
conclusive proposal like that of I Howard Marshall (lsquoa linear viewrsquo)
Views Presented in Major Commentaries
Robert Law ndash A Cyclical View
Lawrsquos work although first published in 1909 has found considerable support amongst
scholars His proposal is characteristic of those which seek to divide and arrange the
material of 1 John according to themes or theological content Although quite dated his
proposal is considered worthy of attention due to the following it has received Brown calls
it ldquoone of the most famous and influential divisionsrdquo14 One or another form of cyclical
structure is proposed by Bruce Burdick and Stott15 Lawrsquos structure is also remarkably
14 Raymond E Brown The Epistles of John (vol 30 AB London Doubleday 1982) 121 15 F F Bruce The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992) 29 Donald W Burdick The Epistles of John
(Chicago Moody Press 1970) 14-17 John Stott The Letters of John (2d ed TNTC Leicester IVP 1990) 61
7
similar to the work of Theodor Haumlring although they worked and published
independently16
Law uses two words to summarise his view of the structure of 1 John ldquospiralrdquo and
ldquotestsrdquo It is ldquospiralrdquo because the progression of thought is not simply linear one idea after
the next in a straight line as is usually the case in Western literature Rather the work is
arranged around a centre ldquoalways recurring to the same topics but at a higher levelrdquo He
goes on to illustrate ldquo[the author takes] two or three melodieshellip[and by]introducing
themhelliprepeating them inverting them skilfully interlacing themhelliprears up from them an
edifice of stately harmoniesrdquo Secondly Law summarises 1 John as a series of ldquotestsrdquo The
book is comprised of numerous sets of criteria by which believers may ldquosatisfy themselves
of their being ldquobegotten of Godrdquordquo17
The combination of these two ideas leads to Lawrsquos overall structure of the book
there are three cyclesspirals each of which consists of three tests ldquodoing righteousness
loving one another and believing that Jesus is the Christrdquo18
While it is true that Law (and those who follow variations of his structure) has provided a
useful summary of the content of the book and has no doubt made 1 John meaningful and
accessible to many readers since publication there are a number of problems with his
proposal
Firstly a number of section breaks occur at seemingly inappropriate points The
divisions between the major sections are not problematic and occur at logical places within
the book (eg 22829 and 467) However a number of Lawrsquos subdivisions are less
straightforward The start of Paragraph A (18) in the First Cycle is problematic ndash even Law
himself seems somewhat confused on the matter He recognises that there are ldquothree
parallel pairs of antithesisrdquo within 16-2219 yet suggests that 18 marks the start of
16 Theodor Haring ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo in Theologische
Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet (ed Adolf von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892) 171-200 For further
comment and comparison see A E Brooke The Johannine Epistles (ICC Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1912) xxxiv-
xxxvii Robert Law The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John (2d ed Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1909) 24 17 Law Tests 6 18 Law Tests 5-6 19 Law Tests 65
8
Paragraph A20 To suggest that a new paragraph or section starts between the first and
second of three parallel antithesis is awkward
Secondly Lawrsquos structure falls down towards the end of 1 John where the three tests
are reduced in number to only two and their order is reversed Law admits regarding the
closing section that ldquothe logical analysis of it is the hardest part of our taskrdquo21 If a cyclical
structure was in Johnrsquos mind as he wrote one might expect him to have maintained some
consistency in his presentation of the tests But according to Law this is not the case
Rather in the Third Cycle the number of main themes is reduced to two Law states that
ldquorighteousness takes a subordinate placerdquo22 The previously primary theme of
righteousness drops out completely as it is absent from both the section headings and the
synopsis of the third major division spanning from 47 to 521
Thirdly Lawrsquos structure fails to take account of or adequately deal with difficult
passages within 1 John the most notable of these being 212-14 According to Law these
verses are a mere parenthesis and his structure requires that they are ldquoomittedrdquo in order to
maintain ldquothe unity of the paragraphrdquo23 While there are parentheses in 1 John verses
should not be categorised as such without considerable support There is strong evidence
that 212-14 mark the start of a major new section on 1 John (see on page 25) Lawrsquos
degradation of these verses is unnecessary
20 Law Tests 8 It is clear from the context that by ldquoparagraphrdquo Law means something similar to the
concept of ldquounitrdquo as defined above 21 Law Tests 15 22 Law Tests 15 23 Law Tests 10
9
Raymond Brown ndash A Binary View
A second major group of proposals are those that divide the body (15-512) of 1 John into
two parts (usually with an introduction (11-4) and conclusion (513-21))24 Of those who see
two halves in the body of 1 John many propose that the division is based on a certain
connection with the Gospel of John Of such authors Brown is the most prominent25
Brownrsquos division of 1 John is tied closely to his understanding of the authorship and
historical context of the letter In Brownrsquos view 1 John has been written by an author who
is part of the Johannine community which due to differing interpretations of the Gospel of
John had divided The author of 1 John regards the secessionists as heterodox and is
writing to his own community26 Regarding structure specifically Brown writes
If the epistolary author is drawing upon the theology and wording of the Johannine
tradition embodied in GJohn and assumes the mantle of evangelist as an interpreter of
that traditionhellip a priori it is not inconceivable that he used GJohn as a model in
structuring his comments in 1 John27
Brown then goes on to elaborate this theory into true structure show above
There are a number of problems with Brownrsquos theory The first is that his structure is so
tightly linked to his view of authorship The structure and authorship of 1 John are two of
24 Brown Epistles 764 Stephen S Smalley 1 2 3 John (WBC Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984) 25 See also W Hall Harris III 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis (Dallas Biblical Studies
2003) 26 Brown Epistles 69-70 27 Brown Epistles 124
10
the most uncertain and debated aspects of Johannine scholarship Given the difficult
textual grammatical and linguistic issues related to such a structure it seems that Brownrsquos
proposal based on little more than a presupposition that 1 John is intended to imitate the
Gospel of John
A second issue with Brownrsquos proposal is his own seeming uncertainty about it When
stating his view he only does so negatively ldquoa priori it is not inconceivable that he used
GJohn as a modelhelliprdquo28 That a proposal is ldquonot inconceivablerdquo does not make it necessarily
true It may well be the case that the author used the style and vocabulary of the Gospel of
John as his starting point but this does not necessitate that he also borrowed the structure
And without strong evidence within the text to support it the theory is not adequate In
this same connection when Brown explains his divisions his own confession is that
determining the point of division of the body of 1 John into two parts is much more
difficult than identifying an introduction and conclusion29
In addition to these general objections given above there are both syntactical and
lexical problems with Brownrsquos divisions
The syntactical issue with Brownrsquos proposal is that he makes the second major
section of the book begin with an ὅσι clause He argues that 311 and 15 are grammatically
parallel phrases and should therefore each be understood as introducing the themes of part
one and part two of the book The primary problem here is that ὅσι is a subordinating
conjunction and therefore necessitates that it is connected with a superordinate clause (ie
310)30 As Culy comments ldquoAlthough such an analysis may make good sense of the themes
of the letter it ignores the surface structure The ὅσι makes it clear that syntactically 311 is
subordinate to 310rdquo31 A secondary problem with this assertion is that although there are
many grammatical and lexical links between 15 and 311 the claim that these two verses
alone are parallel does not take account of all the data and similar occurrences in 1 John32
A lexical issue with Brownrsquos division is his correlation of 1 John 513 and John 2031
It is claimed that these two verses parallel one another Although there are a number of
lexical links between the two verses there are three issue to consider Firstly it is widely
recognised that 1 John has similar vocabulary to the Gospel of John and so some too much
28 Brown Epistles 124 29 Brown Epistles 125 30 BDF lists ὅσι in ch11 part 3c ldquoSubordinating (Hypotactic) Conjunctionsrdquo 31 Martin M Culy I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco Baylor 2004) 80 32 See comments below on 225 and the occurrences of αὕση
11
should not be read into lexical links between John 2031 and 1 John 513 Secondly given
the frequency and variety of use of the verb γπάυψ in 1 John it is dangerous to read too
much into this one occurrence Finally there is a considerable number of differences
between these two verses which one would not expect to find if the epistolary author was
intending to use John 2031 as the model for 513 For example the verb tense-form in John
is perfect while in 1 John it is aorist Also the clause structure in 1 John is unusual (see
diagram) with the verb γπάυψ having two parallel direct objects one at either end of the
verse John 2031 has no such complex structure
Thus it can be concluded that Brown does little to convince his readers that his
theory is robust enough to allow for the difficult issues surrounding 1 John There are a
significant number of theological and grammatical issues which make his structural
proposal dubious
I H Marshall ndash A Linear View
Finally the work of more recent commentators has been content to stop short of a rigid or
hierarchical proposal Marshall surveys a number of existing proposals and concludes
12
ldquoit seems preferable to regard the Epistle as being composed of a series of connected
paragraphs whose relation to one another is governed by association of ideas rather
than by a logical plan This does not mean that John is illogical but rather that his
Epistle is not meant to be divided into large sections on a logical basisrdquo33
Such a lsquolinearrsquo structure is also adopted by Kruse Johnson and a number of others34
One the one hand Marshall is very wise to be cautious about dividing 1 John Given the
plethora of differing theories and the voluminous writing on the subject his
lsquoindecisivenessrsquo is refreshing Also Marshallrsquos recognition that some of the connections
between paragraphs may not seem ldquologicalrdquo to us (ie ldquoassociation of ideasrdquo) is insightful A
further benefit of Marshallrsquos work is his refusal to arrange paragraphs hierarchically
Marshallrsquos structure simply divides the text into units and makes little comment on their
interrelationships
On the other hand there are still a number of issues with such a proposal Whereas
other writers have made proposals in which thematic or theological considerations dictate
the divisions (eg Law) Marshallrsquos divisions seem to be determined by convenience (eg
seeking a limited number of paragraphs of similar length) in order to structure his
commentary This works out in two ways in some instances Marshall joins together verses
which do not demonstrate any connection to one another For example he connects of
212-14 and 215-17 These two units are treated together by many commentators even
though apart from their proximity to one another there are no indications that they
should be treated as such Rather each unit as its own distinct structure and vocabulary
Alternatively Marshall sometimes divides paragraphs despite strong textual evidence that
they are connected An example is the division between 412 and 1335 As will be explained
below these verses form part of one unit having a distinct structure which is within a
larger section characterised by ἀγαπ roots
View Presented in Articles
In recent years with the development of discourse analysis and text-linguistics there has
been a movement away from attempting to establish the structure of 1 John based upon
33 I Howard Marshall The Epistles of John (NICNT Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978) 26 34 Colin G Kruse The Letters of John (The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester Apollos 2000)
21 Thomas F Johnson 1 2 and 3 John (New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle Paternoster 1995) 15-
16 35 Marshall Epistles 26 See below for a fuller treatment of these units
13
thematic andor theological considerations Instead various writers have attempted to
determine the structure based upon linguistic theory and discourse features We shall
briefly review and critique three such attempts
Robert E Longacre
Longacre claims that ldquodiscourse analysis can suggest a natural outline of the bookrdquo36 He
goes on to outline a number of discourse features which he will analyse to elucidate such a
structure 1 John he claims is divided into sixteen paragraphs based on the position of
vocatives These sixteen paragraphs are subsequently grouped further into three sections
based on the distribution of γπάυψ an introduction (11-229) a body (31-512) and a
conclusion (513-21) Other features such as the genre of 1 John which Longacre takes to be
hortatory discourse the concept of peaks (ie ldquopoints of cumulative developmentrdquo)37 and
the macrostructure of the book (ldquoa summaryhellipof a text which is stated so that it gives the
central thrust of the whole workrdquo)38 are also brought to bear on the structure of the text
Longacre argues for a doctrinal and an ethical peak in both the introduction and the
body of the book Thus 212-17 and 41-6 form the ethical peaks and 218-27 and 47-21 the
doctrinal peaks The macrostructure of 1 John is seen to be 319-24 which immediately
precedes the dual peaks of the body
Longacrersquos commitment to deriving a structure of 1 John from discourse features of the
text itself is admirable and his work highlights a number of significant characteristics of 1
John Nevertheless there are some weaknesses with his approach The primary issue with
is Longacrersquos over-emphasis on a limited number of discourse features Although five
discourse features are outlined at the beginning of his paper the derivation of a structure
for 1 John is based upon only two of these features the use of vocatives and the distribution
of γπάυψ The other three discourse features are merely analysed to clarify the structure
In this regard Culy helpfully points out
36 Robert Longacre ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Textrdquo
in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed David Alan Black Katherine
Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 271 37 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 279 38 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 280
14
ldquoGiven this distribution of vocatives it is not inappropriate to recognize that this
particular writer frequently uses vocatives to help mark boundaries Such an observation
does not require that vocatives were always used in this wayrdquo39
Not only are vocatives not an absolute marker of boundaries but there are numerous other
features which Longacre largely ignores (eg lexical cohesion and participant reference)
A second major weakness in Longacrersquos proposal is his treatment of 212-14 Given
his focus on vocatives and γπάυψ it is significant that these three verses contain six
occurrences of each Longacre does claim that 212-17 is ldquoan ethical peakrdquo but this
conclusion is based on ldquoa strong exhortation not to love the worldrdquo (ie vv15-17) and not
on the vocatives or repetition of γπάυψ Similarly Longacre notes that the verb γπάυψ
switches from present to aorist use between 213 and 14 and that it does not occur again
until 513 While such data seems important Longacre fails to deal with it adequately since
his first major division of the book does not occur until 22931 Inexplicably it seems that
two verses which contain such a high concentration of Longacrersquos primary criteria are of
no special significance to him
Keir L Hansford
Hansfordrsquos basic premise is that 1 John is poetic He believes a structure can and should be
derived from treating and dividing 1 John in such a way His work is unusual in that he does
not provide an overall outline of the book but rather presents the entire text of the book
laid out in lines columns and strophes ldquoLinesrdquo are clauses or phrases in parallelism ldquoI
arguethe whole of the epistle was constructed out of parallelismsrdquo40 Hansford then
groups and divides lines in two ways horizontally and vertically Horizontally lines are
grouped into eighteen ldquostrophesrdquo which share certain key words At the same time lines
are divided into one of three vertical columns ldquothe authority of the apostlerdquo ldquohuman
actionsJesusrsquo ministryrdquo and ldquoGodrsquos creation and judgementrdquo Hansford also seeks to mark
all chiasms
As with many structural proposals for 1 John Hansfordrsquos has some beneficial
insights In attempting to structure the whole of 1 John he has paid acute attention to
details within the text This has proved to be a fruitful exercise especially in his
39 Culy A Handbook xvi 40 Keir L Hansford ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo JOTT 5 no 2 (1992) 128
15
identification of number of lsquomicro-parallelismrsquo and chiasms which have often been
overlooked
Despite these insights Hansfordrsquos overall structure and broad divisions are
problematic The first criticism is that under close inspection it becomes noticeable that a
number of Hansfordrsquos decisions are forced An example of a forced chiasm can be seen in
410-12 where ἠγαπήκαμεν in 410 is linked with σεθέασαι in 412 The two words have no
semantic overlap and it is difficult to see how they can be related other than they both
have θεὸν as their object Similarly issues regarding the column divisions can be seen at
39 The initial part of the verse πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ (the subject of the clause)
is placed in the second column (ldquohuman actionJesusrsquo ministryrdquo) while the second part
ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιει (the predicate and object) is placed in the third column (ldquoGodrsquos reaction
and judgementrdquo) These phrases do not naturally fit with the thematic topics of the
columns into which they are placed
Secondly the ldquokeywordsrdquo that are listed for each strophe seem arbitrary Each of the
eighteen strophes has on average between 15-20 keywords While some of these keywords
are unique to that portion of text other words such as ldquotruthrdquo ldquoJesusrdquo ldquoChristrdquo ldquoFatherrdquo
ldquoknowrdquo and ldquobelieverdquo occur in multiple strophes When the general and rather limited
vocabulary of the whole book is considered it becomes evident that some of the keywords
are not particular to any strophe but rather to the whole of 1 John
Thirdly it is possible that what Hansford considers to be poetic features of the text
could be explained in other ways For example the reversal of word order of verb and
subject is mentioned twice in his article as evidence of parallelism and chiasm41 It is
possible however that such a switch can be justified by other discourse features and issues
of information structure Hansford does not give details or references to the clauses he is
referring to and so it is difficult to decide either way However it must be kept in mind that
there may be other explanations for such features
Finally if the author intended such rigid parallelism it seems strange that not all
the parallels are as clear as those in 212-14 Hansford fails to take account of the clear
differences between portions of the text In Hansfordrsquos outline 212-14 which without
doubt demonstrate the clearest parallelisms blend in to his poetry and do not stand out at
all as they do when the text of 1 John is read as a whole
41 Hansford ldquoPoetic Structurerdquo 129 135
16
John Christopher Thomas
Thomas admirably sets out to focus ldquoattention on the structure of 1 John as revealed by
the text itself and seeks as far as possible to allow the text to reveal its shape on its own
termsrdquo42 The outcome of Thomas work is to suggest a chiastic structure to the book as a
whole Thomas makes clear that he is well aware of the dangers and criticisms that such
proposals have faced in the past Nevertheless he suggests that 1 John divides into 11
sections 10 of which are parallel one being central The overall chiastic structure is shown
above Thomas understands each parallel section to vaguely share a common theme or
topic eg making God a liar antichrists confidence with the central section being entitled
ldquoLove one anotherrdquo43
There are a number of problems with Thomasrsquo extended chiasm Firstly Thomas claims
that the central section of the book (section F 311-18) is focussed on loving one another
Not only does this begin a new unit with an ὅσι clause (see the treatment of Brownrsquos work
above and the discussion on 225 below for the syntactical problems associated with such a
division) but it also fails to take note that the ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλοτρ occurs more frequently
outside of this section than inside44 Similarly so with sections E and E` (228-310 and 319-
24) which are entitled ldquoConfidencerdquo The noun παππηςία occurs four times in 1 John but
only two occurrences are with these units45
42 John Christopher Thomas ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo NT 40 no 4 (1998) 371 43 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 373 44 This ἵνα clause occurs at 311 but also at 323 47 and 12 45 See 228 321 417 and 514
17
Secondly although Thomas seeks not to overstretch the links between the parallel
sections of his chiasm46 his claim that ldquothe use of similar catch wordsphraseswhich
parallel one anotherrdquo indicate that he expects his parallel sections to have to a greater or
lesser degree similar words and phrases If such is the case it is very strange that the
primary and central theme of 15-22 (ie light and darkness which occurs 13 times in those
verses) does not reappear in its parallel section (56-12) While it is true that Thomasrsquo
criteria allows that not every detail of every section will be parallel a parallelism where the
primary these are not paralleled is perculiar
A further problem with sections B and B` is Thomasrsquo comment ldquoA final point of
contact is that both passages begin with similar statements ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo in
15 and ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo in 56rdquo47 In both English and Greek it is difficult to
see how these two phrases can be correlated
Καὶ ἔςσιν αὕση ἡ ἀγγελία Οὗσόρ ἐςσιν ὁ ἐλθὼν
ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo
Although both have ἔςσιν and a demonstrative pronoun the similarity ends there The
word orders are different as is the gender of the pronoun One begins with a coordinating
conjunction the other with asyndeton One has as its subject a feminine abstract noun the
other an articular participle
Thus even with Thomasrsquo relatively loose criteria of what constitutes an extended
chiasm it is clear that 1 John as a whole refuses to be organised so neatly
46 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 372 47 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 379
18
An Analysis of Discourse Features in 1 John
Inherent Structure
Despite the widely varying theories for structure in 1 John most writers recognise that
structure is not absolutely alien to the author48 There are some portions of the book which
are unanimously agreed upon as distinct parts The two most obvious examples are 11-4
and 212-14 Aside from its complex grammatical and syntactical issues 11-4 is universally
recognised by writers and commentators as a single part which introduces the main
topic(s) of Johnrsquos first letter Similarly the lexical cohesion and repetition of 212-14 prove
beyond any doubt that John was able skilfully and carefully to construct literary units
We shall now proceed through the text of 1 John identifying major sections and
particular units using the methodology outlined above derived from cohesive features of
the text before drawing conclusions about an overall structure of the book
sect11-4
1 John 11-4 forms an introduction to the whole book49 The main clause (3c) is introduced
by an initial relative clause which is subsequently modified by three parallel relative
clauses (1b c d) in turn modified by a prepositional phrase (1f) and a parenthetical
48 See Brown Epistles 118 49 Smalley 1 2 3 John 4 15
19
comment (2a-f)50 3a starts with a resumptive relative clause before introducing the main
indicative verb (ἀπαγγέλλομεν)51 11a-3c form one complex colon and are therefore
syntactically cohesive
There are a number of additional cohesive features within these verses There is
inclusio of the verbs ἀκούψ and ὀπάψ in 1c3b and 1d3a respectively Similarly so the use
of υανεπόψ at the beginning and end of the parenthetic v2 (a and f) Also 1st person plural
verbs are used repeatedly throughout and are juxtaposed with 2nd person pronominal
references to the recipients This combination of 1st and 2nd person reference introduces the
two primary lsquocharactersrsquo in the letter Lastly the feminine noun ζψή is introduced
immediately prior to the parenthesis of v2 (1f) and is referred to in all four cola within the
parenthesis ndash twice by repetition of the noun (forming another inclusio) and twice by
ellipsis of the direct object of the transitive verbs ὀπάψ and μαπστπέψ
The complexities of the grammar52 and the textual issues53 make no difference to the
structure or cohesion of the passage
sect15-211
After an initial introduction 1 Johnrsquos first section starts at 15 and continues through to
211 This section is made up of three units
50 Judith M Lieu I II amp III John A Commentary (NTL Louisville Westminster John Knox 2008) 37 51 Culy A Handbook 7 52 Stott Letters 62 53 Bruce M Metzger A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed Stuttgart Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft 2002) 639
20
15-22
Unanimously agreed unit boundaries such as those of 11-4 do more than simply
demonstrate Johnrsquos literary abilities They also provide certain markers from which other
literary units can be determined If the introduction ends at 14 then 15 must begin a new
section Similarly if a new unit begins at 212 then the previous unit must end at 211 It
will be argued below that the verses in between (ie 15-211) form one large section
comprised of three units (15-22 23-7 28-11)
Callow has already done much of the work on 15-211 and it is unnecessary to repeat
all of his findings54 Rather a few complementary observations will be made
15-10 are tied together by their use of 3rd class conditional sentences 16a 7a 8a 9a
and 10a all introduce a protasis with ἐὰν55 Vv6 8 and 10 make negative assertions while
54 John Callow ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament Approaches and
Results (ed Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed JSNTSupp Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1999) esp 402-
4 55 See Culy A Handbook xvii-xx on the nature of these conditionals as mitigated exhortations
21
vv7 and 9 are positive forming an alternating pattern Repetition of words and phrases
such as κοινψνία πεπιπασέψ and ldquoκαθαπίζει ἡμᾶρ ἀπὸ πάςηρ ἁμαπσίαρrdquo also tie these verses
together
The relation of 21-2 to 15-10 is debated Some see 21 as a parenthesis and v2
returning to the preceding thought as a sixth conditional clause adding a final positive
element56 Others understand both of these verses to be a parenthesis given that the
conditional clause is of a different nature to the preceding ones57 Given the shift from 1st
person verbs in the preceding conditionals to the 3rd person σὶρ in 21d it seems that the
latter is preferable In which case 21-2 form a parenthetical comment in between 110 and
23
23-6
56 Marshall Epistles 115-16 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 396-97 57 Stott Letters 84
22
23-6 are held together by the inclusio of ἐν σούσῳ γινώςκομεν in 23a and 5c58 These two
independent clauses are both elaborated on in 23b-5b and 6a-d respectively The
introduction and repetition of the ideas of keeping (σηπέψ) commands (ἐνσολή) tie vv3-5
together
23-6 at first glance seems distinct from 15-10 However the repetition of ὁ λέγψν
followed by both a negative (v4) and a positive (v6) claim has strong links back to the
conditional clauses of 15-10 Similarly although the vocabulary has changed from
κοινψνία to γινώςκψ the concept of relationship to God is still present Further still 15
and 23 can both be understood as introducing their individual units Each verse makes a
stark claim which is then elucidated and illustrated both positively and negatively A final
cohesive feature is that if 21-2 are a parenthesis as suggested above then there is
referential cohesion between 15 through to 2659 Θεόρ is introduced in 15 and thereafter
only referred to with pronominal references60
Given the cohesive features and the links with 15-10 it is therefore legitimate to
conclude that ldquothis section is in several aspects parallel tohellipthe preceding sectionrdquo61 23-6
constitute a new unit That the unit begins with καὶ need not raise concern Although this
is somewhat unexpected at boundary features the presence of καὶ alone does not carry
enough weight to rule out a unit boundary (cf 15)62 Paragraphs initiated with καὶ seem to
be a feature of 1 John63
58 The prepositional clause ἐν σούσῳ is also repeated in 4e and 5b however these occurrences are
anaphoric with a personal antecedent in 4a and 5a respectively The phrases in 3a and 5c are cataphoric and
refer to abstract concepts rather than specific individuals See Culy A Handbook 25 59 There is also a lone pronominal reference to God in 8b 60 The sole exception being the genitive phrase of 25b ἡ ἀγάπη σοῦ θεοῦ 61 C Haas M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for
Translators London United Bible Societies 1972) 43 62 Levinsohn Discourse Features 275 Kermit Titrud ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament
and an Application to 2 Peterrdquo in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed
David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 240-70 63 See 15 220 28 33 13 19 514
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
1
Introduction
It has long been recognised that 1 John poses a number of problems to its interpreters
There have been radically divergent views concerning authorship genre date and
historical context Similarly discussion of the structure and shape of 1 John has received
much attention yet found little common ground The challenge that now faces those who
wish to investigate the structure of 1 John is to learn from both the work of others and the
criticisms levelled at them
This essay aims to review some of the most popular proposals for structure within 1
John seeking to learn from both the positive and negative criticisms thereof Secondly this
essay seeks to propose a new structure for 1 John which is based entirely on features within
the text itself rather than those derived from outside sources
As with many subjects that have received much scholarly attention there are a
number of dangers to avoid The biggest danger is the proposal of a solution which is either
too speculative or based on too limited criteria Given the enigmatic nature of some of 1
John and its limited vocabulary there is a risk of deriving conclusions from presuppositions
rather than data This study seeks to be as rigorous as possible and whilst recognising that
all readers and writers will have some presuppositions it aims to build only upon what is
explicit in the text of 1 John1
1 The text used in this paper is that of UBS4 and NA27
2
Methodology
This essay will propose a new structure for 1 John based on features within the text The
methodology outlined below is one which seeks to allow as far as is possible the text to
speak for itself and assert its own boundaries and divisions It is recognised that no
examinations of this kind are free from an overarching theory and some presuppositions of
the analyst Therefore this methodology seeks to lay out plainly how the text of 1 John has
been handled
The first task in studying the text of 1 John is to gain a clear grasp of its syntax
Careful analysis of the syntax of a passage has a number of benefits the primary one being
that it forces the analyst to pay close attention to what the author actually wrote There is
often a tendency especially with those who are familiar with biblical texts to assume that
the content and meaning of a passage is known andor understood The ever present
danger is that we allow our existing lsquoframeworkrsquo of biblical and theological knowledge to
impose an interpretation onto a text In contrast responsible hermeneutics insists that a
text is in authority over our existing framework As Erickson notes
hellipthe text is all we have For this reason understanding language structure and semantic
structure which give texts their communicative power is an essential part of the
interpretive method2
If the author of a text intended it to be broken down into smaller units then there will be
evidence within the text itself (eg changes in topic vocabulary person number etc)
There are literary devices available to authors to mark where such breaks are made
Through care analysis of syntax such clues be uncovered Such is the aim of this essay
The primary means used for analysing the syntax of 1 John is diagrammatic
representation of the entire text A diagram of each unit of 1 John is provided alongside
discussion that unit The diagrams aim to systematically lay out the syntactic relationships
between clauses Semantic relationships such as the precise nature of adverbial clauses
are not highlighted in the diagrams but important semantic relationships will be
mentioned in the body of the essay Once the entire text of 1 John has been diagrammed
and syntactic relationships examined other cohesive and discourse features can be
analysed Analysis of the text has been groups into four categories
2 Richard J Erickson A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical Method
(Downers Grove IVP 2005) 57 Emphasis original
3
Firstly grammatical cohesion There are two specific types of grammatical cohesion
which will be examined Firstly analysis of tense-form person number of words especially
verbs Such analysis often yields results in spotting parallelisms (see below) A second sub-
group of grammatical cohesion is lexical cohesion When the same words or words of the
same root3 are used repeatedly over a concentrated span of verses this is an indication of
some level of cohesion between these verses (see for example πνεῦμα in 41-6) This is not
an absolute rule For example the words καί and ὅσι are so common that it is difficult to
find a verse where it does not appear Nevertheless when verbs nouns and adjectives
occur repeatedly note should be taken Similarly so with words within similar ranges of
meaning or from the same semantic domain4 The study of lexical cohesion is helped by
the use of morphologically tagged electronic texts A combination of searches based on
lexical root frequency voice aspect etc can provide comprehensive data which makes
analysis quick and reliable5
Secondly participant tracking can demonstrate breaks in a text When for example
one participant fades from view and another comes into focus it is possible to suggest some
kind of break Participant tracking involves not only noting direct references to characters
but also pronouns and verb endings (see for example notes on 321-24 below) It must be
recognised however that such a discourse feature is a relatively new field of study and
most of the research done has been carried out in the Gospels and narrative texts6
Thirdly various types of parallelism are significant The repetition of a single word or
phrase at the beginning or end of a unit (inclusio) the parallel use of specific grammatical
features simple chiastic structures extended chiastic structures or traditional parallelism
between two linesclauses all serve to join some cola together and separate them from
others Each of these features demonstrates some level of cohesion between their
constituent parts and a certain degree of disjunction7 with what comes before or after8
3 Lexical roots are designated by an asterisk eg δικ 4 Johannes P Louw and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic
Domains (2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989) 5 Morphological searches have been carried out with Bibleworks 7 6 Stephen H Levinsohn Discourse Features of New Testament Greek (2d ed Dallas SIL International 2000)
Grace E Sherman and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine Epistles (Dallas SIL
International 1994) 7 For lack of an exact opposite the words ldquodisunityrdquo and ldquodisjunctionrdquo are used throughout this essay
to mean the opposite of ldquocohesionrdquo 8 ldquoExtended chiasmrdquo is also know as ldquoinverted parallelismrdquo or ldquoconcentric symmetryrdquo For explanation
of this and other features such as simple chiasm and inclusio see John D Harvey Listening to the Text Oral
4
Finally there are a number of boundary features which are useful to observe While
these features on their own rarely provide enough evidence to decide on a textrsquos structure
when one or more are found in unison with other discourse features they add considerable
weight to the conclusion about cohesion For example coordinating conjunctions
asyndeton () vocatives imperatives all fall into this category Once again it must be kept
in mind that such analysis of boundary features and conjunctions is a relatively new
discipline
Nomenclature
Certain words phrases and symbols are used throughout this essay with specific meanings
It will be useful to give brief explanations of some such words at the outset
A lsquo(Word) Clusterrsquo refers to the repeated use of the same word or words of the same
root within close proximity Malcolm Coombes has identified that this feature is very
significant in determining the structure of 1 John9 The repetition of words close to each
other is a deliberate feature of Johnrsquos writing A number of passages could be cited in
support of this observation however three clear examples will suffice Firstly the verb
ἀπνέομαι occurs only three times in 1 John 2222 23 The significance of this cluster is
further emphasised when 43b is taken into consideration Here the author could have
added a further use of ἀπνέομαι instead μὴ ὁμολογεῖ is used Similarly the noun μαπστπία
occurs a total of 6 times and all of these occurrences are in 59-11 (accompanied by two
occurrences of the cognate verb μαπστπέψ in 56-7)10 Not all word clusters are exclusive or
unique as a third example will demonstrate The noun κόςμορ occurs 23 times throughout
the letter yet there are three notable clusters 215-16 43-5 and 54-5 The implications of
such clusters will be investigated and explained further as we examine the text of 1 John
and attempt to determine whether or not section or unit breaks occur at certain points
A further detail of vocabulary distribution which needs a brief introduction is that of
tail-head linkage This occurs when an author intends to forge some kind of connection
between two units It is best defined as a word cluster which spans a unit or section break Patterning in Pauls Letters (ETS Studies Leicester IVP 1998) 97-118 Craig Blomberg ldquoThe Structure of 2
Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1 (1998) 4-8 9 Malcolm Coombes ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo np Cited 19 March 2010
Online httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1Johnpdf 10 Other words occurring on only one cluster are ἀνθπψποκσόνορ (3152) ἀνομία (342) διάβολορ (383
10) διδάςκψ (2273) ἐπιθτμία (2162 17) ἔςφασορ (2182) καθαπίζψ (17 9) καινόρ (27 8) καπδία (319 202
21) κασαγινώςκψ (320 21) παλαιόρ (272) ςυάζψ (3122) σίθημι (3162) σπεῖρ (57 8) ὕδψπ (563 8) υόβορ
(4183) χτφή (3162) ὥπα (2182)
5
In other words a tail-head linkage in 1 John usually consists of a cluster of three or four
occurrences of the same word or words of the same root words occurring at the end of a
section or unit There will be at least one occurrence of the word in the first unit and at
least one further in the second See 324e and 41bc for an example using πνεῦμα where the
word occurs once at the end of a unit and twice more at the beginning of the next11
A lsquocolonrsquo is a term used to refer to ldquoa sentence unit consisting of a nominal and
verbal element together with all their syntactically dependent expansionsrdquo12 A colon can
be identified on purely syntactical grounds The cola of 1 John are clear from the diagram
The purpose of this essay is to examine how such cola relate to one another
A lsquounitrsquo () is a fairly small yet distinct portion of text (usually 2-5 verses) which is
held together by any number of cohesive factors (eg clusters inclusio chiasm) Each
individual unit will be examined explained and defined in the body of this essay
Finally a lsquosectionrsquo (sect) refers to a larger portion of text made up of multiple units
which tie themselves together in some manner
The term lsquopartsrsquo is used to refer to divisions made by others or to breaks without
the technical senses mentioned above This term is adopted to avoid confusion in using
terms such as lsquounitrsquo or lsquosectionrsquo in describing the work of others
Superscript Arabic numerals immediately following a verse reference signify the
number of times a given word or phrase occurs within that verse These notes should not
be confused with bibliographic footnote references (which usually occur after a comma or
period) or edition information for standard SBL abbreviations (eg USB4 NA27)13
11 George Guthrie The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis (Brill 1994) 96-97 12 Peter Cotterell and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove IVP 1998) 201 13 In order to avoid unnecessary confusion some bibliographic footnote references have been placed
immediately after the relevant word or phrase rather than being shifted to the end of the clause or sentence
as recommended by SBLHS
6
Existing Structural Proposals
It is far beyond the scope of this essay to cite exhaustively all writers and all structural
proposals for 1 John However over time three main groups have emerged into which one
can divide most writings on the subject One significant proponent of each group will be
presented and evaluated Firstly a lsquocyclical viewrsquo like that of Robert Law secondly a two-
part structure pioneered by Raymond Brown (lsquoa bipartite viewrsquo) and finally a less
conclusive proposal like that of I Howard Marshall (lsquoa linear viewrsquo)
Views Presented in Major Commentaries
Robert Law ndash A Cyclical View
Lawrsquos work although first published in 1909 has found considerable support amongst
scholars His proposal is characteristic of those which seek to divide and arrange the
material of 1 John according to themes or theological content Although quite dated his
proposal is considered worthy of attention due to the following it has received Brown calls
it ldquoone of the most famous and influential divisionsrdquo14 One or another form of cyclical
structure is proposed by Bruce Burdick and Stott15 Lawrsquos structure is also remarkably
14 Raymond E Brown The Epistles of John (vol 30 AB London Doubleday 1982) 121 15 F F Bruce The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992) 29 Donald W Burdick The Epistles of John
(Chicago Moody Press 1970) 14-17 John Stott The Letters of John (2d ed TNTC Leicester IVP 1990) 61
7
similar to the work of Theodor Haumlring although they worked and published
independently16
Law uses two words to summarise his view of the structure of 1 John ldquospiralrdquo and
ldquotestsrdquo It is ldquospiralrdquo because the progression of thought is not simply linear one idea after
the next in a straight line as is usually the case in Western literature Rather the work is
arranged around a centre ldquoalways recurring to the same topics but at a higher levelrdquo He
goes on to illustrate ldquo[the author takes] two or three melodieshellip[and by]introducing
themhelliprepeating them inverting them skilfully interlacing themhelliprears up from them an
edifice of stately harmoniesrdquo Secondly Law summarises 1 John as a series of ldquotestsrdquo The
book is comprised of numerous sets of criteria by which believers may ldquosatisfy themselves
of their being ldquobegotten of Godrdquordquo17
The combination of these two ideas leads to Lawrsquos overall structure of the book
there are three cyclesspirals each of which consists of three tests ldquodoing righteousness
loving one another and believing that Jesus is the Christrdquo18
While it is true that Law (and those who follow variations of his structure) has provided a
useful summary of the content of the book and has no doubt made 1 John meaningful and
accessible to many readers since publication there are a number of problems with his
proposal
Firstly a number of section breaks occur at seemingly inappropriate points The
divisions between the major sections are not problematic and occur at logical places within
the book (eg 22829 and 467) However a number of Lawrsquos subdivisions are less
straightforward The start of Paragraph A (18) in the First Cycle is problematic ndash even Law
himself seems somewhat confused on the matter He recognises that there are ldquothree
parallel pairs of antithesisrdquo within 16-2219 yet suggests that 18 marks the start of
16 Theodor Haring ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo in Theologische
Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet (ed Adolf von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892) 171-200 For further
comment and comparison see A E Brooke The Johannine Epistles (ICC Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1912) xxxiv-
xxxvii Robert Law The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John (2d ed Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1909) 24 17 Law Tests 6 18 Law Tests 5-6 19 Law Tests 65
8
Paragraph A20 To suggest that a new paragraph or section starts between the first and
second of three parallel antithesis is awkward
Secondly Lawrsquos structure falls down towards the end of 1 John where the three tests
are reduced in number to only two and their order is reversed Law admits regarding the
closing section that ldquothe logical analysis of it is the hardest part of our taskrdquo21 If a cyclical
structure was in Johnrsquos mind as he wrote one might expect him to have maintained some
consistency in his presentation of the tests But according to Law this is not the case
Rather in the Third Cycle the number of main themes is reduced to two Law states that
ldquorighteousness takes a subordinate placerdquo22 The previously primary theme of
righteousness drops out completely as it is absent from both the section headings and the
synopsis of the third major division spanning from 47 to 521
Thirdly Lawrsquos structure fails to take account of or adequately deal with difficult
passages within 1 John the most notable of these being 212-14 According to Law these
verses are a mere parenthesis and his structure requires that they are ldquoomittedrdquo in order to
maintain ldquothe unity of the paragraphrdquo23 While there are parentheses in 1 John verses
should not be categorised as such without considerable support There is strong evidence
that 212-14 mark the start of a major new section on 1 John (see on page 25) Lawrsquos
degradation of these verses is unnecessary
20 Law Tests 8 It is clear from the context that by ldquoparagraphrdquo Law means something similar to the
concept of ldquounitrdquo as defined above 21 Law Tests 15 22 Law Tests 15 23 Law Tests 10
9
Raymond Brown ndash A Binary View
A second major group of proposals are those that divide the body (15-512) of 1 John into
two parts (usually with an introduction (11-4) and conclusion (513-21))24 Of those who see
two halves in the body of 1 John many propose that the division is based on a certain
connection with the Gospel of John Of such authors Brown is the most prominent25
Brownrsquos division of 1 John is tied closely to his understanding of the authorship and
historical context of the letter In Brownrsquos view 1 John has been written by an author who
is part of the Johannine community which due to differing interpretations of the Gospel of
John had divided The author of 1 John regards the secessionists as heterodox and is
writing to his own community26 Regarding structure specifically Brown writes
If the epistolary author is drawing upon the theology and wording of the Johannine
tradition embodied in GJohn and assumes the mantle of evangelist as an interpreter of
that traditionhellip a priori it is not inconceivable that he used GJohn as a model in
structuring his comments in 1 John27
Brown then goes on to elaborate this theory into true structure show above
There are a number of problems with Brownrsquos theory The first is that his structure is so
tightly linked to his view of authorship The structure and authorship of 1 John are two of
24 Brown Epistles 764 Stephen S Smalley 1 2 3 John (WBC Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984) 25 See also W Hall Harris III 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis (Dallas Biblical Studies
2003) 26 Brown Epistles 69-70 27 Brown Epistles 124
10
the most uncertain and debated aspects of Johannine scholarship Given the difficult
textual grammatical and linguistic issues related to such a structure it seems that Brownrsquos
proposal based on little more than a presupposition that 1 John is intended to imitate the
Gospel of John
A second issue with Brownrsquos proposal is his own seeming uncertainty about it When
stating his view he only does so negatively ldquoa priori it is not inconceivable that he used
GJohn as a modelhelliprdquo28 That a proposal is ldquonot inconceivablerdquo does not make it necessarily
true It may well be the case that the author used the style and vocabulary of the Gospel of
John as his starting point but this does not necessitate that he also borrowed the structure
And without strong evidence within the text to support it the theory is not adequate In
this same connection when Brown explains his divisions his own confession is that
determining the point of division of the body of 1 John into two parts is much more
difficult than identifying an introduction and conclusion29
In addition to these general objections given above there are both syntactical and
lexical problems with Brownrsquos divisions
The syntactical issue with Brownrsquos proposal is that he makes the second major
section of the book begin with an ὅσι clause He argues that 311 and 15 are grammatically
parallel phrases and should therefore each be understood as introducing the themes of part
one and part two of the book The primary problem here is that ὅσι is a subordinating
conjunction and therefore necessitates that it is connected with a superordinate clause (ie
310)30 As Culy comments ldquoAlthough such an analysis may make good sense of the themes
of the letter it ignores the surface structure The ὅσι makes it clear that syntactically 311 is
subordinate to 310rdquo31 A secondary problem with this assertion is that although there are
many grammatical and lexical links between 15 and 311 the claim that these two verses
alone are parallel does not take account of all the data and similar occurrences in 1 John32
A lexical issue with Brownrsquos division is his correlation of 1 John 513 and John 2031
It is claimed that these two verses parallel one another Although there are a number of
lexical links between the two verses there are three issue to consider Firstly it is widely
recognised that 1 John has similar vocabulary to the Gospel of John and so some too much
28 Brown Epistles 124 29 Brown Epistles 125 30 BDF lists ὅσι in ch11 part 3c ldquoSubordinating (Hypotactic) Conjunctionsrdquo 31 Martin M Culy I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco Baylor 2004) 80 32 See comments below on 225 and the occurrences of αὕση
11
should not be read into lexical links between John 2031 and 1 John 513 Secondly given
the frequency and variety of use of the verb γπάυψ in 1 John it is dangerous to read too
much into this one occurrence Finally there is a considerable number of differences
between these two verses which one would not expect to find if the epistolary author was
intending to use John 2031 as the model for 513 For example the verb tense-form in John
is perfect while in 1 John it is aorist Also the clause structure in 1 John is unusual (see
diagram) with the verb γπάυψ having two parallel direct objects one at either end of the
verse John 2031 has no such complex structure
Thus it can be concluded that Brown does little to convince his readers that his
theory is robust enough to allow for the difficult issues surrounding 1 John There are a
significant number of theological and grammatical issues which make his structural
proposal dubious
I H Marshall ndash A Linear View
Finally the work of more recent commentators has been content to stop short of a rigid or
hierarchical proposal Marshall surveys a number of existing proposals and concludes
12
ldquoit seems preferable to regard the Epistle as being composed of a series of connected
paragraphs whose relation to one another is governed by association of ideas rather
than by a logical plan This does not mean that John is illogical but rather that his
Epistle is not meant to be divided into large sections on a logical basisrdquo33
Such a lsquolinearrsquo structure is also adopted by Kruse Johnson and a number of others34
One the one hand Marshall is very wise to be cautious about dividing 1 John Given the
plethora of differing theories and the voluminous writing on the subject his
lsquoindecisivenessrsquo is refreshing Also Marshallrsquos recognition that some of the connections
between paragraphs may not seem ldquologicalrdquo to us (ie ldquoassociation of ideasrdquo) is insightful A
further benefit of Marshallrsquos work is his refusal to arrange paragraphs hierarchically
Marshallrsquos structure simply divides the text into units and makes little comment on their
interrelationships
On the other hand there are still a number of issues with such a proposal Whereas
other writers have made proposals in which thematic or theological considerations dictate
the divisions (eg Law) Marshallrsquos divisions seem to be determined by convenience (eg
seeking a limited number of paragraphs of similar length) in order to structure his
commentary This works out in two ways in some instances Marshall joins together verses
which do not demonstrate any connection to one another For example he connects of
212-14 and 215-17 These two units are treated together by many commentators even
though apart from their proximity to one another there are no indications that they
should be treated as such Rather each unit as its own distinct structure and vocabulary
Alternatively Marshall sometimes divides paragraphs despite strong textual evidence that
they are connected An example is the division between 412 and 1335 As will be explained
below these verses form part of one unit having a distinct structure which is within a
larger section characterised by ἀγαπ roots
View Presented in Articles
In recent years with the development of discourse analysis and text-linguistics there has
been a movement away from attempting to establish the structure of 1 John based upon
33 I Howard Marshall The Epistles of John (NICNT Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978) 26 34 Colin G Kruse The Letters of John (The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester Apollos 2000)
21 Thomas F Johnson 1 2 and 3 John (New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle Paternoster 1995) 15-
16 35 Marshall Epistles 26 See below for a fuller treatment of these units
13
thematic andor theological considerations Instead various writers have attempted to
determine the structure based upon linguistic theory and discourse features We shall
briefly review and critique three such attempts
Robert E Longacre
Longacre claims that ldquodiscourse analysis can suggest a natural outline of the bookrdquo36 He
goes on to outline a number of discourse features which he will analyse to elucidate such a
structure 1 John he claims is divided into sixteen paragraphs based on the position of
vocatives These sixteen paragraphs are subsequently grouped further into three sections
based on the distribution of γπάυψ an introduction (11-229) a body (31-512) and a
conclusion (513-21) Other features such as the genre of 1 John which Longacre takes to be
hortatory discourse the concept of peaks (ie ldquopoints of cumulative developmentrdquo)37 and
the macrostructure of the book (ldquoa summaryhellipof a text which is stated so that it gives the
central thrust of the whole workrdquo)38 are also brought to bear on the structure of the text
Longacre argues for a doctrinal and an ethical peak in both the introduction and the
body of the book Thus 212-17 and 41-6 form the ethical peaks and 218-27 and 47-21 the
doctrinal peaks The macrostructure of 1 John is seen to be 319-24 which immediately
precedes the dual peaks of the body
Longacrersquos commitment to deriving a structure of 1 John from discourse features of the
text itself is admirable and his work highlights a number of significant characteristics of 1
John Nevertheless there are some weaknesses with his approach The primary issue with
is Longacrersquos over-emphasis on a limited number of discourse features Although five
discourse features are outlined at the beginning of his paper the derivation of a structure
for 1 John is based upon only two of these features the use of vocatives and the distribution
of γπάυψ The other three discourse features are merely analysed to clarify the structure
In this regard Culy helpfully points out
36 Robert Longacre ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Textrdquo
in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed David Alan Black Katherine
Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 271 37 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 279 38 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 280
14
ldquoGiven this distribution of vocatives it is not inappropriate to recognize that this
particular writer frequently uses vocatives to help mark boundaries Such an observation
does not require that vocatives were always used in this wayrdquo39
Not only are vocatives not an absolute marker of boundaries but there are numerous other
features which Longacre largely ignores (eg lexical cohesion and participant reference)
A second major weakness in Longacrersquos proposal is his treatment of 212-14 Given
his focus on vocatives and γπάυψ it is significant that these three verses contain six
occurrences of each Longacre does claim that 212-17 is ldquoan ethical peakrdquo but this
conclusion is based on ldquoa strong exhortation not to love the worldrdquo (ie vv15-17) and not
on the vocatives or repetition of γπάυψ Similarly Longacre notes that the verb γπάυψ
switches from present to aorist use between 213 and 14 and that it does not occur again
until 513 While such data seems important Longacre fails to deal with it adequately since
his first major division of the book does not occur until 22931 Inexplicably it seems that
two verses which contain such a high concentration of Longacrersquos primary criteria are of
no special significance to him
Keir L Hansford
Hansfordrsquos basic premise is that 1 John is poetic He believes a structure can and should be
derived from treating and dividing 1 John in such a way His work is unusual in that he does
not provide an overall outline of the book but rather presents the entire text of the book
laid out in lines columns and strophes ldquoLinesrdquo are clauses or phrases in parallelism ldquoI
arguethe whole of the epistle was constructed out of parallelismsrdquo40 Hansford then
groups and divides lines in two ways horizontally and vertically Horizontally lines are
grouped into eighteen ldquostrophesrdquo which share certain key words At the same time lines
are divided into one of three vertical columns ldquothe authority of the apostlerdquo ldquohuman
actionsJesusrsquo ministryrdquo and ldquoGodrsquos creation and judgementrdquo Hansford also seeks to mark
all chiasms
As with many structural proposals for 1 John Hansfordrsquos has some beneficial
insights In attempting to structure the whole of 1 John he has paid acute attention to
details within the text This has proved to be a fruitful exercise especially in his
39 Culy A Handbook xvi 40 Keir L Hansford ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo JOTT 5 no 2 (1992) 128
15
identification of number of lsquomicro-parallelismrsquo and chiasms which have often been
overlooked
Despite these insights Hansfordrsquos overall structure and broad divisions are
problematic The first criticism is that under close inspection it becomes noticeable that a
number of Hansfordrsquos decisions are forced An example of a forced chiasm can be seen in
410-12 where ἠγαπήκαμεν in 410 is linked with σεθέασαι in 412 The two words have no
semantic overlap and it is difficult to see how they can be related other than they both
have θεὸν as their object Similarly issues regarding the column divisions can be seen at
39 The initial part of the verse πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ (the subject of the clause)
is placed in the second column (ldquohuman actionJesusrsquo ministryrdquo) while the second part
ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιει (the predicate and object) is placed in the third column (ldquoGodrsquos reaction
and judgementrdquo) These phrases do not naturally fit with the thematic topics of the
columns into which they are placed
Secondly the ldquokeywordsrdquo that are listed for each strophe seem arbitrary Each of the
eighteen strophes has on average between 15-20 keywords While some of these keywords
are unique to that portion of text other words such as ldquotruthrdquo ldquoJesusrdquo ldquoChristrdquo ldquoFatherrdquo
ldquoknowrdquo and ldquobelieverdquo occur in multiple strophes When the general and rather limited
vocabulary of the whole book is considered it becomes evident that some of the keywords
are not particular to any strophe but rather to the whole of 1 John
Thirdly it is possible that what Hansford considers to be poetic features of the text
could be explained in other ways For example the reversal of word order of verb and
subject is mentioned twice in his article as evidence of parallelism and chiasm41 It is
possible however that such a switch can be justified by other discourse features and issues
of information structure Hansford does not give details or references to the clauses he is
referring to and so it is difficult to decide either way However it must be kept in mind that
there may be other explanations for such features
Finally if the author intended such rigid parallelism it seems strange that not all
the parallels are as clear as those in 212-14 Hansford fails to take account of the clear
differences between portions of the text In Hansfordrsquos outline 212-14 which without
doubt demonstrate the clearest parallelisms blend in to his poetry and do not stand out at
all as they do when the text of 1 John is read as a whole
41 Hansford ldquoPoetic Structurerdquo 129 135
16
John Christopher Thomas
Thomas admirably sets out to focus ldquoattention on the structure of 1 John as revealed by
the text itself and seeks as far as possible to allow the text to reveal its shape on its own
termsrdquo42 The outcome of Thomas work is to suggest a chiastic structure to the book as a
whole Thomas makes clear that he is well aware of the dangers and criticisms that such
proposals have faced in the past Nevertheless he suggests that 1 John divides into 11
sections 10 of which are parallel one being central The overall chiastic structure is shown
above Thomas understands each parallel section to vaguely share a common theme or
topic eg making God a liar antichrists confidence with the central section being entitled
ldquoLove one anotherrdquo43
There are a number of problems with Thomasrsquo extended chiasm Firstly Thomas claims
that the central section of the book (section F 311-18) is focussed on loving one another
Not only does this begin a new unit with an ὅσι clause (see the treatment of Brownrsquos work
above and the discussion on 225 below for the syntactical problems associated with such a
division) but it also fails to take note that the ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλοτρ occurs more frequently
outside of this section than inside44 Similarly so with sections E and E` (228-310 and 319-
24) which are entitled ldquoConfidencerdquo The noun παππηςία occurs four times in 1 John but
only two occurrences are with these units45
42 John Christopher Thomas ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo NT 40 no 4 (1998) 371 43 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 373 44 This ἵνα clause occurs at 311 but also at 323 47 and 12 45 See 228 321 417 and 514
17
Secondly although Thomas seeks not to overstretch the links between the parallel
sections of his chiasm46 his claim that ldquothe use of similar catch wordsphraseswhich
parallel one anotherrdquo indicate that he expects his parallel sections to have to a greater or
lesser degree similar words and phrases If such is the case it is very strange that the
primary and central theme of 15-22 (ie light and darkness which occurs 13 times in those
verses) does not reappear in its parallel section (56-12) While it is true that Thomasrsquo
criteria allows that not every detail of every section will be parallel a parallelism where the
primary these are not paralleled is perculiar
A further problem with sections B and B` is Thomasrsquo comment ldquoA final point of
contact is that both passages begin with similar statements ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo in
15 and ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo in 56rdquo47 In both English and Greek it is difficult to
see how these two phrases can be correlated
Καὶ ἔςσιν αὕση ἡ ἀγγελία Οὗσόρ ἐςσιν ὁ ἐλθὼν
ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo
Although both have ἔςσιν and a demonstrative pronoun the similarity ends there The
word orders are different as is the gender of the pronoun One begins with a coordinating
conjunction the other with asyndeton One has as its subject a feminine abstract noun the
other an articular participle
Thus even with Thomasrsquo relatively loose criteria of what constitutes an extended
chiasm it is clear that 1 John as a whole refuses to be organised so neatly
46 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 372 47 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 379
18
An Analysis of Discourse Features in 1 John
Inherent Structure
Despite the widely varying theories for structure in 1 John most writers recognise that
structure is not absolutely alien to the author48 There are some portions of the book which
are unanimously agreed upon as distinct parts The two most obvious examples are 11-4
and 212-14 Aside from its complex grammatical and syntactical issues 11-4 is universally
recognised by writers and commentators as a single part which introduces the main
topic(s) of Johnrsquos first letter Similarly the lexical cohesion and repetition of 212-14 prove
beyond any doubt that John was able skilfully and carefully to construct literary units
We shall now proceed through the text of 1 John identifying major sections and
particular units using the methodology outlined above derived from cohesive features of
the text before drawing conclusions about an overall structure of the book
sect11-4
1 John 11-4 forms an introduction to the whole book49 The main clause (3c) is introduced
by an initial relative clause which is subsequently modified by three parallel relative
clauses (1b c d) in turn modified by a prepositional phrase (1f) and a parenthetical
48 See Brown Epistles 118 49 Smalley 1 2 3 John 4 15
19
comment (2a-f)50 3a starts with a resumptive relative clause before introducing the main
indicative verb (ἀπαγγέλλομεν)51 11a-3c form one complex colon and are therefore
syntactically cohesive
There are a number of additional cohesive features within these verses There is
inclusio of the verbs ἀκούψ and ὀπάψ in 1c3b and 1d3a respectively Similarly so the use
of υανεπόψ at the beginning and end of the parenthetic v2 (a and f) Also 1st person plural
verbs are used repeatedly throughout and are juxtaposed with 2nd person pronominal
references to the recipients This combination of 1st and 2nd person reference introduces the
two primary lsquocharactersrsquo in the letter Lastly the feminine noun ζψή is introduced
immediately prior to the parenthesis of v2 (1f) and is referred to in all four cola within the
parenthesis ndash twice by repetition of the noun (forming another inclusio) and twice by
ellipsis of the direct object of the transitive verbs ὀπάψ and μαπστπέψ
The complexities of the grammar52 and the textual issues53 make no difference to the
structure or cohesion of the passage
sect15-211
After an initial introduction 1 Johnrsquos first section starts at 15 and continues through to
211 This section is made up of three units
50 Judith M Lieu I II amp III John A Commentary (NTL Louisville Westminster John Knox 2008) 37 51 Culy A Handbook 7 52 Stott Letters 62 53 Bruce M Metzger A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed Stuttgart Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft 2002) 639
20
15-22
Unanimously agreed unit boundaries such as those of 11-4 do more than simply
demonstrate Johnrsquos literary abilities They also provide certain markers from which other
literary units can be determined If the introduction ends at 14 then 15 must begin a new
section Similarly if a new unit begins at 212 then the previous unit must end at 211 It
will be argued below that the verses in between (ie 15-211) form one large section
comprised of three units (15-22 23-7 28-11)
Callow has already done much of the work on 15-211 and it is unnecessary to repeat
all of his findings54 Rather a few complementary observations will be made
15-10 are tied together by their use of 3rd class conditional sentences 16a 7a 8a 9a
and 10a all introduce a protasis with ἐὰν55 Vv6 8 and 10 make negative assertions while
54 John Callow ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament Approaches and
Results (ed Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed JSNTSupp Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1999) esp 402-
4 55 See Culy A Handbook xvii-xx on the nature of these conditionals as mitigated exhortations
21
vv7 and 9 are positive forming an alternating pattern Repetition of words and phrases
such as κοινψνία πεπιπασέψ and ldquoκαθαπίζει ἡμᾶρ ἀπὸ πάςηρ ἁμαπσίαρrdquo also tie these verses
together
The relation of 21-2 to 15-10 is debated Some see 21 as a parenthesis and v2
returning to the preceding thought as a sixth conditional clause adding a final positive
element56 Others understand both of these verses to be a parenthesis given that the
conditional clause is of a different nature to the preceding ones57 Given the shift from 1st
person verbs in the preceding conditionals to the 3rd person σὶρ in 21d it seems that the
latter is preferable In which case 21-2 form a parenthetical comment in between 110 and
23
23-6
56 Marshall Epistles 115-16 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 396-97 57 Stott Letters 84
22
23-6 are held together by the inclusio of ἐν σούσῳ γινώςκομεν in 23a and 5c58 These two
independent clauses are both elaborated on in 23b-5b and 6a-d respectively The
introduction and repetition of the ideas of keeping (σηπέψ) commands (ἐνσολή) tie vv3-5
together
23-6 at first glance seems distinct from 15-10 However the repetition of ὁ λέγψν
followed by both a negative (v4) and a positive (v6) claim has strong links back to the
conditional clauses of 15-10 Similarly although the vocabulary has changed from
κοινψνία to γινώςκψ the concept of relationship to God is still present Further still 15
and 23 can both be understood as introducing their individual units Each verse makes a
stark claim which is then elucidated and illustrated both positively and negatively A final
cohesive feature is that if 21-2 are a parenthesis as suggested above then there is
referential cohesion between 15 through to 2659 Θεόρ is introduced in 15 and thereafter
only referred to with pronominal references60
Given the cohesive features and the links with 15-10 it is therefore legitimate to
conclude that ldquothis section is in several aspects parallel tohellipthe preceding sectionrdquo61 23-6
constitute a new unit That the unit begins with καὶ need not raise concern Although this
is somewhat unexpected at boundary features the presence of καὶ alone does not carry
enough weight to rule out a unit boundary (cf 15)62 Paragraphs initiated with καὶ seem to
be a feature of 1 John63
58 The prepositional clause ἐν σούσῳ is also repeated in 4e and 5b however these occurrences are
anaphoric with a personal antecedent in 4a and 5a respectively The phrases in 3a and 5c are cataphoric and
refer to abstract concepts rather than specific individuals See Culy A Handbook 25 59 There is also a lone pronominal reference to God in 8b 60 The sole exception being the genitive phrase of 25b ἡ ἀγάπη σοῦ θεοῦ 61 C Haas M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for
Translators London United Bible Societies 1972) 43 62 Levinsohn Discourse Features 275 Kermit Titrud ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament
and an Application to 2 Peterrdquo in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed
David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 240-70 63 See 15 220 28 33 13 19 514
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
2
Methodology
This essay will propose a new structure for 1 John based on features within the text The
methodology outlined below is one which seeks to allow as far as is possible the text to
speak for itself and assert its own boundaries and divisions It is recognised that no
examinations of this kind are free from an overarching theory and some presuppositions of
the analyst Therefore this methodology seeks to lay out plainly how the text of 1 John has
been handled
The first task in studying the text of 1 John is to gain a clear grasp of its syntax
Careful analysis of the syntax of a passage has a number of benefits the primary one being
that it forces the analyst to pay close attention to what the author actually wrote There is
often a tendency especially with those who are familiar with biblical texts to assume that
the content and meaning of a passage is known andor understood The ever present
danger is that we allow our existing lsquoframeworkrsquo of biblical and theological knowledge to
impose an interpretation onto a text In contrast responsible hermeneutics insists that a
text is in authority over our existing framework As Erickson notes
hellipthe text is all we have For this reason understanding language structure and semantic
structure which give texts their communicative power is an essential part of the
interpretive method2
If the author of a text intended it to be broken down into smaller units then there will be
evidence within the text itself (eg changes in topic vocabulary person number etc)
There are literary devices available to authors to mark where such breaks are made
Through care analysis of syntax such clues be uncovered Such is the aim of this essay
The primary means used for analysing the syntax of 1 John is diagrammatic
representation of the entire text A diagram of each unit of 1 John is provided alongside
discussion that unit The diagrams aim to systematically lay out the syntactic relationships
between clauses Semantic relationships such as the precise nature of adverbial clauses
are not highlighted in the diagrams but important semantic relationships will be
mentioned in the body of the essay Once the entire text of 1 John has been diagrammed
and syntactic relationships examined other cohesive and discourse features can be
analysed Analysis of the text has been groups into four categories
2 Richard J Erickson A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical Method
(Downers Grove IVP 2005) 57 Emphasis original
3
Firstly grammatical cohesion There are two specific types of grammatical cohesion
which will be examined Firstly analysis of tense-form person number of words especially
verbs Such analysis often yields results in spotting parallelisms (see below) A second sub-
group of grammatical cohesion is lexical cohesion When the same words or words of the
same root3 are used repeatedly over a concentrated span of verses this is an indication of
some level of cohesion between these verses (see for example πνεῦμα in 41-6) This is not
an absolute rule For example the words καί and ὅσι are so common that it is difficult to
find a verse where it does not appear Nevertheless when verbs nouns and adjectives
occur repeatedly note should be taken Similarly so with words within similar ranges of
meaning or from the same semantic domain4 The study of lexical cohesion is helped by
the use of morphologically tagged electronic texts A combination of searches based on
lexical root frequency voice aspect etc can provide comprehensive data which makes
analysis quick and reliable5
Secondly participant tracking can demonstrate breaks in a text When for example
one participant fades from view and another comes into focus it is possible to suggest some
kind of break Participant tracking involves not only noting direct references to characters
but also pronouns and verb endings (see for example notes on 321-24 below) It must be
recognised however that such a discourse feature is a relatively new field of study and
most of the research done has been carried out in the Gospels and narrative texts6
Thirdly various types of parallelism are significant The repetition of a single word or
phrase at the beginning or end of a unit (inclusio) the parallel use of specific grammatical
features simple chiastic structures extended chiastic structures or traditional parallelism
between two linesclauses all serve to join some cola together and separate them from
others Each of these features demonstrates some level of cohesion between their
constituent parts and a certain degree of disjunction7 with what comes before or after8
3 Lexical roots are designated by an asterisk eg δικ 4 Johannes P Louw and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic
Domains (2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989) 5 Morphological searches have been carried out with Bibleworks 7 6 Stephen H Levinsohn Discourse Features of New Testament Greek (2d ed Dallas SIL International 2000)
Grace E Sherman and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine Epistles (Dallas SIL
International 1994) 7 For lack of an exact opposite the words ldquodisunityrdquo and ldquodisjunctionrdquo are used throughout this essay
to mean the opposite of ldquocohesionrdquo 8 ldquoExtended chiasmrdquo is also know as ldquoinverted parallelismrdquo or ldquoconcentric symmetryrdquo For explanation
of this and other features such as simple chiasm and inclusio see John D Harvey Listening to the Text Oral
4
Finally there are a number of boundary features which are useful to observe While
these features on their own rarely provide enough evidence to decide on a textrsquos structure
when one or more are found in unison with other discourse features they add considerable
weight to the conclusion about cohesion For example coordinating conjunctions
asyndeton () vocatives imperatives all fall into this category Once again it must be kept
in mind that such analysis of boundary features and conjunctions is a relatively new
discipline
Nomenclature
Certain words phrases and symbols are used throughout this essay with specific meanings
It will be useful to give brief explanations of some such words at the outset
A lsquo(Word) Clusterrsquo refers to the repeated use of the same word or words of the same
root within close proximity Malcolm Coombes has identified that this feature is very
significant in determining the structure of 1 John9 The repetition of words close to each
other is a deliberate feature of Johnrsquos writing A number of passages could be cited in
support of this observation however three clear examples will suffice Firstly the verb
ἀπνέομαι occurs only three times in 1 John 2222 23 The significance of this cluster is
further emphasised when 43b is taken into consideration Here the author could have
added a further use of ἀπνέομαι instead μὴ ὁμολογεῖ is used Similarly the noun μαπστπία
occurs a total of 6 times and all of these occurrences are in 59-11 (accompanied by two
occurrences of the cognate verb μαπστπέψ in 56-7)10 Not all word clusters are exclusive or
unique as a third example will demonstrate The noun κόςμορ occurs 23 times throughout
the letter yet there are three notable clusters 215-16 43-5 and 54-5 The implications of
such clusters will be investigated and explained further as we examine the text of 1 John
and attempt to determine whether or not section or unit breaks occur at certain points
A further detail of vocabulary distribution which needs a brief introduction is that of
tail-head linkage This occurs when an author intends to forge some kind of connection
between two units It is best defined as a word cluster which spans a unit or section break Patterning in Pauls Letters (ETS Studies Leicester IVP 1998) 97-118 Craig Blomberg ldquoThe Structure of 2
Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1 (1998) 4-8 9 Malcolm Coombes ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo np Cited 19 March 2010
Online httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1Johnpdf 10 Other words occurring on only one cluster are ἀνθπψποκσόνορ (3152) ἀνομία (342) διάβολορ (383
10) διδάςκψ (2273) ἐπιθτμία (2162 17) ἔςφασορ (2182) καθαπίζψ (17 9) καινόρ (27 8) καπδία (319 202
21) κασαγινώςκψ (320 21) παλαιόρ (272) ςυάζψ (3122) σίθημι (3162) σπεῖρ (57 8) ὕδψπ (563 8) υόβορ
(4183) χτφή (3162) ὥπα (2182)
5
In other words a tail-head linkage in 1 John usually consists of a cluster of three or four
occurrences of the same word or words of the same root words occurring at the end of a
section or unit There will be at least one occurrence of the word in the first unit and at
least one further in the second See 324e and 41bc for an example using πνεῦμα where the
word occurs once at the end of a unit and twice more at the beginning of the next11
A lsquocolonrsquo is a term used to refer to ldquoa sentence unit consisting of a nominal and
verbal element together with all their syntactically dependent expansionsrdquo12 A colon can
be identified on purely syntactical grounds The cola of 1 John are clear from the diagram
The purpose of this essay is to examine how such cola relate to one another
A lsquounitrsquo () is a fairly small yet distinct portion of text (usually 2-5 verses) which is
held together by any number of cohesive factors (eg clusters inclusio chiasm) Each
individual unit will be examined explained and defined in the body of this essay
Finally a lsquosectionrsquo (sect) refers to a larger portion of text made up of multiple units
which tie themselves together in some manner
The term lsquopartsrsquo is used to refer to divisions made by others or to breaks without
the technical senses mentioned above This term is adopted to avoid confusion in using
terms such as lsquounitrsquo or lsquosectionrsquo in describing the work of others
Superscript Arabic numerals immediately following a verse reference signify the
number of times a given word or phrase occurs within that verse These notes should not
be confused with bibliographic footnote references (which usually occur after a comma or
period) or edition information for standard SBL abbreviations (eg USB4 NA27)13
11 George Guthrie The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis (Brill 1994) 96-97 12 Peter Cotterell and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove IVP 1998) 201 13 In order to avoid unnecessary confusion some bibliographic footnote references have been placed
immediately after the relevant word or phrase rather than being shifted to the end of the clause or sentence
as recommended by SBLHS
6
Existing Structural Proposals
It is far beyond the scope of this essay to cite exhaustively all writers and all structural
proposals for 1 John However over time three main groups have emerged into which one
can divide most writings on the subject One significant proponent of each group will be
presented and evaluated Firstly a lsquocyclical viewrsquo like that of Robert Law secondly a two-
part structure pioneered by Raymond Brown (lsquoa bipartite viewrsquo) and finally a less
conclusive proposal like that of I Howard Marshall (lsquoa linear viewrsquo)
Views Presented in Major Commentaries
Robert Law ndash A Cyclical View
Lawrsquos work although first published in 1909 has found considerable support amongst
scholars His proposal is characteristic of those which seek to divide and arrange the
material of 1 John according to themes or theological content Although quite dated his
proposal is considered worthy of attention due to the following it has received Brown calls
it ldquoone of the most famous and influential divisionsrdquo14 One or another form of cyclical
structure is proposed by Bruce Burdick and Stott15 Lawrsquos structure is also remarkably
14 Raymond E Brown The Epistles of John (vol 30 AB London Doubleday 1982) 121 15 F F Bruce The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992) 29 Donald W Burdick The Epistles of John
(Chicago Moody Press 1970) 14-17 John Stott The Letters of John (2d ed TNTC Leicester IVP 1990) 61
7
similar to the work of Theodor Haumlring although they worked and published
independently16
Law uses two words to summarise his view of the structure of 1 John ldquospiralrdquo and
ldquotestsrdquo It is ldquospiralrdquo because the progression of thought is not simply linear one idea after
the next in a straight line as is usually the case in Western literature Rather the work is
arranged around a centre ldquoalways recurring to the same topics but at a higher levelrdquo He
goes on to illustrate ldquo[the author takes] two or three melodieshellip[and by]introducing
themhelliprepeating them inverting them skilfully interlacing themhelliprears up from them an
edifice of stately harmoniesrdquo Secondly Law summarises 1 John as a series of ldquotestsrdquo The
book is comprised of numerous sets of criteria by which believers may ldquosatisfy themselves
of their being ldquobegotten of Godrdquordquo17
The combination of these two ideas leads to Lawrsquos overall structure of the book
there are three cyclesspirals each of which consists of three tests ldquodoing righteousness
loving one another and believing that Jesus is the Christrdquo18
While it is true that Law (and those who follow variations of his structure) has provided a
useful summary of the content of the book and has no doubt made 1 John meaningful and
accessible to many readers since publication there are a number of problems with his
proposal
Firstly a number of section breaks occur at seemingly inappropriate points The
divisions between the major sections are not problematic and occur at logical places within
the book (eg 22829 and 467) However a number of Lawrsquos subdivisions are less
straightforward The start of Paragraph A (18) in the First Cycle is problematic ndash even Law
himself seems somewhat confused on the matter He recognises that there are ldquothree
parallel pairs of antithesisrdquo within 16-2219 yet suggests that 18 marks the start of
16 Theodor Haring ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo in Theologische
Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet (ed Adolf von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892) 171-200 For further
comment and comparison see A E Brooke The Johannine Epistles (ICC Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1912) xxxiv-
xxxvii Robert Law The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John (2d ed Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1909) 24 17 Law Tests 6 18 Law Tests 5-6 19 Law Tests 65
8
Paragraph A20 To suggest that a new paragraph or section starts between the first and
second of three parallel antithesis is awkward
Secondly Lawrsquos structure falls down towards the end of 1 John where the three tests
are reduced in number to only two and their order is reversed Law admits regarding the
closing section that ldquothe logical analysis of it is the hardest part of our taskrdquo21 If a cyclical
structure was in Johnrsquos mind as he wrote one might expect him to have maintained some
consistency in his presentation of the tests But according to Law this is not the case
Rather in the Third Cycle the number of main themes is reduced to two Law states that
ldquorighteousness takes a subordinate placerdquo22 The previously primary theme of
righteousness drops out completely as it is absent from both the section headings and the
synopsis of the third major division spanning from 47 to 521
Thirdly Lawrsquos structure fails to take account of or adequately deal with difficult
passages within 1 John the most notable of these being 212-14 According to Law these
verses are a mere parenthesis and his structure requires that they are ldquoomittedrdquo in order to
maintain ldquothe unity of the paragraphrdquo23 While there are parentheses in 1 John verses
should not be categorised as such without considerable support There is strong evidence
that 212-14 mark the start of a major new section on 1 John (see on page 25) Lawrsquos
degradation of these verses is unnecessary
20 Law Tests 8 It is clear from the context that by ldquoparagraphrdquo Law means something similar to the
concept of ldquounitrdquo as defined above 21 Law Tests 15 22 Law Tests 15 23 Law Tests 10
9
Raymond Brown ndash A Binary View
A second major group of proposals are those that divide the body (15-512) of 1 John into
two parts (usually with an introduction (11-4) and conclusion (513-21))24 Of those who see
two halves in the body of 1 John many propose that the division is based on a certain
connection with the Gospel of John Of such authors Brown is the most prominent25
Brownrsquos division of 1 John is tied closely to his understanding of the authorship and
historical context of the letter In Brownrsquos view 1 John has been written by an author who
is part of the Johannine community which due to differing interpretations of the Gospel of
John had divided The author of 1 John regards the secessionists as heterodox and is
writing to his own community26 Regarding structure specifically Brown writes
If the epistolary author is drawing upon the theology and wording of the Johannine
tradition embodied in GJohn and assumes the mantle of evangelist as an interpreter of
that traditionhellip a priori it is not inconceivable that he used GJohn as a model in
structuring his comments in 1 John27
Brown then goes on to elaborate this theory into true structure show above
There are a number of problems with Brownrsquos theory The first is that his structure is so
tightly linked to his view of authorship The structure and authorship of 1 John are two of
24 Brown Epistles 764 Stephen S Smalley 1 2 3 John (WBC Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984) 25 See also W Hall Harris III 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis (Dallas Biblical Studies
2003) 26 Brown Epistles 69-70 27 Brown Epistles 124
10
the most uncertain and debated aspects of Johannine scholarship Given the difficult
textual grammatical and linguistic issues related to such a structure it seems that Brownrsquos
proposal based on little more than a presupposition that 1 John is intended to imitate the
Gospel of John
A second issue with Brownrsquos proposal is his own seeming uncertainty about it When
stating his view he only does so negatively ldquoa priori it is not inconceivable that he used
GJohn as a modelhelliprdquo28 That a proposal is ldquonot inconceivablerdquo does not make it necessarily
true It may well be the case that the author used the style and vocabulary of the Gospel of
John as his starting point but this does not necessitate that he also borrowed the structure
And without strong evidence within the text to support it the theory is not adequate In
this same connection when Brown explains his divisions his own confession is that
determining the point of division of the body of 1 John into two parts is much more
difficult than identifying an introduction and conclusion29
In addition to these general objections given above there are both syntactical and
lexical problems with Brownrsquos divisions
The syntactical issue with Brownrsquos proposal is that he makes the second major
section of the book begin with an ὅσι clause He argues that 311 and 15 are grammatically
parallel phrases and should therefore each be understood as introducing the themes of part
one and part two of the book The primary problem here is that ὅσι is a subordinating
conjunction and therefore necessitates that it is connected with a superordinate clause (ie
310)30 As Culy comments ldquoAlthough such an analysis may make good sense of the themes
of the letter it ignores the surface structure The ὅσι makes it clear that syntactically 311 is
subordinate to 310rdquo31 A secondary problem with this assertion is that although there are
many grammatical and lexical links between 15 and 311 the claim that these two verses
alone are parallel does not take account of all the data and similar occurrences in 1 John32
A lexical issue with Brownrsquos division is his correlation of 1 John 513 and John 2031
It is claimed that these two verses parallel one another Although there are a number of
lexical links between the two verses there are three issue to consider Firstly it is widely
recognised that 1 John has similar vocabulary to the Gospel of John and so some too much
28 Brown Epistles 124 29 Brown Epistles 125 30 BDF lists ὅσι in ch11 part 3c ldquoSubordinating (Hypotactic) Conjunctionsrdquo 31 Martin M Culy I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco Baylor 2004) 80 32 See comments below on 225 and the occurrences of αὕση
11
should not be read into lexical links between John 2031 and 1 John 513 Secondly given
the frequency and variety of use of the verb γπάυψ in 1 John it is dangerous to read too
much into this one occurrence Finally there is a considerable number of differences
between these two verses which one would not expect to find if the epistolary author was
intending to use John 2031 as the model for 513 For example the verb tense-form in John
is perfect while in 1 John it is aorist Also the clause structure in 1 John is unusual (see
diagram) with the verb γπάυψ having two parallel direct objects one at either end of the
verse John 2031 has no such complex structure
Thus it can be concluded that Brown does little to convince his readers that his
theory is robust enough to allow for the difficult issues surrounding 1 John There are a
significant number of theological and grammatical issues which make his structural
proposal dubious
I H Marshall ndash A Linear View
Finally the work of more recent commentators has been content to stop short of a rigid or
hierarchical proposal Marshall surveys a number of existing proposals and concludes
12
ldquoit seems preferable to regard the Epistle as being composed of a series of connected
paragraphs whose relation to one another is governed by association of ideas rather
than by a logical plan This does not mean that John is illogical but rather that his
Epistle is not meant to be divided into large sections on a logical basisrdquo33
Such a lsquolinearrsquo structure is also adopted by Kruse Johnson and a number of others34
One the one hand Marshall is very wise to be cautious about dividing 1 John Given the
plethora of differing theories and the voluminous writing on the subject his
lsquoindecisivenessrsquo is refreshing Also Marshallrsquos recognition that some of the connections
between paragraphs may not seem ldquologicalrdquo to us (ie ldquoassociation of ideasrdquo) is insightful A
further benefit of Marshallrsquos work is his refusal to arrange paragraphs hierarchically
Marshallrsquos structure simply divides the text into units and makes little comment on their
interrelationships
On the other hand there are still a number of issues with such a proposal Whereas
other writers have made proposals in which thematic or theological considerations dictate
the divisions (eg Law) Marshallrsquos divisions seem to be determined by convenience (eg
seeking a limited number of paragraphs of similar length) in order to structure his
commentary This works out in two ways in some instances Marshall joins together verses
which do not demonstrate any connection to one another For example he connects of
212-14 and 215-17 These two units are treated together by many commentators even
though apart from their proximity to one another there are no indications that they
should be treated as such Rather each unit as its own distinct structure and vocabulary
Alternatively Marshall sometimes divides paragraphs despite strong textual evidence that
they are connected An example is the division between 412 and 1335 As will be explained
below these verses form part of one unit having a distinct structure which is within a
larger section characterised by ἀγαπ roots
View Presented in Articles
In recent years with the development of discourse analysis and text-linguistics there has
been a movement away from attempting to establish the structure of 1 John based upon
33 I Howard Marshall The Epistles of John (NICNT Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978) 26 34 Colin G Kruse The Letters of John (The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester Apollos 2000)
21 Thomas F Johnson 1 2 and 3 John (New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle Paternoster 1995) 15-
16 35 Marshall Epistles 26 See below for a fuller treatment of these units
13
thematic andor theological considerations Instead various writers have attempted to
determine the structure based upon linguistic theory and discourse features We shall
briefly review and critique three such attempts
Robert E Longacre
Longacre claims that ldquodiscourse analysis can suggest a natural outline of the bookrdquo36 He
goes on to outline a number of discourse features which he will analyse to elucidate such a
structure 1 John he claims is divided into sixteen paragraphs based on the position of
vocatives These sixteen paragraphs are subsequently grouped further into three sections
based on the distribution of γπάυψ an introduction (11-229) a body (31-512) and a
conclusion (513-21) Other features such as the genre of 1 John which Longacre takes to be
hortatory discourse the concept of peaks (ie ldquopoints of cumulative developmentrdquo)37 and
the macrostructure of the book (ldquoa summaryhellipof a text which is stated so that it gives the
central thrust of the whole workrdquo)38 are also brought to bear on the structure of the text
Longacre argues for a doctrinal and an ethical peak in both the introduction and the
body of the book Thus 212-17 and 41-6 form the ethical peaks and 218-27 and 47-21 the
doctrinal peaks The macrostructure of 1 John is seen to be 319-24 which immediately
precedes the dual peaks of the body
Longacrersquos commitment to deriving a structure of 1 John from discourse features of the
text itself is admirable and his work highlights a number of significant characteristics of 1
John Nevertheless there are some weaknesses with his approach The primary issue with
is Longacrersquos over-emphasis on a limited number of discourse features Although five
discourse features are outlined at the beginning of his paper the derivation of a structure
for 1 John is based upon only two of these features the use of vocatives and the distribution
of γπάυψ The other three discourse features are merely analysed to clarify the structure
In this regard Culy helpfully points out
36 Robert Longacre ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Textrdquo
in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed David Alan Black Katherine
Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 271 37 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 279 38 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 280
14
ldquoGiven this distribution of vocatives it is not inappropriate to recognize that this
particular writer frequently uses vocatives to help mark boundaries Such an observation
does not require that vocatives were always used in this wayrdquo39
Not only are vocatives not an absolute marker of boundaries but there are numerous other
features which Longacre largely ignores (eg lexical cohesion and participant reference)
A second major weakness in Longacrersquos proposal is his treatment of 212-14 Given
his focus on vocatives and γπάυψ it is significant that these three verses contain six
occurrences of each Longacre does claim that 212-17 is ldquoan ethical peakrdquo but this
conclusion is based on ldquoa strong exhortation not to love the worldrdquo (ie vv15-17) and not
on the vocatives or repetition of γπάυψ Similarly Longacre notes that the verb γπάυψ
switches from present to aorist use between 213 and 14 and that it does not occur again
until 513 While such data seems important Longacre fails to deal with it adequately since
his first major division of the book does not occur until 22931 Inexplicably it seems that
two verses which contain such a high concentration of Longacrersquos primary criteria are of
no special significance to him
Keir L Hansford
Hansfordrsquos basic premise is that 1 John is poetic He believes a structure can and should be
derived from treating and dividing 1 John in such a way His work is unusual in that he does
not provide an overall outline of the book but rather presents the entire text of the book
laid out in lines columns and strophes ldquoLinesrdquo are clauses or phrases in parallelism ldquoI
arguethe whole of the epistle was constructed out of parallelismsrdquo40 Hansford then
groups and divides lines in two ways horizontally and vertically Horizontally lines are
grouped into eighteen ldquostrophesrdquo which share certain key words At the same time lines
are divided into one of three vertical columns ldquothe authority of the apostlerdquo ldquohuman
actionsJesusrsquo ministryrdquo and ldquoGodrsquos creation and judgementrdquo Hansford also seeks to mark
all chiasms
As with many structural proposals for 1 John Hansfordrsquos has some beneficial
insights In attempting to structure the whole of 1 John he has paid acute attention to
details within the text This has proved to be a fruitful exercise especially in his
39 Culy A Handbook xvi 40 Keir L Hansford ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo JOTT 5 no 2 (1992) 128
15
identification of number of lsquomicro-parallelismrsquo and chiasms which have often been
overlooked
Despite these insights Hansfordrsquos overall structure and broad divisions are
problematic The first criticism is that under close inspection it becomes noticeable that a
number of Hansfordrsquos decisions are forced An example of a forced chiasm can be seen in
410-12 where ἠγαπήκαμεν in 410 is linked with σεθέασαι in 412 The two words have no
semantic overlap and it is difficult to see how they can be related other than they both
have θεὸν as their object Similarly issues regarding the column divisions can be seen at
39 The initial part of the verse πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ (the subject of the clause)
is placed in the second column (ldquohuman actionJesusrsquo ministryrdquo) while the second part
ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιει (the predicate and object) is placed in the third column (ldquoGodrsquos reaction
and judgementrdquo) These phrases do not naturally fit with the thematic topics of the
columns into which they are placed
Secondly the ldquokeywordsrdquo that are listed for each strophe seem arbitrary Each of the
eighteen strophes has on average between 15-20 keywords While some of these keywords
are unique to that portion of text other words such as ldquotruthrdquo ldquoJesusrdquo ldquoChristrdquo ldquoFatherrdquo
ldquoknowrdquo and ldquobelieverdquo occur in multiple strophes When the general and rather limited
vocabulary of the whole book is considered it becomes evident that some of the keywords
are not particular to any strophe but rather to the whole of 1 John
Thirdly it is possible that what Hansford considers to be poetic features of the text
could be explained in other ways For example the reversal of word order of verb and
subject is mentioned twice in his article as evidence of parallelism and chiasm41 It is
possible however that such a switch can be justified by other discourse features and issues
of information structure Hansford does not give details or references to the clauses he is
referring to and so it is difficult to decide either way However it must be kept in mind that
there may be other explanations for such features
Finally if the author intended such rigid parallelism it seems strange that not all
the parallels are as clear as those in 212-14 Hansford fails to take account of the clear
differences between portions of the text In Hansfordrsquos outline 212-14 which without
doubt demonstrate the clearest parallelisms blend in to his poetry and do not stand out at
all as they do when the text of 1 John is read as a whole
41 Hansford ldquoPoetic Structurerdquo 129 135
16
John Christopher Thomas
Thomas admirably sets out to focus ldquoattention on the structure of 1 John as revealed by
the text itself and seeks as far as possible to allow the text to reveal its shape on its own
termsrdquo42 The outcome of Thomas work is to suggest a chiastic structure to the book as a
whole Thomas makes clear that he is well aware of the dangers and criticisms that such
proposals have faced in the past Nevertheless he suggests that 1 John divides into 11
sections 10 of which are parallel one being central The overall chiastic structure is shown
above Thomas understands each parallel section to vaguely share a common theme or
topic eg making God a liar antichrists confidence with the central section being entitled
ldquoLove one anotherrdquo43
There are a number of problems with Thomasrsquo extended chiasm Firstly Thomas claims
that the central section of the book (section F 311-18) is focussed on loving one another
Not only does this begin a new unit with an ὅσι clause (see the treatment of Brownrsquos work
above and the discussion on 225 below for the syntactical problems associated with such a
division) but it also fails to take note that the ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλοτρ occurs more frequently
outside of this section than inside44 Similarly so with sections E and E` (228-310 and 319-
24) which are entitled ldquoConfidencerdquo The noun παππηςία occurs four times in 1 John but
only two occurrences are with these units45
42 John Christopher Thomas ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo NT 40 no 4 (1998) 371 43 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 373 44 This ἵνα clause occurs at 311 but also at 323 47 and 12 45 See 228 321 417 and 514
17
Secondly although Thomas seeks not to overstretch the links between the parallel
sections of his chiasm46 his claim that ldquothe use of similar catch wordsphraseswhich
parallel one anotherrdquo indicate that he expects his parallel sections to have to a greater or
lesser degree similar words and phrases If such is the case it is very strange that the
primary and central theme of 15-22 (ie light and darkness which occurs 13 times in those
verses) does not reappear in its parallel section (56-12) While it is true that Thomasrsquo
criteria allows that not every detail of every section will be parallel a parallelism where the
primary these are not paralleled is perculiar
A further problem with sections B and B` is Thomasrsquo comment ldquoA final point of
contact is that both passages begin with similar statements ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo in
15 and ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo in 56rdquo47 In both English and Greek it is difficult to
see how these two phrases can be correlated
Καὶ ἔςσιν αὕση ἡ ἀγγελία Οὗσόρ ἐςσιν ὁ ἐλθὼν
ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo
Although both have ἔςσιν and a demonstrative pronoun the similarity ends there The
word orders are different as is the gender of the pronoun One begins with a coordinating
conjunction the other with asyndeton One has as its subject a feminine abstract noun the
other an articular participle
Thus even with Thomasrsquo relatively loose criteria of what constitutes an extended
chiasm it is clear that 1 John as a whole refuses to be organised so neatly
46 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 372 47 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 379
18
An Analysis of Discourse Features in 1 John
Inherent Structure
Despite the widely varying theories for structure in 1 John most writers recognise that
structure is not absolutely alien to the author48 There are some portions of the book which
are unanimously agreed upon as distinct parts The two most obvious examples are 11-4
and 212-14 Aside from its complex grammatical and syntactical issues 11-4 is universally
recognised by writers and commentators as a single part which introduces the main
topic(s) of Johnrsquos first letter Similarly the lexical cohesion and repetition of 212-14 prove
beyond any doubt that John was able skilfully and carefully to construct literary units
We shall now proceed through the text of 1 John identifying major sections and
particular units using the methodology outlined above derived from cohesive features of
the text before drawing conclusions about an overall structure of the book
sect11-4
1 John 11-4 forms an introduction to the whole book49 The main clause (3c) is introduced
by an initial relative clause which is subsequently modified by three parallel relative
clauses (1b c d) in turn modified by a prepositional phrase (1f) and a parenthetical
48 See Brown Epistles 118 49 Smalley 1 2 3 John 4 15
19
comment (2a-f)50 3a starts with a resumptive relative clause before introducing the main
indicative verb (ἀπαγγέλλομεν)51 11a-3c form one complex colon and are therefore
syntactically cohesive
There are a number of additional cohesive features within these verses There is
inclusio of the verbs ἀκούψ and ὀπάψ in 1c3b and 1d3a respectively Similarly so the use
of υανεπόψ at the beginning and end of the parenthetic v2 (a and f) Also 1st person plural
verbs are used repeatedly throughout and are juxtaposed with 2nd person pronominal
references to the recipients This combination of 1st and 2nd person reference introduces the
two primary lsquocharactersrsquo in the letter Lastly the feminine noun ζψή is introduced
immediately prior to the parenthesis of v2 (1f) and is referred to in all four cola within the
parenthesis ndash twice by repetition of the noun (forming another inclusio) and twice by
ellipsis of the direct object of the transitive verbs ὀπάψ and μαπστπέψ
The complexities of the grammar52 and the textual issues53 make no difference to the
structure or cohesion of the passage
sect15-211
After an initial introduction 1 Johnrsquos first section starts at 15 and continues through to
211 This section is made up of three units
50 Judith M Lieu I II amp III John A Commentary (NTL Louisville Westminster John Knox 2008) 37 51 Culy A Handbook 7 52 Stott Letters 62 53 Bruce M Metzger A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed Stuttgart Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft 2002) 639
20
15-22
Unanimously agreed unit boundaries such as those of 11-4 do more than simply
demonstrate Johnrsquos literary abilities They also provide certain markers from which other
literary units can be determined If the introduction ends at 14 then 15 must begin a new
section Similarly if a new unit begins at 212 then the previous unit must end at 211 It
will be argued below that the verses in between (ie 15-211) form one large section
comprised of three units (15-22 23-7 28-11)
Callow has already done much of the work on 15-211 and it is unnecessary to repeat
all of his findings54 Rather a few complementary observations will be made
15-10 are tied together by their use of 3rd class conditional sentences 16a 7a 8a 9a
and 10a all introduce a protasis with ἐὰν55 Vv6 8 and 10 make negative assertions while
54 John Callow ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament Approaches and
Results (ed Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed JSNTSupp Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1999) esp 402-
4 55 See Culy A Handbook xvii-xx on the nature of these conditionals as mitigated exhortations
21
vv7 and 9 are positive forming an alternating pattern Repetition of words and phrases
such as κοινψνία πεπιπασέψ and ldquoκαθαπίζει ἡμᾶρ ἀπὸ πάςηρ ἁμαπσίαρrdquo also tie these verses
together
The relation of 21-2 to 15-10 is debated Some see 21 as a parenthesis and v2
returning to the preceding thought as a sixth conditional clause adding a final positive
element56 Others understand both of these verses to be a parenthesis given that the
conditional clause is of a different nature to the preceding ones57 Given the shift from 1st
person verbs in the preceding conditionals to the 3rd person σὶρ in 21d it seems that the
latter is preferable In which case 21-2 form a parenthetical comment in between 110 and
23
23-6
56 Marshall Epistles 115-16 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 396-97 57 Stott Letters 84
22
23-6 are held together by the inclusio of ἐν σούσῳ γινώςκομεν in 23a and 5c58 These two
independent clauses are both elaborated on in 23b-5b and 6a-d respectively The
introduction and repetition of the ideas of keeping (σηπέψ) commands (ἐνσολή) tie vv3-5
together
23-6 at first glance seems distinct from 15-10 However the repetition of ὁ λέγψν
followed by both a negative (v4) and a positive (v6) claim has strong links back to the
conditional clauses of 15-10 Similarly although the vocabulary has changed from
κοινψνία to γινώςκψ the concept of relationship to God is still present Further still 15
and 23 can both be understood as introducing their individual units Each verse makes a
stark claim which is then elucidated and illustrated both positively and negatively A final
cohesive feature is that if 21-2 are a parenthesis as suggested above then there is
referential cohesion between 15 through to 2659 Θεόρ is introduced in 15 and thereafter
only referred to with pronominal references60
Given the cohesive features and the links with 15-10 it is therefore legitimate to
conclude that ldquothis section is in several aspects parallel tohellipthe preceding sectionrdquo61 23-6
constitute a new unit That the unit begins with καὶ need not raise concern Although this
is somewhat unexpected at boundary features the presence of καὶ alone does not carry
enough weight to rule out a unit boundary (cf 15)62 Paragraphs initiated with καὶ seem to
be a feature of 1 John63
58 The prepositional clause ἐν σούσῳ is also repeated in 4e and 5b however these occurrences are
anaphoric with a personal antecedent in 4a and 5a respectively The phrases in 3a and 5c are cataphoric and
refer to abstract concepts rather than specific individuals See Culy A Handbook 25 59 There is also a lone pronominal reference to God in 8b 60 The sole exception being the genitive phrase of 25b ἡ ἀγάπη σοῦ θεοῦ 61 C Haas M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for
Translators London United Bible Societies 1972) 43 62 Levinsohn Discourse Features 275 Kermit Titrud ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament
and an Application to 2 Peterrdquo in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed
David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 240-70 63 See 15 220 28 33 13 19 514
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
3
Firstly grammatical cohesion There are two specific types of grammatical cohesion
which will be examined Firstly analysis of tense-form person number of words especially
verbs Such analysis often yields results in spotting parallelisms (see below) A second sub-
group of grammatical cohesion is lexical cohesion When the same words or words of the
same root3 are used repeatedly over a concentrated span of verses this is an indication of
some level of cohesion between these verses (see for example πνεῦμα in 41-6) This is not
an absolute rule For example the words καί and ὅσι are so common that it is difficult to
find a verse where it does not appear Nevertheless when verbs nouns and adjectives
occur repeatedly note should be taken Similarly so with words within similar ranges of
meaning or from the same semantic domain4 The study of lexical cohesion is helped by
the use of morphologically tagged electronic texts A combination of searches based on
lexical root frequency voice aspect etc can provide comprehensive data which makes
analysis quick and reliable5
Secondly participant tracking can demonstrate breaks in a text When for example
one participant fades from view and another comes into focus it is possible to suggest some
kind of break Participant tracking involves not only noting direct references to characters
but also pronouns and verb endings (see for example notes on 321-24 below) It must be
recognised however that such a discourse feature is a relatively new field of study and
most of the research done has been carried out in the Gospels and narrative texts6
Thirdly various types of parallelism are significant The repetition of a single word or
phrase at the beginning or end of a unit (inclusio) the parallel use of specific grammatical
features simple chiastic structures extended chiastic structures or traditional parallelism
between two linesclauses all serve to join some cola together and separate them from
others Each of these features demonstrates some level of cohesion between their
constituent parts and a certain degree of disjunction7 with what comes before or after8
3 Lexical roots are designated by an asterisk eg δικ 4 Johannes P Louw and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic
Domains (2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989) 5 Morphological searches have been carried out with Bibleworks 7 6 Stephen H Levinsohn Discourse Features of New Testament Greek (2d ed Dallas SIL International 2000)
Grace E Sherman and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine Epistles (Dallas SIL
International 1994) 7 For lack of an exact opposite the words ldquodisunityrdquo and ldquodisjunctionrdquo are used throughout this essay
to mean the opposite of ldquocohesionrdquo 8 ldquoExtended chiasmrdquo is also know as ldquoinverted parallelismrdquo or ldquoconcentric symmetryrdquo For explanation
of this and other features such as simple chiasm and inclusio see John D Harvey Listening to the Text Oral
4
Finally there are a number of boundary features which are useful to observe While
these features on their own rarely provide enough evidence to decide on a textrsquos structure
when one or more are found in unison with other discourse features they add considerable
weight to the conclusion about cohesion For example coordinating conjunctions
asyndeton () vocatives imperatives all fall into this category Once again it must be kept
in mind that such analysis of boundary features and conjunctions is a relatively new
discipline
Nomenclature
Certain words phrases and symbols are used throughout this essay with specific meanings
It will be useful to give brief explanations of some such words at the outset
A lsquo(Word) Clusterrsquo refers to the repeated use of the same word or words of the same
root within close proximity Malcolm Coombes has identified that this feature is very
significant in determining the structure of 1 John9 The repetition of words close to each
other is a deliberate feature of Johnrsquos writing A number of passages could be cited in
support of this observation however three clear examples will suffice Firstly the verb
ἀπνέομαι occurs only three times in 1 John 2222 23 The significance of this cluster is
further emphasised when 43b is taken into consideration Here the author could have
added a further use of ἀπνέομαι instead μὴ ὁμολογεῖ is used Similarly the noun μαπστπία
occurs a total of 6 times and all of these occurrences are in 59-11 (accompanied by two
occurrences of the cognate verb μαπστπέψ in 56-7)10 Not all word clusters are exclusive or
unique as a third example will demonstrate The noun κόςμορ occurs 23 times throughout
the letter yet there are three notable clusters 215-16 43-5 and 54-5 The implications of
such clusters will be investigated and explained further as we examine the text of 1 John
and attempt to determine whether or not section or unit breaks occur at certain points
A further detail of vocabulary distribution which needs a brief introduction is that of
tail-head linkage This occurs when an author intends to forge some kind of connection
between two units It is best defined as a word cluster which spans a unit or section break Patterning in Pauls Letters (ETS Studies Leicester IVP 1998) 97-118 Craig Blomberg ldquoThe Structure of 2
Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1 (1998) 4-8 9 Malcolm Coombes ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo np Cited 19 March 2010
Online httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1Johnpdf 10 Other words occurring on only one cluster are ἀνθπψποκσόνορ (3152) ἀνομία (342) διάβολορ (383
10) διδάςκψ (2273) ἐπιθτμία (2162 17) ἔςφασορ (2182) καθαπίζψ (17 9) καινόρ (27 8) καπδία (319 202
21) κασαγινώςκψ (320 21) παλαιόρ (272) ςυάζψ (3122) σίθημι (3162) σπεῖρ (57 8) ὕδψπ (563 8) υόβορ
(4183) χτφή (3162) ὥπα (2182)
5
In other words a tail-head linkage in 1 John usually consists of a cluster of three or four
occurrences of the same word or words of the same root words occurring at the end of a
section or unit There will be at least one occurrence of the word in the first unit and at
least one further in the second See 324e and 41bc for an example using πνεῦμα where the
word occurs once at the end of a unit and twice more at the beginning of the next11
A lsquocolonrsquo is a term used to refer to ldquoa sentence unit consisting of a nominal and
verbal element together with all their syntactically dependent expansionsrdquo12 A colon can
be identified on purely syntactical grounds The cola of 1 John are clear from the diagram
The purpose of this essay is to examine how such cola relate to one another
A lsquounitrsquo () is a fairly small yet distinct portion of text (usually 2-5 verses) which is
held together by any number of cohesive factors (eg clusters inclusio chiasm) Each
individual unit will be examined explained and defined in the body of this essay
Finally a lsquosectionrsquo (sect) refers to a larger portion of text made up of multiple units
which tie themselves together in some manner
The term lsquopartsrsquo is used to refer to divisions made by others or to breaks without
the technical senses mentioned above This term is adopted to avoid confusion in using
terms such as lsquounitrsquo or lsquosectionrsquo in describing the work of others
Superscript Arabic numerals immediately following a verse reference signify the
number of times a given word or phrase occurs within that verse These notes should not
be confused with bibliographic footnote references (which usually occur after a comma or
period) or edition information for standard SBL abbreviations (eg USB4 NA27)13
11 George Guthrie The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis (Brill 1994) 96-97 12 Peter Cotterell and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove IVP 1998) 201 13 In order to avoid unnecessary confusion some bibliographic footnote references have been placed
immediately after the relevant word or phrase rather than being shifted to the end of the clause or sentence
as recommended by SBLHS
6
Existing Structural Proposals
It is far beyond the scope of this essay to cite exhaustively all writers and all structural
proposals for 1 John However over time three main groups have emerged into which one
can divide most writings on the subject One significant proponent of each group will be
presented and evaluated Firstly a lsquocyclical viewrsquo like that of Robert Law secondly a two-
part structure pioneered by Raymond Brown (lsquoa bipartite viewrsquo) and finally a less
conclusive proposal like that of I Howard Marshall (lsquoa linear viewrsquo)
Views Presented in Major Commentaries
Robert Law ndash A Cyclical View
Lawrsquos work although first published in 1909 has found considerable support amongst
scholars His proposal is characteristic of those which seek to divide and arrange the
material of 1 John according to themes or theological content Although quite dated his
proposal is considered worthy of attention due to the following it has received Brown calls
it ldquoone of the most famous and influential divisionsrdquo14 One or another form of cyclical
structure is proposed by Bruce Burdick and Stott15 Lawrsquos structure is also remarkably
14 Raymond E Brown The Epistles of John (vol 30 AB London Doubleday 1982) 121 15 F F Bruce The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992) 29 Donald W Burdick The Epistles of John
(Chicago Moody Press 1970) 14-17 John Stott The Letters of John (2d ed TNTC Leicester IVP 1990) 61
7
similar to the work of Theodor Haumlring although they worked and published
independently16
Law uses two words to summarise his view of the structure of 1 John ldquospiralrdquo and
ldquotestsrdquo It is ldquospiralrdquo because the progression of thought is not simply linear one idea after
the next in a straight line as is usually the case in Western literature Rather the work is
arranged around a centre ldquoalways recurring to the same topics but at a higher levelrdquo He
goes on to illustrate ldquo[the author takes] two or three melodieshellip[and by]introducing
themhelliprepeating them inverting them skilfully interlacing themhelliprears up from them an
edifice of stately harmoniesrdquo Secondly Law summarises 1 John as a series of ldquotestsrdquo The
book is comprised of numerous sets of criteria by which believers may ldquosatisfy themselves
of their being ldquobegotten of Godrdquordquo17
The combination of these two ideas leads to Lawrsquos overall structure of the book
there are three cyclesspirals each of which consists of three tests ldquodoing righteousness
loving one another and believing that Jesus is the Christrdquo18
While it is true that Law (and those who follow variations of his structure) has provided a
useful summary of the content of the book and has no doubt made 1 John meaningful and
accessible to many readers since publication there are a number of problems with his
proposal
Firstly a number of section breaks occur at seemingly inappropriate points The
divisions between the major sections are not problematic and occur at logical places within
the book (eg 22829 and 467) However a number of Lawrsquos subdivisions are less
straightforward The start of Paragraph A (18) in the First Cycle is problematic ndash even Law
himself seems somewhat confused on the matter He recognises that there are ldquothree
parallel pairs of antithesisrdquo within 16-2219 yet suggests that 18 marks the start of
16 Theodor Haring ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo in Theologische
Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet (ed Adolf von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892) 171-200 For further
comment and comparison see A E Brooke The Johannine Epistles (ICC Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1912) xxxiv-
xxxvii Robert Law The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John (2d ed Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1909) 24 17 Law Tests 6 18 Law Tests 5-6 19 Law Tests 65
8
Paragraph A20 To suggest that a new paragraph or section starts between the first and
second of three parallel antithesis is awkward
Secondly Lawrsquos structure falls down towards the end of 1 John where the three tests
are reduced in number to only two and their order is reversed Law admits regarding the
closing section that ldquothe logical analysis of it is the hardest part of our taskrdquo21 If a cyclical
structure was in Johnrsquos mind as he wrote one might expect him to have maintained some
consistency in his presentation of the tests But according to Law this is not the case
Rather in the Third Cycle the number of main themes is reduced to two Law states that
ldquorighteousness takes a subordinate placerdquo22 The previously primary theme of
righteousness drops out completely as it is absent from both the section headings and the
synopsis of the third major division spanning from 47 to 521
Thirdly Lawrsquos structure fails to take account of or adequately deal with difficult
passages within 1 John the most notable of these being 212-14 According to Law these
verses are a mere parenthesis and his structure requires that they are ldquoomittedrdquo in order to
maintain ldquothe unity of the paragraphrdquo23 While there are parentheses in 1 John verses
should not be categorised as such without considerable support There is strong evidence
that 212-14 mark the start of a major new section on 1 John (see on page 25) Lawrsquos
degradation of these verses is unnecessary
20 Law Tests 8 It is clear from the context that by ldquoparagraphrdquo Law means something similar to the
concept of ldquounitrdquo as defined above 21 Law Tests 15 22 Law Tests 15 23 Law Tests 10
9
Raymond Brown ndash A Binary View
A second major group of proposals are those that divide the body (15-512) of 1 John into
two parts (usually with an introduction (11-4) and conclusion (513-21))24 Of those who see
two halves in the body of 1 John many propose that the division is based on a certain
connection with the Gospel of John Of such authors Brown is the most prominent25
Brownrsquos division of 1 John is tied closely to his understanding of the authorship and
historical context of the letter In Brownrsquos view 1 John has been written by an author who
is part of the Johannine community which due to differing interpretations of the Gospel of
John had divided The author of 1 John regards the secessionists as heterodox and is
writing to his own community26 Regarding structure specifically Brown writes
If the epistolary author is drawing upon the theology and wording of the Johannine
tradition embodied in GJohn and assumes the mantle of evangelist as an interpreter of
that traditionhellip a priori it is not inconceivable that he used GJohn as a model in
structuring his comments in 1 John27
Brown then goes on to elaborate this theory into true structure show above
There are a number of problems with Brownrsquos theory The first is that his structure is so
tightly linked to his view of authorship The structure and authorship of 1 John are two of
24 Brown Epistles 764 Stephen S Smalley 1 2 3 John (WBC Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984) 25 See also W Hall Harris III 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis (Dallas Biblical Studies
2003) 26 Brown Epistles 69-70 27 Brown Epistles 124
10
the most uncertain and debated aspects of Johannine scholarship Given the difficult
textual grammatical and linguistic issues related to such a structure it seems that Brownrsquos
proposal based on little more than a presupposition that 1 John is intended to imitate the
Gospel of John
A second issue with Brownrsquos proposal is his own seeming uncertainty about it When
stating his view he only does so negatively ldquoa priori it is not inconceivable that he used
GJohn as a modelhelliprdquo28 That a proposal is ldquonot inconceivablerdquo does not make it necessarily
true It may well be the case that the author used the style and vocabulary of the Gospel of
John as his starting point but this does not necessitate that he also borrowed the structure
And without strong evidence within the text to support it the theory is not adequate In
this same connection when Brown explains his divisions his own confession is that
determining the point of division of the body of 1 John into two parts is much more
difficult than identifying an introduction and conclusion29
In addition to these general objections given above there are both syntactical and
lexical problems with Brownrsquos divisions
The syntactical issue with Brownrsquos proposal is that he makes the second major
section of the book begin with an ὅσι clause He argues that 311 and 15 are grammatically
parallel phrases and should therefore each be understood as introducing the themes of part
one and part two of the book The primary problem here is that ὅσι is a subordinating
conjunction and therefore necessitates that it is connected with a superordinate clause (ie
310)30 As Culy comments ldquoAlthough such an analysis may make good sense of the themes
of the letter it ignores the surface structure The ὅσι makes it clear that syntactically 311 is
subordinate to 310rdquo31 A secondary problem with this assertion is that although there are
many grammatical and lexical links between 15 and 311 the claim that these two verses
alone are parallel does not take account of all the data and similar occurrences in 1 John32
A lexical issue with Brownrsquos division is his correlation of 1 John 513 and John 2031
It is claimed that these two verses parallel one another Although there are a number of
lexical links between the two verses there are three issue to consider Firstly it is widely
recognised that 1 John has similar vocabulary to the Gospel of John and so some too much
28 Brown Epistles 124 29 Brown Epistles 125 30 BDF lists ὅσι in ch11 part 3c ldquoSubordinating (Hypotactic) Conjunctionsrdquo 31 Martin M Culy I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco Baylor 2004) 80 32 See comments below on 225 and the occurrences of αὕση
11
should not be read into lexical links between John 2031 and 1 John 513 Secondly given
the frequency and variety of use of the verb γπάυψ in 1 John it is dangerous to read too
much into this one occurrence Finally there is a considerable number of differences
between these two verses which one would not expect to find if the epistolary author was
intending to use John 2031 as the model for 513 For example the verb tense-form in John
is perfect while in 1 John it is aorist Also the clause structure in 1 John is unusual (see
diagram) with the verb γπάυψ having two parallel direct objects one at either end of the
verse John 2031 has no such complex structure
Thus it can be concluded that Brown does little to convince his readers that his
theory is robust enough to allow for the difficult issues surrounding 1 John There are a
significant number of theological and grammatical issues which make his structural
proposal dubious
I H Marshall ndash A Linear View
Finally the work of more recent commentators has been content to stop short of a rigid or
hierarchical proposal Marshall surveys a number of existing proposals and concludes
12
ldquoit seems preferable to regard the Epistle as being composed of a series of connected
paragraphs whose relation to one another is governed by association of ideas rather
than by a logical plan This does not mean that John is illogical but rather that his
Epistle is not meant to be divided into large sections on a logical basisrdquo33
Such a lsquolinearrsquo structure is also adopted by Kruse Johnson and a number of others34
One the one hand Marshall is very wise to be cautious about dividing 1 John Given the
plethora of differing theories and the voluminous writing on the subject his
lsquoindecisivenessrsquo is refreshing Also Marshallrsquos recognition that some of the connections
between paragraphs may not seem ldquologicalrdquo to us (ie ldquoassociation of ideasrdquo) is insightful A
further benefit of Marshallrsquos work is his refusal to arrange paragraphs hierarchically
Marshallrsquos structure simply divides the text into units and makes little comment on their
interrelationships
On the other hand there are still a number of issues with such a proposal Whereas
other writers have made proposals in which thematic or theological considerations dictate
the divisions (eg Law) Marshallrsquos divisions seem to be determined by convenience (eg
seeking a limited number of paragraphs of similar length) in order to structure his
commentary This works out in two ways in some instances Marshall joins together verses
which do not demonstrate any connection to one another For example he connects of
212-14 and 215-17 These two units are treated together by many commentators even
though apart from their proximity to one another there are no indications that they
should be treated as such Rather each unit as its own distinct structure and vocabulary
Alternatively Marshall sometimes divides paragraphs despite strong textual evidence that
they are connected An example is the division between 412 and 1335 As will be explained
below these verses form part of one unit having a distinct structure which is within a
larger section characterised by ἀγαπ roots
View Presented in Articles
In recent years with the development of discourse analysis and text-linguistics there has
been a movement away from attempting to establish the structure of 1 John based upon
33 I Howard Marshall The Epistles of John (NICNT Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978) 26 34 Colin G Kruse The Letters of John (The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester Apollos 2000)
21 Thomas F Johnson 1 2 and 3 John (New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle Paternoster 1995) 15-
16 35 Marshall Epistles 26 See below for a fuller treatment of these units
13
thematic andor theological considerations Instead various writers have attempted to
determine the structure based upon linguistic theory and discourse features We shall
briefly review and critique three such attempts
Robert E Longacre
Longacre claims that ldquodiscourse analysis can suggest a natural outline of the bookrdquo36 He
goes on to outline a number of discourse features which he will analyse to elucidate such a
structure 1 John he claims is divided into sixteen paragraphs based on the position of
vocatives These sixteen paragraphs are subsequently grouped further into three sections
based on the distribution of γπάυψ an introduction (11-229) a body (31-512) and a
conclusion (513-21) Other features such as the genre of 1 John which Longacre takes to be
hortatory discourse the concept of peaks (ie ldquopoints of cumulative developmentrdquo)37 and
the macrostructure of the book (ldquoa summaryhellipof a text which is stated so that it gives the
central thrust of the whole workrdquo)38 are also brought to bear on the structure of the text
Longacre argues for a doctrinal and an ethical peak in both the introduction and the
body of the book Thus 212-17 and 41-6 form the ethical peaks and 218-27 and 47-21 the
doctrinal peaks The macrostructure of 1 John is seen to be 319-24 which immediately
precedes the dual peaks of the body
Longacrersquos commitment to deriving a structure of 1 John from discourse features of the
text itself is admirable and his work highlights a number of significant characteristics of 1
John Nevertheless there are some weaknesses with his approach The primary issue with
is Longacrersquos over-emphasis on a limited number of discourse features Although five
discourse features are outlined at the beginning of his paper the derivation of a structure
for 1 John is based upon only two of these features the use of vocatives and the distribution
of γπάυψ The other three discourse features are merely analysed to clarify the structure
In this regard Culy helpfully points out
36 Robert Longacre ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Textrdquo
in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed David Alan Black Katherine
Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 271 37 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 279 38 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 280
14
ldquoGiven this distribution of vocatives it is not inappropriate to recognize that this
particular writer frequently uses vocatives to help mark boundaries Such an observation
does not require that vocatives were always used in this wayrdquo39
Not only are vocatives not an absolute marker of boundaries but there are numerous other
features which Longacre largely ignores (eg lexical cohesion and participant reference)
A second major weakness in Longacrersquos proposal is his treatment of 212-14 Given
his focus on vocatives and γπάυψ it is significant that these three verses contain six
occurrences of each Longacre does claim that 212-17 is ldquoan ethical peakrdquo but this
conclusion is based on ldquoa strong exhortation not to love the worldrdquo (ie vv15-17) and not
on the vocatives or repetition of γπάυψ Similarly Longacre notes that the verb γπάυψ
switches from present to aorist use between 213 and 14 and that it does not occur again
until 513 While such data seems important Longacre fails to deal with it adequately since
his first major division of the book does not occur until 22931 Inexplicably it seems that
two verses which contain such a high concentration of Longacrersquos primary criteria are of
no special significance to him
Keir L Hansford
Hansfordrsquos basic premise is that 1 John is poetic He believes a structure can and should be
derived from treating and dividing 1 John in such a way His work is unusual in that he does
not provide an overall outline of the book but rather presents the entire text of the book
laid out in lines columns and strophes ldquoLinesrdquo are clauses or phrases in parallelism ldquoI
arguethe whole of the epistle was constructed out of parallelismsrdquo40 Hansford then
groups and divides lines in two ways horizontally and vertically Horizontally lines are
grouped into eighteen ldquostrophesrdquo which share certain key words At the same time lines
are divided into one of three vertical columns ldquothe authority of the apostlerdquo ldquohuman
actionsJesusrsquo ministryrdquo and ldquoGodrsquos creation and judgementrdquo Hansford also seeks to mark
all chiasms
As with many structural proposals for 1 John Hansfordrsquos has some beneficial
insights In attempting to structure the whole of 1 John he has paid acute attention to
details within the text This has proved to be a fruitful exercise especially in his
39 Culy A Handbook xvi 40 Keir L Hansford ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo JOTT 5 no 2 (1992) 128
15
identification of number of lsquomicro-parallelismrsquo and chiasms which have often been
overlooked
Despite these insights Hansfordrsquos overall structure and broad divisions are
problematic The first criticism is that under close inspection it becomes noticeable that a
number of Hansfordrsquos decisions are forced An example of a forced chiasm can be seen in
410-12 where ἠγαπήκαμεν in 410 is linked with σεθέασαι in 412 The two words have no
semantic overlap and it is difficult to see how they can be related other than they both
have θεὸν as their object Similarly issues regarding the column divisions can be seen at
39 The initial part of the verse πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ (the subject of the clause)
is placed in the second column (ldquohuman actionJesusrsquo ministryrdquo) while the second part
ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιει (the predicate and object) is placed in the third column (ldquoGodrsquos reaction
and judgementrdquo) These phrases do not naturally fit with the thematic topics of the
columns into which they are placed
Secondly the ldquokeywordsrdquo that are listed for each strophe seem arbitrary Each of the
eighteen strophes has on average between 15-20 keywords While some of these keywords
are unique to that portion of text other words such as ldquotruthrdquo ldquoJesusrdquo ldquoChristrdquo ldquoFatherrdquo
ldquoknowrdquo and ldquobelieverdquo occur in multiple strophes When the general and rather limited
vocabulary of the whole book is considered it becomes evident that some of the keywords
are not particular to any strophe but rather to the whole of 1 John
Thirdly it is possible that what Hansford considers to be poetic features of the text
could be explained in other ways For example the reversal of word order of verb and
subject is mentioned twice in his article as evidence of parallelism and chiasm41 It is
possible however that such a switch can be justified by other discourse features and issues
of information structure Hansford does not give details or references to the clauses he is
referring to and so it is difficult to decide either way However it must be kept in mind that
there may be other explanations for such features
Finally if the author intended such rigid parallelism it seems strange that not all
the parallels are as clear as those in 212-14 Hansford fails to take account of the clear
differences between portions of the text In Hansfordrsquos outline 212-14 which without
doubt demonstrate the clearest parallelisms blend in to his poetry and do not stand out at
all as they do when the text of 1 John is read as a whole
41 Hansford ldquoPoetic Structurerdquo 129 135
16
John Christopher Thomas
Thomas admirably sets out to focus ldquoattention on the structure of 1 John as revealed by
the text itself and seeks as far as possible to allow the text to reveal its shape on its own
termsrdquo42 The outcome of Thomas work is to suggest a chiastic structure to the book as a
whole Thomas makes clear that he is well aware of the dangers and criticisms that such
proposals have faced in the past Nevertheless he suggests that 1 John divides into 11
sections 10 of which are parallel one being central The overall chiastic structure is shown
above Thomas understands each parallel section to vaguely share a common theme or
topic eg making God a liar antichrists confidence with the central section being entitled
ldquoLove one anotherrdquo43
There are a number of problems with Thomasrsquo extended chiasm Firstly Thomas claims
that the central section of the book (section F 311-18) is focussed on loving one another
Not only does this begin a new unit with an ὅσι clause (see the treatment of Brownrsquos work
above and the discussion on 225 below for the syntactical problems associated with such a
division) but it also fails to take note that the ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλοτρ occurs more frequently
outside of this section than inside44 Similarly so with sections E and E` (228-310 and 319-
24) which are entitled ldquoConfidencerdquo The noun παππηςία occurs four times in 1 John but
only two occurrences are with these units45
42 John Christopher Thomas ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo NT 40 no 4 (1998) 371 43 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 373 44 This ἵνα clause occurs at 311 but also at 323 47 and 12 45 See 228 321 417 and 514
17
Secondly although Thomas seeks not to overstretch the links between the parallel
sections of his chiasm46 his claim that ldquothe use of similar catch wordsphraseswhich
parallel one anotherrdquo indicate that he expects his parallel sections to have to a greater or
lesser degree similar words and phrases If such is the case it is very strange that the
primary and central theme of 15-22 (ie light and darkness which occurs 13 times in those
verses) does not reappear in its parallel section (56-12) While it is true that Thomasrsquo
criteria allows that not every detail of every section will be parallel a parallelism where the
primary these are not paralleled is perculiar
A further problem with sections B and B` is Thomasrsquo comment ldquoA final point of
contact is that both passages begin with similar statements ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo in
15 and ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo in 56rdquo47 In both English and Greek it is difficult to
see how these two phrases can be correlated
Καὶ ἔςσιν αὕση ἡ ἀγγελία Οὗσόρ ἐςσιν ὁ ἐλθὼν
ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo
Although both have ἔςσιν and a demonstrative pronoun the similarity ends there The
word orders are different as is the gender of the pronoun One begins with a coordinating
conjunction the other with asyndeton One has as its subject a feminine abstract noun the
other an articular participle
Thus even with Thomasrsquo relatively loose criteria of what constitutes an extended
chiasm it is clear that 1 John as a whole refuses to be organised so neatly
46 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 372 47 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 379
18
An Analysis of Discourse Features in 1 John
Inherent Structure
Despite the widely varying theories for structure in 1 John most writers recognise that
structure is not absolutely alien to the author48 There are some portions of the book which
are unanimously agreed upon as distinct parts The two most obvious examples are 11-4
and 212-14 Aside from its complex grammatical and syntactical issues 11-4 is universally
recognised by writers and commentators as a single part which introduces the main
topic(s) of Johnrsquos first letter Similarly the lexical cohesion and repetition of 212-14 prove
beyond any doubt that John was able skilfully and carefully to construct literary units
We shall now proceed through the text of 1 John identifying major sections and
particular units using the methodology outlined above derived from cohesive features of
the text before drawing conclusions about an overall structure of the book
sect11-4
1 John 11-4 forms an introduction to the whole book49 The main clause (3c) is introduced
by an initial relative clause which is subsequently modified by three parallel relative
clauses (1b c d) in turn modified by a prepositional phrase (1f) and a parenthetical
48 See Brown Epistles 118 49 Smalley 1 2 3 John 4 15
19
comment (2a-f)50 3a starts with a resumptive relative clause before introducing the main
indicative verb (ἀπαγγέλλομεν)51 11a-3c form one complex colon and are therefore
syntactically cohesive
There are a number of additional cohesive features within these verses There is
inclusio of the verbs ἀκούψ and ὀπάψ in 1c3b and 1d3a respectively Similarly so the use
of υανεπόψ at the beginning and end of the parenthetic v2 (a and f) Also 1st person plural
verbs are used repeatedly throughout and are juxtaposed with 2nd person pronominal
references to the recipients This combination of 1st and 2nd person reference introduces the
two primary lsquocharactersrsquo in the letter Lastly the feminine noun ζψή is introduced
immediately prior to the parenthesis of v2 (1f) and is referred to in all four cola within the
parenthesis ndash twice by repetition of the noun (forming another inclusio) and twice by
ellipsis of the direct object of the transitive verbs ὀπάψ and μαπστπέψ
The complexities of the grammar52 and the textual issues53 make no difference to the
structure or cohesion of the passage
sect15-211
After an initial introduction 1 Johnrsquos first section starts at 15 and continues through to
211 This section is made up of three units
50 Judith M Lieu I II amp III John A Commentary (NTL Louisville Westminster John Knox 2008) 37 51 Culy A Handbook 7 52 Stott Letters 62 53 Bruce M Metzger A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed Stuttgart Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft 2002) 639
20
15-22
Unanimously agreed unit boundaries such as those of 11-4 do more than simply
demonstrate Johnrsquos literary abilities They also provide certain markers from which other
literary units can be determined If the introduction ends at 14 then 15 must begin a new
section Similarly if a new unit begins at 212 then the previous unit must end at 211 It
will be argued below that the verses in between (ie 15-211) form one large section
comprised of three units (15-22 23-7 28-11)
Callow has already done much of the work on 15-211 and it is unnecessary to repeat
all of his findings54 Rather a few complementary observations will be made
15-10 are tied together by their use of 3rd class conditional sentences 16a 7a 8a 9a
and 10a all introduce a protasis with ἐὰν55 Vv6 8 and 10 make negative assertions while
54 John Callow ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament Approaches and
Results (ed Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed JSNTSupp Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1999) esp 402-
4 55 See Culy A Handbook xvii-xx on the nature of these conditionals as mitigated exhortations
21
vv7 and 9 are positive forming an alternating pattern Repetition of words and phrases
such as κοινψνία πεπιπασέψ and ldquoκαθαπίζει ἡμᾶρ ἀπὸ πάςηρ ἁμαπσίαρrdquo also tie these verses
together
The relation of 21-2 to 15-10 is debated Some see 21 as a parenthesis and v2
returning to the preceding thought as a sixth conditional clause adding a final positive
element56 Others understand both of these verses to be a parenthesis given that the
conditional clause is of a different nature to the preceding ones57 Given the shift from 1st
person verbs in the preceding conditionals to the 3rd person σὶρ in 21d it seems that the
latter is preferable In which case 21-2 form a parenthetical comment in between 110 and
23
23-6
56 Marshall Epistles 115-16 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 396-97 57 Stott Letters 84
22
23-6 are held together by the inclusio of ἐν σούσῳ γινώςκομεν in 23a and 5c58 These two
independent clauses are both elaborated on in 23b-5b and 6a-d respectively The
introduction and repetition of the ideas of keeping (σηπέψ) commands (ἐνσολή) tie vv3-5
together
23-6 at first glance seems distinct from 15-10 However the repetition of ὁ λέγψν
followed by both a negative (v4) and a positive (v6) claim has strong links back to the
conditional clauses of 15-10 Similarly although the vocabulary has changed from
κοινψνία to γινώςκψ the concept of relationship to God is still present Further still 15
and 23 can both be understood as introducing their individual units Each verse makes a
stark claim which is then elucidated and illustrated both positively and negatively A final
cohesive feature is that if 21-2 are a parenthesis as suggested above then there is
referential cohesion between 15 through to 2659 Θεόρ is introduced in 15 and thereafter
only referred to with pronominal references60
Given the cohesive features and the links with 15-10 it is therefore legitimate to
conclude that ldquothis section is in several aspects parallel tohellipthe preceding sectionrdquo61 23-6
constitute a new unit That the unit begins with καὶ need not raise concern Although this
is somewhat unexpected at boundary features the presence of καὶ alone does not carry
enough weight to rule out a unit boundary (cf 15)62 Paragraphs initiated with καὶ seem to
be a feature of 1 John63
58 The prepositional clause ἐν σούσῳ is also repeated in 4e and 5b however these occurrences are
anaphoric with a personal antecedent in 4a and 5a respectively The phrases in 3a and 5c are cataphoric and
refer to abstract concepts rather than specific individuals See Culy A Handbook 25 59 There is also a lone pronominal reference to God in 8b 60 The sole exception being the genitive phrase of 25b ἡ ἀγάπη σοῦ θεοῦ 61 C Haas M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for
Translators London United Bible Societies 1972) 43 62 Levinsohn Discourse Features 275 Kermit Titrud ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament
and an Application to 2 Peterrdquo in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed
David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 240-70 63 See 15 220 28 33 13 19 514
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
4
Finally there are a number of boundary features which are useful to observe While
these features on their own rarely provide enough evidence to decide on a textrsquos structure
when one or more are found in unison with other discourse features they add considerable
weight to the conclusion about cohesion For example coordinating conjunctions
asyndeton () vocatives imperatives all fall into this category Once again it must be kept
in mind that such analysis of boundary features and conjunctions is a relatively new
discipline
Nomenclature
Certain words phrases and symbols are used throughout this essay with specific meanings
It will be useful to give brief explanations of some such words at the outset
A lsquo(Word) Clusterrsquo refers to the repeated use of the same word or words of the same
root within close proximity Malcolm Coombes has identified that this feature is very
significant in determining the structure of 1 John9 The repetition of words close to each
other is a deliberate feature of Johnrsquos writing A number of passages could be cited in
support of this observation however three clear examples will suffice Firstly the verb
ἀπνέομαι occurs only three times in 1 John 2222 23 The significance of this cluster is
further emphasised when 43b is taken into consideration Here the author could have
added a further use of ἀπνέομαι instead μὴ ὁμολογεῖ is used Similarly the noun μαπστπία
occurs a total of 6 times and all of these occurrences are in 59-11 (accompanied by two
occurrences of the cognate verb μαπστπέψ in 56-7)10 Not all word clusters are exclusive or
unique as a third example will demonstrate The noun κόςμορ occurs 23 times throughout
the letter yet there are three notable clusters 215-16 43-5 and 54-5 The implications of
such clusters will be investigated and explained further as we examine the text of 1 John
and attempt to determine whether or not section or unit breaks occur at certain points
A further detail of vocabulary distribution which needs a brief introduction is that of
tail-head linkage This occurs when an author intends to forge some kind of connection
between two units It is best defined as a word cluster which spans a unit or section break Patterning in Pauls Letters (ETS Studies Leicester IVP 1998) 97-118 Craig Blomberg ldquoThe Structure of 2
Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1 (1998) 4-8 9 Malcolm Coombes ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo np Cited 19 March 2010
Online httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1Johnpdf 10 Other words occurring on only one cluster are ἀνθπψποκσόνορ (3152) ἀνομία (342) διάβολορ (383
10) διδάςκψ (2273) ἐπιθτμία (2162 17) ἔςφασορ (2182) καθαπίζψ (17 9) καινόρ (27 8) καπδία (319 202
21) κασαγινώςκψ (320 21) παλαιόρ (272) ςυάζψ (3122) σίθημι (3162) σπεῖρ (57 8) ὕδψπ (563 8) υόβορ
(4183) χτφή (3162) ὥπα (2182)
5
In other words a tail-head linkage in 1 John usually consists of a cluster of three or four
occurrences of the same word or words of the same root words occurring at the end of a
section or unit There will be at least one occurrence of the word in the first unit and at
least one further in the second See 324e and 41bc for an example using πνεῦμα where the
word occurs once at the end of a unit and twice more at the beginning of the next11
A lsquocolonrsquo is a term used to refer to ldquoa sentence unit consisting of a nominal and
verbal element together with all their syntactically dependent expansionsrdquo12 A colon can
be identified on purely syntactical grounds The cola of 1 John are clear from the diagram
The purpose of this essay is to examine how such cola relate to one another
A lsquounitrsquo () is a fairly small yet distinct portion of text (usually 2-5 verses) which is
held together by any number of cohesive factors (eg clusters inclusio chiasm) Each
individual unit will be examined explained and defined in the body of this essay
Finally a lsquosectionrsquo (sect) refers to a larger portion of text made up of multiple units
which tie themselves together in some manner
The term lsquopartsrsquo is used to refer to divisions made by others or to breaks without
the technical senses mentioned above This term is adopted to avoid confusion in using
terms such as lsquounitrsquo or lsquosectionrsquo in describing the work of others
Superscript Arabic numerals immediately following a verse reference signify the
number of times a given word or phrase occurs within that verse These notes should not
be confused with bibliographic footnote references (which usually occur after a comma or
period) or edition information for standard SBL abbreviations (eg USB4 NA27)13
11 George Guthrie The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis (Brill 1994) 96-97 12 Peter Cotterell and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove IVP 1998) 201 13 In order to avoid unnecessary confusion some bibliographic footnote references have been placed
immediately after the relevant word or phrase rather than being shifted to the end of the clause or sentence
as recommended by SBLHS
6
Existing Structural Proposals
It is far beyond the scope of this essay to cite exhaustively all writers and all structural
proposals for 1 John However over time three main groups have emerged into which one
can divide most writings on the subject One significant proponent of each group will be
presented and evaluated Firstly a lsquocyclical viewrsquo like that of Robert Law secondly a two-
part structure pioneered by Raymond Brown (lsquoa bipartite viewrsquo) and finally a less
conclusive proposal like that of I Howard Marshall (lsquoa linear viewrsquo)
Views Presented in Major Commentaries
Robert Law ndash A Cyclical View
Lawrsquos work although first published in 1909 has found considerable support amongst
scholars His proposal is characteristic of those which seek to divide and arrange the
material of 1 John according to themes or theological content Although quite dated his
proposal is considered worthy of attention due to the following it has received Brown calls
it ldquoone of the most famous and influential divisionsrdquo14 One or another form of cyclical
structure is proposed by Bruce Burdick and Stott15 Lawrsquos structure is also remarkably
14 Raymond E Brown The Epistles of John (vol 30 AB London Doubleday 1982) 121 15 F F Bruce The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992) 29 Donald W Burdick The Epistles of John
(Chicago Moody Press 1970) 14-17 John Stott The Letters of John (2d ed TNTC Leicester IVP 1990) 61
7
similar to the work of Theodor Haumlring although they worked and published
independently16
Law uses two words to summarise his view of the structure of 1 John ldquospiralrdquo and
ldquotestsrdquo It is ldquospiralrdquo because the progression of thought is not simply linear one idea after
the next in a straight line as is usually the case in Western literature Rather the work is
arranged around a centre ldquoalways recurring to the same topics but at a higher levelrdquo He
goes on to illustrate ldquo[the author takes] two or three melodieshellip[and by]introducing
themhelliprepeating them inverting them skilfully interlacing themhelliprears up from them an
edifice of stately harmoniesrdquo Secondly Law summarises 1 John as a series of ldquotestsrdquo The
book is comprised of numerous sets of criteria by which believers may ldquosatisfy themselves
of their being ldquobegotten of Godrdquordquo17
The combination of these two ideas leads to Lawrsquos overall structure of the book
there are three cyclesspirals each of which consists of three tests ldquodoing righteousness
loving one another and believing that Jesus is the Christrdquo18
While it is true that Law (and those who follow variations of his structure) has provided a
useful summary of the content of the book and has no doubt made 1 John meaningful and
accessible to many readers since publication there are a number of problems with his
proposal
Firstly a number of section breaks occur at seemingly inappropriate points The
divisions between the major sections are not problematic and occur at logical places within
the book (eg 22829 and 467) However a number of Lawrsquos subdivisions are less
straightforward The start of Paragraph A (18) in the First Cycle is problematic ndash even Law
himself seems somewhat confused on the matter He recognises that there are ldquothree
parallel pairs of antithesisrdquo within 16-2219 yet suggests that 18 marks the start of
16 Theodor Haring ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo in Theologische
Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet (ed Adolf von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892) 171-200 For further
comment and comparison see A E Brooke The Johannine Epistles (ICC Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1912) xxxiv-
xxxvii Robert Law The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John (2d ed Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1909) 24 17 Law Tests 6 18 Law Tests 5-6 19 Law Tests 65
8
Paragraph A20 To suggest that a new paragraph or section starts between the first and
second of three parallel antithesis is awkward
Secondly Lawrsquos structure falls down towards the end of 1 John where the three tests
are reduced in number to only two and their order is reversed Law admits regarding the
closing section that ldquothe logical analysis of it is the hardest part of our taskrdquo21 If a cyclical
structure was in Johnrsquos mind as he wrote one might expect him to have maintained some
consistency in his presentation of the tests But according to Law this is not the case
Rather in the Third Cycle the number of main themes is reduced to two Law states that
ldquorighteousness takes a subordinate placerdquo22 The previously primary theme of
righteousness drops out completely as it is absent from both the section headings and the
synopsis of the third major division spanning from 47 to 521
Thirdly Lawrsquos structure fails to take account of or adequately deal with difficult
passages within 1 John the most notable of these being 212-14 According to Law these
verses are a mere parenthesis and his structure requires that they are ldquoomittedrdquo in order to
maintain ldquothe unity of the paragraphrdquo23 While there are parentheses in 1 John verses
should not be categorised as such without considerable support There is strong evidence
that 212-14 mark the start of a major new section on 1 John (see on page 25) Lawrsquos
degradation of these verses is unnecessary
20 Law Tests 8 It is clear from the context that by ldquoparagraphrdquo Law means something similar to the
concept of ldquounitrdquo as defined above 21 Law Tests 15 22 Law Tests 15 23 Law Tests 10
9
Raymond Brown ndash A Binary View
A second major group of proposals are those that divide the body (15-512) of 1 John into
two parts (usually with an introduction (11-4) and conclusion (513-21))24 Of those who see
two halves in the body of 1 John many propose that the division is based on a certain
connection with the Gospel of John Of such authors Brown is the most prominent25
Brownrsquos division of 1 John is tied closely to his understanding of the authorship and
historical context of the letter In Brownrsquos view 1 John has been written by an author who
is part of the Johannine community which due to differing interpretations of the Gospel of
John had divided The author of 1 John regards the secessionists as heterodox and is
writing to his own community26 Regarding structure specifically Brown writes
If the epistolary author is drawing upon the theology and wording of the Johannine
tradition embodied in GJohn and assumes the mantle of evangelist as an interpreter of
that traditionhellip a priori it is not inconceivable that he used GJohn as a model in
structuring his comments in 1 John27
Brown then goes on to elaborate this theory into true structure show above
There are a number of problems with Brownrsquos theory The first is that his structure is so
tightly linked to his view of authorship The structure and authorship of 1 John are two of
24 Brown Epistles 764 Stephen S Smalley 1 2 3 John (WBC Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984) 25 See also W Hall Harris III 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis (Dallas Biblical Studies
2003) 26 Brown Epistles 69-70 27 Brown Epistles 124
10
the most uncertain and debated aspects of Johannine scholarship Given the difficult
textual grammatical and linguistic issues related to such a structure it seems that Brownrsquos
proposal based on little more than a presupposition that 1 John is intended to imitate the
Gospel of John
A second issue with Brownrsquos proposal is his own seeming uncertainty about it When
stating his view he only does so negatively ldquoa priori it is not inconceivable that he used
GJohn as a modelhelliprdquo28 That a proposal is ldquonot inconceivablerdquo does not make it necessarily
true It may well be the case that the author used the style and vocabulary of the Gospel of
John as his starting point but this does not necessitate that he also borrowed the structure
And without strong evidence within the text to support it the theory is not adequate In
this same connection when Brown explains his divisions his own confession is that
determining the point of division of the body of 1 John into two parts is much more
difficult than identifying an introduction and conclusion29
In addition to these general objections given above there are both syntactical and
lexical problems with Brownrsquos divisions
The syntactical issue with Brownrsquos proposal is that he makes the second major
section of the book begin with an ὅσι clause He argues that 311 and 15 are grammatically
parallel phrases and should therefore each be understood as introducing the themes of part
one and part two of the book The primary problem here is that ὅσι is a subordinating
conjunction and therefore necessitates that it is connected with a superordinate clause (ie
310)30 As Culy comments ldquoAlthough such an analysis may make good sense of the themes
of the letter it ignores the surface structure The ὅσι makes it clear that syntactically 311 is
subordinate to 310rdquo31 A secondary problem with this assertion is that although there are
many grammatical and lexical links between 15 and 311 the claim that these two verses
alone are parallel does not take account of all the data and similar occurrences in 1 John32
A lexical issue with Brownrsquos division is his correlation of 1 John 513 and John 2031
It is claimed that these two verses parallel one another Although there are a number of
lexical links between the two verses there are three issue to consider Firstly it is widely
recognised that 1 John has similar vocabulary to the Gospel of John and so some too much
28 Brown Epistles 124 29 Brown Epistles 125 30 BDF lists ὅσι in ch11 part 3c ldquoSubordinating (Hypotactic) Conjunctionsrdquo 31 Martin M Culy I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco Baylor 2004) 80 32 See comments below on 225 and the occurrences of αὕση
11
should not be read into lexical links between John 2031 and 1 John 513 Secondly given
the frequency and variety of use of the verb γπάυψ in 1 John it is dangerous to read too
much into this one occurrence Finally there is a considerable number of differences
between these two verses which one would not expect to find if the epistolary author was
intending to use John 2031 as the model for 513 For example the verb tense-form in John
is perfect while in 1 John it is aorist Also the clause structure in 1 John is unusual (see
diagram) with the verb γπάυψ having two parallel direct objects one at either end of the
verse John 2031 has no such complex structure
Thus it can be concluded that Brown does little to convince his readers that his
theory is robust enough to allow for the difficult issues surrounding 1 John There are a
significant number of theological and grammatical issues which make his structural
proposal dubious
I H Marshall ndash A Linear View
Finally the work of more recent commentators has been content to stop short of a rigid or
hierarchical proposal Marshall surveys a number of existing proposals and concludes
12
ldquoit seems preferable to regard the Epistle as being composed of a series of connected
paragraphs whose relation to one another is governed by association of ideas rather
than by a logical plan This does not mean that John is illogical but rather that his
Epistle is not meant to be divided into large sections on a logical basisrdquo33
Such a lsquolinearrsquo structure is also adopted by Kruse Johnson and a number of others34
One the one hand Marshall is very wise to be cautious about dividing 1 John Given the
plethora of differing theories and the voluminous writing on the subject his
lsquoindecisivenessrsquo is refreshing Also Marshallrsquos recognition that some of the connections
between paragraphs may not seem ldquologicalrdquo to us (ie ldquoassociation of ideasrdquo) is insightful A
further benefit of Marshallrsquos work is his refusal to arrange paragraphs hierarchically
Marshallrsquos structure simply divides the text into units and makes little comment on their
interrelationships
On the other hand there are still a number of issues with such a proposal Whereas
other writers have made proposals in which thematic or theological considerations dictate
the divisions (eg Law) Marshallrsquos divisions seem to be determined by convenience (eg
seeking a limited number of paragraphs of similar length) in order to structure his
commentary This works out in two ways in some instances Marshall joins together verses
which do not demonstrate any connection to one another For example he connects of
212-14 and 215-17 These two units are treated together by many commentators even
though apart from their proximity to one another there are no indications that they
should be treated as such Rather each unit as its own distinct structure and vocabulary
Alternatively Marshall sometimes divides paragraphs despite strong textual evidence that
they are connected An example is the division between 412 and 1335 As will be explained
below these verses form part of one unit having a distinct structure which is within a
larger section characterised by ἀγαπ roots
View Presented in Articles
In recent years with the development of discourse analysis and text-linguistics there has
been a movement away from attempting to establish the structure of 1 John based upon
33 I Howard Marshall The Epistles of John (NICNT Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978) 26 34 Colin G Kruse The Letters of John (The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester Apollos 2000)
21 Thomas F Johnson 1 2 and 3 John (New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle Paternoster 1995) 15-
16 35 Marshall Epistles 26 See below for a fuller treatment of these units
13
thematic andor theological considerations Instead various writers have attempted to
determine the structure based upon linguistic theory and discourse features We shall
briefly review and critique three such attempts
Robert E Longacre
Longacre claims that ldquodiscourse analysis can suggest a natural outline of the bookrdquo36 He
goes on to outline a number of discourse features which he will analyse to elucidate such a
structure 1 John he claims is divided into sixteen paragraphs based on the position of
vocatives These sixteen paragraphs are subsequently grouped further into three sections
based on the distribution of γπάυψ an introduction (11-229) a body (31-512) and a
conclusion (513-21) Other features such as the genre of 1 John which Longacre takes to be
hortatory discourse the concept of peaks (ie ldquopoints of cumulative developmentrdquo)37 and
the macrostructure of the book (ldquoa summaryhellipof a text which is stated so that it gives the
central thrust of the whole workrdquo)38 are also brought to bear on the structure of the text
Longacre argues for a doctrinal and an ethical peak in both the introduction and the
body of the book Thus 212-17 and 41-6 form the ethical peaks and 218-27 and 47-21 the
doctrinal peaks The macrostructure of 1 John is seen to be 319-24 which immediately
precedes the dual peaks of the body
Longacrersquos commitment to deriving a structure of 1 John from discourse features of the
text itself is admirable and his work highlights a number of significant characteristics of 1
John Nevertheless there are some weaknesses with his approach The primary issue with
is Longacrersquos over-emphasis on a limited number of discourse features Although five
discourse features are outlined at the beginning of his paper the derivation of a structure
for 1 John is based upon only two of these features the use of vocatives and the distribution
of γπάυψ The other three discourse features are merely analysed to clarify the structure
In this regard Culy helpfully points out
36 Robert Longacre ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Textrdquo
in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed David Alan Black Katherine
Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 271 37 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 279 38 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 280
14
ldquoGiven this distribution of vocatives it is not inappropriate to recognize that this
particular writer frequently uses vocatives to help mark boundaries Such an observation
does not require that vocatives were always used in this wayrdquo39
Not only are vocatives not an absolute marker of boundaries but there are numerous other
features which Longacre largely ignores (eg lexical cohesion and participant reference)
A second major weakness in Longacrersquos proposal is his treatment of 212-14 Given
his focus on vocatives and γπάυψ it is significant that these three verses contain six
occurrences of each Longacre does claim that 212-17 is ldquoan ethical peakrdquo but this
conclusion is based on ldquoa strong exhortation not to love the worldrdquo (ie vv15-17) and not
on the vocatives or repetition of γπάυψ Similarly Longacre notes that the verb γπάυψ
switches from present to aorist use between 213 and 14 and that it does not occur again
until 513 While such data seems important Longacre fails to deal with it adequately since
his first major division of the book does not occur until 22931 Inexplicably it seems that
two verses which contain such a high concentration of Longacrersquos primary criteria are of
no special significance to him
Keir L Hansford
Hansfordrsquos basic premise is that 1 John is poetic He believes a structure can and should be
derived from treating and dividing 1 John in such a way His work is unusual in that he does
not provide an overall outline of the book but rather presents the entire text of the book
laid out in lines columns and strophes ldquoLinesrdquo are clauses or phrases in parallelism ldquoI
arguethe whole of the epistle was constructed out of parallelismsrdquo40 Hansford then
groups and divides lines in two ways horizontally and vertically Horizontally lines are
grouped into eighteen ldquostrophesrdquo which share certain key words At the same time lines
are divided into one of three vertical columns ldquothe authority of the apostlerdquo ldquohuman
actionsJesusrsquo ministryrdquo and ldquoGodrsquos creation and judgementrdquo Hansford also seeks to mark
all chiasms
As with many structural proposals for 1 John Hansfordrsquos has some beneficial
insights In attempting to structure the whole of 1 John he has paid acute attention to
details within the text This has proved to be a fruitful exercise especially in his
39 Culy A Handbook xvi 40 Keir L Hansford ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo JOTT 5 no 2 (1992) 128
15
identification of number of lsquomicro-parallelismrsquo and chiasms which have often been
overlooked
Despite these insights Hansfordrsquos overall structure and broad divisions are
problematic The first criticism is that under close inspection it becomes noticeable that a
number of Hansfordrsquos decisions are forced An example of a forced chiasm can be seen in
410-12 where ἠγαπήκαμεν in 410 is linked with σεθέασαι in 412 The two words have no
semantic overlap and it is difficult to see how they can be related other than they both
have θεὸν as their object Similarly issues regarding the column divisions can be seen at
39 The initial part of the verse πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ (the subject of the clause)
is placed in the second column (ldquohuman actionJesusrsquo ministryrdquo) while the second part
ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιει (the predicate and object) is placed in the third column (ldquoGodrsquos reaction
and judgementrdquo) These phrases do not naturally fit with the thematic topics of the
columns into which they are placed
Secondly the ldquokeywordsrdquo that are listed for each strophe seem arbitrary Each of the
eighteen strophes has on average between 15-20 keywords While some of these keywords
are unique to that portion of text other words such as ldquotruthrdquo ldquoJesusrdquo ldquoChristrdquo ldquoFatherrdquo
ldquoknowrdquo and ldquobelieverdquo occur in multiple strophes When the general and rather limited
vocabulary of the whole book is considered it becomes evident that some of the keywords
are not particular to any strophe but rather to the whole of 1 John
Thirdly it is possible that what Hansford considers to be poetic features of the text
could be explained in other ways For example the reversal of word order of verb and
subject is mentioned twice in his article as evidence of parallelism and chiasm41 It is
possible however that such a switch can be justified by other discourse features and issues
of information structure Hansford does not give details or references to the clauses he is
referring to and so it is difficult to decide either way However it must be kept in mind that
there may be other explanations for such features
Finally if the author intended such rigid parallelism it seems strange that not all
the parallels are as clear as those in 212-14 Hansford fails to take account of the clear
differences between portions of the text In Hansfordrsquos outline 212-14 which without
doubt demonstrate the clearest parallelisms blend in to his poetry and do not stand out at
all as they do when the text of 1 John is read as a whole
41 Hansford ldquoPoetic Structurerdquo 129 135
16
John Christopher Thomas
Thomas admirably sets out to focus ldquoattention on the structure of 1 John as revealed by
the text itself and seeks as far as possible to allow the text to reveal its shape on its own
termsrdquo42 The outcome of Thomas work is to suggest a chiastic structure to the book as a
whole Thomas makes clear that he is well aware of the dangers and criticisms that such
proposals have faced in the past Nevertheless he suggests that 1 John divides into 11
sections 10 of which are parallel one being central The overall chiastic structure is shown
above Thomas understands each parallel section to vaguely share a common theme or
topic eg making God a liar antichrists confidence with the central section being entitled
ldquoLove one anotherrdquo43
There are a number of problems with Thomasrsquo extended chiasm Firstly Thomas claims
that the central section of the book (section F 311-18) is focussed on loving one another
Not only does this begin a new unit with an ὅσι clause (see the treatment of Brownrsquos work
above and the discussion on 225 below for the syntactical problems associated with such a
division) but it also fails to take note that the ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλοτρ occurs more frequently
outside of this section than inside44 Similarly so with sections E and E` (228-310 and 319-
24) which are entitled ldquoConfidencerdquo The noun παππηςία occurs four times in 1 John but
only two occurrences are with these units45
42 John Christopher Thomas ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo NT 40 no 4 (1998) 371 43 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 373 44 This ἵνα clause occurs at 311 but also at 323 47 and 12 45 See 228 321 417 and 514
17
Secondly although Thomas seeks not to overstretch the links between the parallel
sections of his chiasm46 his claim that ldquothe use of similar catch wordsphraseswhich
parallel one anotherrdquo indicate that he expects his parallel sections to have to a greater or
lesser degree similar words and phrases If such is the case it is very strange that the
primary and central theme of 15-22 (ie light and darkness which occurs 13 times in those
verses) does not reappear in its parallel section (56-12) While it is true that Thomasrsquo
criteria allows that not every detail of every section will be parallel a parallelism where the
primary these are not paralleled is perculiar
A further problem with sections B and B` is Thomasrsquo comment ldquoA final point of
contact is that both passages begin with similar statements ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo in
15 and ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo in 56rdquo47 In both English and Greek it is difficult to
see how these two phrases can be correlated
Καὶ ἔςσιν αὕση ἡ ἀγγελία Οὗσόρ ἐςσιν ὁ ἐλθὼν
ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo
Although both have ἔςσιν and a demonstrative pronoun the similarity ends there The
word orders are different as is the gender of the pronoun One begins with a coordinating
conjunction the other with asyndeton One has as its subject a feminine abstract noun the
other an articular participle
Thus even with Thomasrsquo relatively loose criteria of what constitutes an extended
chiasm it is clear that 1 John as a whole refuses to be organised so neatly
46 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 372 47 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 379
18
An Analysis of Discourse Features in 1 John
Inherent Structure
Despite the widely varying theories for structure in 1 John most writers recognise that
structure is not absolutely alien to the author48 There are some portions of the book which
are unanimously agreed upon as distinct parts The two most obvious examples are 11-4
and 212-14 Aside from its complex grammatical and syntactical issues 11-4 is universally
recognised by writers and commentators as a single part which introduces the main
topic(s) of Johnrsquos first letter Similarly the lexical cohesion and repetition of 212-14 prove
beyond any doubt that John was able skilfully and carefully to construct literary units
We shall now proceed through the text of 1 John identifying major sections and
particular units using the methodology outlined above derived from cohesive features of
the text before drawing conclusions about an overall structure of the book
sect11-4
1 John 11-4 forms an introduction to the whole book49 The main clause (3c) is introduced
by an initial relative clause which is subsequently modified by three parallel relative
clauses (1b c d) in turn modified by a prepositional phrase (1f) and a parenthetical
48 See Brown Epistles 118 49 Smalley 1 2 3 John 4 15
19
comment (2a-f)50 3a starts with a resumptive relative clause before introducing the main
indicative verb (ἀπαγγέλλομεν)51 11a-3c form one complex colon and are therefore
syntactically cohesive
There are a number of additional cohesive features within these verses There is
inclusio of the verbs ἀκούψ and ὀπάψ in 1c3b and 1d3a respectively Similarly so the use
of υανεπόψ at the beginning and end of the parenthetic v2 (a and f) Also 1st person plural
verbs are used repeatedly throughout and are juxtaposed with 2nd person pronominal
references to the recipients This combination of 1st and 2nd person reference introduces the
two primary lsquocharactersrsquo in the letter Lastly the feminine noun ζψή is introduced
immediately prior to the parenthesis of v2 (1f) and is referred to in all four cola within the
parenthesis ndash twice by repetition of the noun (forming another inclusio) and twice by
ellipsis of the direct object of the transitive verbs ὀπάψ and μαπστπέψ
The complexities of the grammar52 and the textual issues53 make no difference to the
structure or cohesion of the passage
sect15-211
After an initial introduction 1 Johnrsquos first section starts at 15 and continues through to
211 This section is made up of three units
50 Judith M Lieu I II amp III John A Commentary (NTL Louisville Westminster John Knox 2008) 37 51 Culy A Handbook 7 52 Stott Letters 62 53 Bruce M Metzger A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed Stuttgart Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft 2002) 639
20
15-22
Unanimously agreed unit boundaries such as those of 11-4 do more than simply
demonstrate Johnrsquos literary abilities They also provide certain markers from which other
literary units can be determined If the introduction ends at 14 then 15 must begin a new
section Similarly if a new unit begins at 212 then the previous unit must end at 211 It
will be argued below that the verses in between (ie 15-211) form one large section
comprised of three units (15-22 23-7 28-11)
Callow has already done much of the work on 15-211 and it is unnecessary to repeat
all of his findings54 Rather a few complementary observations will be made
15-10 are tied together by their use of 3rd class conditional sentences 16a 7a 8a 9a
and 10a all introduce a protasis with ἐὰν55 Vv6 8 and 10 make negative assertions while
54 John Callow ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament Approaches and
Results (ed Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed JSNTSupp Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1999) esp 402-
4 55 See Culy A Handbook xvii-xx on the nature of these conditionals as mitigated exhortations
21
vv7 and 9 are positive forming an alternating pattern Repetition of words and phrases
such as κοινψνία πεπιπασέψ and ldquoκαθαπίζει ἡμᾶρ ἀπὸ πάςηρ ἁμαπσίαρrdquo also tie these verses
together
The relation of 21-2 to 15-10 is debated Some see 21 as a parenthesis and v2
returning to the preceding thought as a sixth conditional clause adding a final positive
element56 Others understand both of these verses to be a parenthesis given that the
conditional clause is of a different nature to the preceding ones57 Given the shift from 1st
person verbs in the preceding conditionals to the 3rd person σὶρ in 21d it seems that the
latter is preferable In which case 21-2 form a parenthetical comment in between 110 and
23
23-6
56 Marshall Epistles 115-16 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 396-97 57 Stott Letters 84
22
23-6 are held together by the inclusio of ἐν σούσῳ γινώςκομεν in 23a and 5c58 These two
independent clauses are both elaborated on in 23b-5b and 6a-d respectively The
introduction and repetition of the ideas of keeping (σηπέψ) commands (ἐνσολή) tie vv3-5
together
23-6 at first glance seems distinct from 15-10 However the repetition of ὁ λέγψν
followed by both a negative (v4) and a positive (v6) claim has strong links back to the
conditional clauses of 15-10 Similarly although the vocabulary has changed from
κοινψνία to γινώςκψ the concept of relationship to God is still present Further still 15
and 23 can both be understood as introducing their individual units Each verse makes a
stark claim which is then elucidated and illustrated both positively and negatively A final
cohesive feature is that if 21-2 are a parenthesis as suggested above then there is
referential cohesion between 15 through to 2659 Θεόρ is introduced in 15 and thereafter
only referred to with pronominal references60
Given the cohesive features and the links with 15-10 it is therefore legitimate to
conclude that ldquothis section is in several aspects parallel tohellipthe preceding sectionrdquo61 23-6
constitute a new unit That the unit begins with καὶ need not raise concern Although this
is somewhat unexpected at boundary features the presence of καὶ alone does not carry
enough weight to rule out a unit boundary (cf 15)62 Paragraphs initiated with καὶ seem to
be a feature of 1 John63
58 The prepositional clause ἐν σούσῳ is also repeated in 4e and 5b however these occurrences are
anaphoric with a personal antecedent in 4a and 5a respectively The phrases in 3a and 5c are cataphoric and
refer to abstract concepts rather than specific individuals See Culy A Handbook 25 59 There is also a lone pronominal reference to God in 8b 60 The sole exception being the genitive phrase of 25b ἡ ἀγάπη σοῦ θεοῦ 61 C Haas M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for
Translators London United Bible Societies 1972) 43 62 Levinsohn Discourse Features 275 Kermit Titrud ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament
and an Application to 2 Peterrdquo in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed
David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 240-70 63 See 15 220 28 33 13 19 514
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
5
In other words a tail-head linkage in 1 John usually consists of a cluster of three or four
occurrences of the same word or words of the same root words occurring at the end of a
section or unit There will be at least one occurrence of the word in the first unit and at
least one further in the second See 324e and 41bc for an example using πνεῦμα where the
word occurs once at the end of a unit and twice more at the beginning of the next11
A lsquocolonrsquo is a term used to refer to ldquoa sentence unit consisting of a nominal and
verbal element together with all their syntactically dependent expansionsrdquo12 A colon can
be identified on purely syntactical grounds The cola of 1 John are clear from the diagram
The purpose of this essay is to examine how such cola relate to one another
A lsquounitrsquo () is a fairly small yet distinct portion of text (usually 2-5 verses) which is
held together by any number of cohesive factors (eg clusters inclusio chiasm) Each
individual unit will be examined explained and defined in the body of this essay
Finally a lsquosectionrsquo (sect) refers to a larger portion of text made up of multiple units
which tie themselves together in some manner
The term lsquopartsrsquo is used to refer to divisions made by others or to breaks without
the technical senses mentioned above This term is adopted to avoid confusion in using
terms such as lsquounitrsquo or lsquosectionrsquo in describing the work of others
Superscript Arabic numerals immediately following a verse reference signify the
number of times a given word or phrase occurs within that verse These notes should not
be confused with bibliographic footnote references (which usually occur after a comma or
period) or edition information for standard SBL abbreviations (eg USB4 NA27)13
11 George Guthrie The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis (Brill 1994) 96-97 12 Peter Cotterell and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove IVP 1998) 201 13 In order to avoid unnecessary confusion some bibliographic footnote references have been placed
immediately after the relevant word or phrase rather than being shifted to the end of the clause or sentence
as recommended by SBLHS
6
Existing Structural Proposals
It is far beyond the scope of this essay to cite exhaustively all writers and all structural
proposals for 1 John However over time three main groups have emerged into which one
can divide most writings on the subject One significant proponent of each group will be
presented and evaluated Firstly a lsquocyclical viewrsquo like that of Robert Law secondly a two-
part structure pioneered by Raymond Brown (lsquoa bipartite viewrsquo) and finally a less
conclusive proposal like that of I Howard Marshall (lsquoa linear viewrsquo)
Views Presented in Major Commentaries
Robert Law ndash A Cyclical View
Lawrsquos work although first published in 1909 has found considerable support amongst
scholars His proposal is characteristic of those which seek to divide and arrange the
material of 1 John according to themes or theological content Although quite dated his
proposal is considered worthy of attention due to the following it has received Brown calls
it ldquoone of the most famous and influential divisionsrdquo14 One or another form of cyclical
structure is proposed by Bruce Burdick and Stott15 Lawrsquos structure is also remarkably
14 Raymond E Brown The Epistles of John (vol 30 AB London Doubleday 1982) 121 15 F F Bruce The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992) 29 Donald W Burdick The Epistles of John
(Chicago Moody Press 1970) 14-17 John Stott The Letters of John (2d ed TNTC Leicester IVP 1990) 61
7
similar to the work of Theodor Haumlring although they worked and published
independently16
Law uses two words to summarise his view of the structure of 1 John ldquospiralrdquo and
ldquotestsrdquo It is ldquospiralrdquo because the progression of thought is not simply linear one idea after
the next in a straight line as is usually the case in Western literature Rather the work is
arranged around a centre ldquoalways recurring to the same topics but at a higher levelrdquo He
goes on to illustrate ldquo[the author takes] two or three melodieshellip[and by]introducing
themhelliprepeating them inverting them skilfully interlacing themhelliprears up from them an
edifice of stately harmoniesrdquo Secondly Law summarises 1 John as a series of ldquotestsrdquo The
book is comprised of numerous sets of criteria by which believers may ldquosatisfy themselves
of their being ldquobegotten of Godrdquordquo17
The combination of these two ideas leads to Lawrsquos overall structure of the book
there are three cyclesspirals each of which consists of three tests ldquodoing righteousness
loving one another and believing that Jesus is the Christrdquo18
While it is true that Law (and those who follow variations of his structure) has provided a
useful summary of the content of the book and has no doubt made 1 John meaningful and
accessible to many readers since publication there are a number of problems with his
proposal
Firstly a number of section breaks occur at seemingly inappropriate points The
divisions between the major sections are not problematic and occur at logical places within
the book (eg 22829 and 467) However a number of Lawrsquos subdivisions are less
straightforward The start of Paragraph A (18) in the First Cycle is problematic ndash even Law
himself seems somewhat confused on the matter He recognises that there are ldquothree
parallel pairs of antithesisrdquo within 16-2219 yet suggests that 18 marks the start of
16 Theodor Haring ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo in Theologische
Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet (ed Adolf von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892) 171-200 For further
comment and comparison see A E Brooke The Johannine Epistles (ICC Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1912) xxxiv-
xxxvii Robert Law The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John (2d ed Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1909) 24 17 Law Tests 6 18 Law Tests 5-6 19 Law Tests 65
8
Paragraph A20 To suggest that a new paragraph or section starts between the first and
second of three parallel antithesis is awkward
Secondly Lawrsquos structure falls down towards the end of 1 John where the three tests
are reduced in number to only two and their order is reversed Law admits regarding the
closing section that ldquothe logical analysis of it is the hardest part of our taskrdquo21 If a cyclical
structure was in Johnrsquos mind as he wrote one might expect him to have maintained some
consistency in his presentation of the tests But according to Law this is not the case
Rather in the Third Cycle the number of main themes is reduced to two Law states that
ldquorighteousness takes a subordinate placerdquo22 The previously primary theme of
righteousness drops out completely as it is absent from both the section headings and the
synopsis of the third major division spanning from 47 to 521
Thirdly Lawrsquos structure fails to take account of or adequately deal with difficult
passages within 1 John the most notable of these being 212-14 According to Law these
verses are a mere parenthesis and his structure requires that they are ldquoomittedrdquo in order to
maintain ldquothe unity of the paragraphrdquo23 While there are parentheses in 1 John verses
should not be categorised as such without considerable support There is strong evidence
that 212-14 mark the start of a major new section on 1 John (see on page 25) Lawrsquos
degradation of these verses is unnecessary
20 Law Tests 8 It is clear from the context that by ldquoparagraphrdquo Law means something similar to the
concept of ldquounitrdquo as defined above 21 Law Tests 15 22 Law Tests 15 23 Law Tests 10
9
Raymond Brown ndash A Binary View
A second major group of proposals are those that divide the body (15-512) of 1 John into
two parts (usually with an introduction (11-4) and conclusion (513-21))24 Of those who see
two halves in the body of 1 John many propose that the division is based on a certain
connection with the Gospel of John Of such authors Brown is the most prominent25
Brownrsquos division of 1 John is tied closely to his understanding of the authorship and
historical context of the letter In Brownrsquos view 1 John has been written by an author who
is part of the Johannine community which due to differing interpretations of the Gospel of
John had divided The author of 1 John regards the secessionists as heterodox and is
writing to his own community26 Regarding structure specifically Brown writes
If the epistolary author is drawing upon the theology and wording of the Johannine
tradition embodied in GJohn and assumes the mantle of evangelist as an interpreter of
that traditionhellip a priori it is not inconceivable that he used GJohn as a model in
structuring his comments in 1 John27
Brown then goes on to elaborate this theory into true structure show above
There are a number of problems with Brownrsquos theory The first is that his structure is so
tightly linked to his view of authorship The structure and authorship of 1 John are two of
24 Brown Epistles 764 Stephen S Smalley 1 2 3 John (WBC Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984) 25 See also W Hall Harris III 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis (Dallas Biblical Studies
2003) 26 Brown Epistles 69-70 27 Brown Epistles 124
10
the most uncertain and debated aspects of Johannine scholarship Given the difficult
textual grammatical and linguistic issues related to such a structure it seems that Brownrsquos
proposal based on little more than a presupposition that 1 John is intended to imitate the
Gospel of John
A second issue with Brownrsquos proposal is his own seeming uncertainty about it When
stating his view he only does so negatively ldquoa priori it is not inconceivable that he used
GJohn as a modelhelliprdquo28 That a proposal is ldquonot inconceivablerdquo does not make it necessarily
true It may well be the case that the author used the style and vocabulary of the Gospel of
John as his starting point but this does not necessitate that he also borrowed the structure
And without strong evidence within the text to support it the theory is not adequate In
this same connection when Brown explains his divisions his own confession is that
determining the point of division of the body of 1 John into two parts is much more
difficult than identifying an introduction and conclusion29
In addition to these general objections given above there are both syntactical and
lexical problems with Brownrsquos divisions
The syntactical issue with Brownrsquos proposal is that he makes the second major
section of the book begin with an ὅσι clause He argues that 311 and 15 are grammatically
parallel phrases and should therefore each be understood as introducing the themes of part
one and part two of the book The primary problem here is that ὅσι is a subordinating
conjunction and therefore necessitates that it is connected with a superordinate clause (ie
310)30 As Culy comments ldquoAlthough such an analysis may make good sense of the themes
of the letter it ignores the surface structure The ὅσι makes it clear that syntactically 311 is
subordinate to 310rdquo31 A secondary problem with this assertion is that although there are
many grammatical and lexical links between 15 and 311 the claim that these two verses
alone are parallel does not take account of all the data and similar occurrences in 1 John32
A lexical issue with Brownrsquos division is his correlation of 1 John 513 and John 2031
It is claimed that these two verses parallel one another Although there are a number of
lexical links between the two verses there are three issue to consider Firstly it is widely
recognised that 1 John has similar vocabulary to the Gospel of John and so some too much
28 Brown Epistles 124 29 Brown Epistles 125 30 BDF lists ὅσι in ch11 part 3c ldquoSubordinating (Hypotactic) Conjunctionsrdquo 31 Martin M Culy I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco Baylor 2004) 80 32 See comments below on 225 and the occurrences of αὕση
11
should not be read into lexical links between John 2031 and 1 John 513 Secondly given
the frequency and variety of use of the verb γπάυψ in 1 John it is dangerous to read too
much into this one occurrence Finally there is a considerable number of differences
between these two verses which one would not expect to find if the epistolary author was
intending to use John 2031 as the model for 513 For example the verb tense-form in John
is perfect while in 1 John it is aorist Also the clause structure in 1 John is unusual (see
diagram) with the verb γπάυψ having two parallel direct objects one at either end of the
verse John 2031 has no such complex structure
Thus it can be concluded that Brown does little to convince his readers that his
theory is robust enough to allow for the difficult issues surrounding 1 John There are a
significant number of theological and grammatical issues which make his structural
proposal dubious
I H Marshall ndash A Linear View
Finally the work of more recent commentators has been content to stop short of a rigid or
hierarchical proposal Marshall surveys a number of existing proposals and concludes
12
ldquoit seems preferable to regard the Epistle as being composed of a series of connected
paragraphs whose relation to one another is governed by association of ideas rather
than by a logical plan This does not mean that John is illogical but rather that his
Epistle is not meant to be divided into large sections on a logical basisrdquo33
Such a lsquolinearrsquo structure is also adopted by Kruse Johnson and a number of others34
One the one hand Marshall is very wise to be cautious about dividing 1 John Given the
plethora of differing theories and the voluminous writing on the subject his
lsquoindecisivenessrsquo is refreshing Also Marshallrsquos recognition that some of the connections
between paragraphs may not seem ldquologicalrdquo to us (ie ldquoassociation of ideasrdquo) is insightful A
further benefit of Marshallrsquos work is his refusal to arrange paragraphs hierarchically
Marshallrsquos structure simply divides the text into units and makes little comment on their
interrelationships
On the other hand there are still a number of issues with such a proposal Whereas
other writers have made proposals in which thematic or theological considerations dictate
the divisions (eg Law) Marshallrsquos divisions seem to be determined by convenience (eg
seeking a limited number of paragraphs of similar length) in order to structure his
commentary This works out in two ways in some instances Marshall joins together verses
which do not demonstrate any connection to one another For example he connects of
212-14 and 215-17 These two units are treated together by many commentators even
though apart from their proximity to one another there are no indications that they
should be treated as such Rather each unit as its own distinct structure and vocabulary
Alternatively Marshall sometimes divides paragraphs despite strong textual evidence that
they are connected An example is the division between 412 and 1335 As will be explained
below these verses form part of one unit having a distinct structure which is within a
larger section characterised by ἀγαπ roots
View Presented in Articles
In recent years with the development of discourse analysis and text-linguistics there has
been a movement away from attempting to establish the structure of 1 John based upon
33 I Howard Marshall The Epistles of John (NICNT Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978) 26 34 Colin G Kruse The Letters of John (The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester Apollos 2000)
21 Thomas F Johnson 1 2 and 3 John (New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle Paternoster 1995) 15-
16 35 Marshall Epistles 26 See below for a fuller treatment of these units
13
thematic andor theological considerations Instead various writers have attempted to
determine the structure based upon linguistic theory and discourse features We shall
briefly review and critique three such attempts
Robert E Longacre
Longacre claims that ldquodiscourse analysis can suggest a natural outline of the bookrdquo36 He
goes on to outline a number of discourse features which he will analyse to elucidate such a
structure 1 John he claims is divided into sixteen paragraphs based on the position of
vocatives These sixteen paragraphs are subsequently grouped further into three sections
based on the distribution of γπάυψ an introduction (11-229) a body (31-512) and a
conclusion (513-21) Other features such as the genre of 1 John which Longacre takes to be
hortatory discourse the concept of peaks (ie ldquopoints of cumulative developmentrdquo)37 and
the macrostructure of the book (ldquoa summaryhellipof a text which is stated so that it gives the
central thrust of the whole workrdquo)38 are also brought to bear on the structure of the text
Longacre argues for a doctrinal and an ethical peak in both the introduction and the
body of the book Thus 212-17 and 41-6 form the ethical peaks and 218-27 and 47-21 the
doctrinal peaks The macrostructure of 1 John is seen to be 319-24 which immediately
precedes the dual peaks of the body
Longacrersquos commitment to deriving a structure of 1 John from discourse features of the
text itself is admirable and his work highlights a number of significant characteristics of 1
John Nevertheless there are some weaknesses with his approach The primary issue with
is Longacrersquos over-emphasis on a limited number of discourse features Although five
discourse features are outlined at the beginning of his paper the derivation of a structure
for 1 John is based upon only two of these features the use of vocatives and the distribution
of γπάυψ The other three discourse features are merely analysed to clarify the structure
In this regard Culy helpfully points out
36 Robert Longacre ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Textrdquo
in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed David Alan Black Katherine
Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 271 37 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 279 38 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 280
14
ldquoGiven this distribution of vocatives it is not inappropriate to recognize that this
particular writer frequently uses vocatives to help mark boundaries Such an observation
does not require that vocatives were always used in this wayrdquo39
Not only are vocatives not an absolute marker of boundaries but there are numerous other
features which Longacre largely ignores (eg lexical cohesion and participant reference)
A second major weakness in Longacrersquos proposal is his treatment of 212-14 Given
his focus on vocatives and γπάυψ it is significant that these three verses contain six
occurrences of each Longacre does claim that 212-17 is ldquoan ethical peakrdquo but this
conclusion is based on ldquoa strong exhortation not to love the worldrdquo (ie vv15-17) and not
on the vocatives or repetition of γπάυψ Similarly Longacre notes that the verb γπάυψ
switches from present to aorist use between 213 and 14 and that it does not occur again
until 513 While such data seems important Longacre fails to deal with it adequately since
his first major division of the book does not occur until 22931 Inexplicably it seems that
two verses which contain such a high concentration of Longacrersquos primary criteria are of
no special significance to him
Keir L Hansford
Hansfordrsquos basic premise is that 1 John is poetic He believes a structure can and should be
derived from treating and dividing 1 John in such a way His work is unusual in that he does
not provide an overall outline of the book but rather presents the entire text of the book
laid out in lines columns and strophes ldquoLinesrdquo are clauses or phrases in parallelism ldquoI
arguethe whole of the epistle was constructed out of parallelismsrdquo40 Hansford then
groups and divides lines in two ways horizontally and vertically Horizontally lines are
grouped into eighteen ldquostrophesrdquo which share certain key words At the same time lines
are divided into one of three vertical columns ldquothe authority of the apostlerdquo ldquohuman
actionsJesusrsquo ministryrdquo and ldquoGodrsquos creation and judgementrdquo Hansford also seeks to mark
all chiasms
As with many structural proposals for 1 John Hansfordrsquos has some beneficial
insights In attempting to structure the whole of 1 John he has paid acute attention to
details within the text This has proved to be a fruitful exercise especially in his
39 Culy A Handbook xvi 40 Keir L Hansford ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo JOTT 5 no 2 (1992) 128
15
identification of number of lsquomicro-parallelismrsquo and chiasms which have often been
overlooked
Despite these insights Hansfordrsquos overall structure and broad divisions are
problematic The first criticism is that under close inspection it becomes noticeable that a
number of Hansfordrsquos decisions are forced An example of a forced chiasm can be seen in
410-12 where ἠγαπήκαμεν in 410 is linked with σεθέασαι in 412 The two words have no
semantic overlap and it is difficult to see how they can be related other than they both
have θεὸν as their object Similarly issues regarding the column divisions can be seen at
39 The initial part of the verse πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ (the subject of the clause)
is placed in the second column (ldquohuman actionJesusrsquo ministryrdquo) while the second part
ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιει (the predicate and object) is placed in the third column (ldquoGodrsquos reaction
and judgementrdquo) These phrases do not naturally fit with the thematic topics of the
columns into which they are placed
Secondly the ldquokeywordsrdquo that are listed for each strophe seem arbitrary Each of the
eighteen strophes has on average between 15-20 keywords While some of these keywords
are unique to that portion of text other words such as ldquotruthrdquo ldquoJesusrdquo ldquoChristrdquo ldquoFatherrdquo
ldquoknowrdquo and ldquobelieverdquo occur in multiple strophes When the general and rather limited
vocabulary of the whole book is considered it becomes evident that some of the keywords
are not particular to any strophe but rather to the whole of 1 John
Thirdly it is possible that what Hansford considers to be poetic features of the text
could be explained in other ways For example the reversal of word order of verb and
subject is mentioned twice in his article as evidence of parallelism and chiasm41 It is
possible however that such a switch can be justified by other discourse features and issues
of information structure Hansford does not give details or references to the clauses he is
referring to and so it is difficult to decide either way However it must be kept in mind that
there may be other explanations for such features
Finally if the author intended such rigid parallelism it seems strange that not all
the parallels are as clear as those in 212-14 Hansford fails to take account of the clear
differences between portions of the text In Hansfordrsquos outline 212-14 which without
doubt demonstrate the clearest parallelisms blend in to his poetry and do not stand out at
all as they do when the text of 1 John is read as a whole
41 Hansford ldquoPoetic Structurerdquo 129 135
16
John Christopher Thomas
Thomas admirably sets out to focus ldquoattention on the structure of 1 John as revealed by
the text itself and seeks as far as possible to allow the text to reveal its shape on its own
termsrdquo42 The outcome of Thomas work is to suggest a chiastic structure to the book as a
whole Thomas makes clear that he is well aware of the dangers and criticisms that such
proposals have faced in the past Nevertheless he suggests that 1 John divides into 11
sections 10 of which are parallel one being central The overall chiastic structure is shown
above Thomas understands each parallel section to vaguely share a common theme or
topic eg making God a liar antichrists confidence with the central section being entitled
ldquoLove one anotherrdquo43
There are a number of problems with Thomasrsquo extended chiasm Firstly Thomas claims
that the central section of the book (section F 311-18) is focussed on loving one another
Not only does this begin a new unit with an ὅσι clause (see the treatment of Brownrsquos work
above and the discussion on 225 below for the syntactical problems associated with such a
division) but it also fails to take note that the ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλοτρ occurs more frequently
outside of this section than inside44 Similarly so with sections E and E` (228-310 and 319-
24) which are entitled ldquoConfidencerdquo The noun παππηςία occurs four times in 1 John but
only two occurrences are with these units45
42 John Christopher Thomas ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo NT 40 no 4 (1998) 371 43 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 373 44 This ἵνα clause occurs at 311 but also at 323 47 and 12 45 See 228 321 417 and 514
17
Secondly although Thomas seeks not to overstretch the links between the parallel
sections of his chiasm46 his claim that ldquothe use of similar catch wordsphraseswhich
parallel one anotherrdquo indicate that he expects his parallel sections to have to a greater or
lesser degree similar words and phrases If such is the case it is very strange that the
primary and central theme of 15-22 (ie light and darkness which occurs 13 times in those
verses) does not reappear in its parallel section (56-12) While it is true that Thomasrsquo
criteria allows that not every detail of every section will be parallel a parallelism where the
primary these are not paralleled is perculiar
A further problem with sections B and B` is Thomasrsquo comment ldquoA final point of
contact is that both passages begin with similar statements ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo in
15 and ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo in 56rdquo47 In both English and Greek it is difficult to
see how these two phrases can be correlated
Καὶ ἔςσιν αὕση ἡ ἀγγελία Οὗσόρ ἐςσιν ὁ ἐλθὼν
ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo
Although both have ἔςσιν and a demonstrative pronoun the similarity ends there The
word orders are different as is the gender of the pronoun One begins with a coordinating
conjunction the other with asyndeton One has as its subject a feminine abstract noun the
other an articular participle
Thus even with Thomasrsquo relatively loose criteria of what constitutes an extended
chiasm it is clear that 1 John as a whole refuses to be organised so neatly
46 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 372 47 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 379
18
An Analysis of Discourse Features in 1 John
Inherent Structure
Despite the widely varying theories for structure in 1 John most writers recognise that
structure is not absolutely alien to the author48 There are some portions of the book which
are unanimously agreed upon as distinct parts The two most obvious examples are 11-4
and 212-14 Aside from its complex grammatical and syntactical issues 11-4 is universally
recognised by writers and commentators as a single part which introduces the main
topic(s) of Johnrsquos first letter Similarly the lexical cohesion and repetition of 212-14 prove
beyond any doubt that John was able skilfully and carefully to construct literary units
We shall now proceed through the text of 1 John identifying major sections and
particular units using the methodology outlined above derived from cohesive features of
the text before drawing conclusions about an overall structure of the book
sect11-4
1 John 11-4 forms an introduction to the whole book49 The main clause (3c) is introduced
by an initial relative clause which is subsequently modified by three parallel relative
clauses (1b c d) in turn modified by a prepositional phrase (1f) and a parenthetical
48 See Brown Epistles 118 49 Smalley 1 2 3 John 4 15
19
comment (2a-f)50 3a starts with a resumptive relative clause before introducing the main
indicative verb (ἀπαγγέλλομεν)51 11a-3c form one complex colon and are therefore
syntactically cohesive
There are a number of additional cohesive features within these verses There is
inclusio of the verbs ἀκούψ and ὀπάψ in 1c3b and 1d3a respectively Similarly so the use
of υανεπόψ at the beginning and end of the parenthetic v2 (a and f) Also 1st person plural
verbs are used repeatedly throughout and are juxtaposed with 2nd person pronominal
references to the recipients This combination of 1st and 2nd person reference introduces the
two primary lsquocharactersrsquo in the letter Lastly the feminine noun ζψή is introduced
immediately prior to the parenthesis of v2 (1f) and is referred to in all four cola within the
parenthesis ndash twice by repetition of the noun (forming another inclusio) and twice by
ellipsis of the direct object of the transitive verbs ὀπάψ and μαπστπέψ
The complexities of the grammar52 and the textual issues53 make no difference to the
structure or cohesion of the passage
sect15-211
After an initial introduction 1 Johnrsquos first section starts at 15 and continues through to
211 This section is made up of three units
50 Judith M Lieu I II amp III John A Commentary (NTL Louisville Westminster John Knox 2008) 37 51 Culy A Handbook 7 52 Stott Letters 62 53 Bruce M Metzger A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed Stuttgart Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft 2002) 639
20
15-22
Unanimously agreed unit boundaries such as those of 11-4 do more than simply
demonstrate Johnrsquos literary abilities They also provide certain markers from which other
literary units can be determined If the introduction ends at 14 then 15 must begin a new
section Similarly if a new unit begins at 212 then the previous unit must end at 211 It
will be argued below that the verses in between (ie 15-211) form one large section
comprised of three units (15-22 23-7 28-11)
Callow has already done much of the work on 15-211 and it is unnecessary to repeat
all of his findings54 Rather a few complementary observations will be made
15-10 are tied together by their use of 3rd class conditional sentences 16a 7a 8a 9a
and 10a all introduce a protasis with ἐὰν55 Vv6 8 and 10 make negative assertions while
54 John Callow ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament Approaches and
Results (ed Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed JSNTSupp Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1999) esp 402-
4 55 See Culy A Handbook xvii-xx on the nature of these conditionals as mitigated exhortations
21
vv7 and 9 are positive forming an alternating pattern Repetition of words and phrases
such as κοινψνία πεπιπασέψ and ldquoκαθαπίζει ἡμᾶρ ἀπὸ πάςηρ ἁμαπσίαρrdquo also tie these verses
together
The relation of 21-2 to 15-10 is debated Some see 21 as a parenthesis and v2
returning to the preceding thought as a sixth conditional clause adding a final positive
element56 Others understand both of these verses to be a parenthesis given that the
conditional clause is of a different nature to the preceding ones57 Given the shift from 1st
person verbs in the preceding conditionals to the 3rd person σὶρ in 21d it seems that the
latter is preferable In which case 21-2 form a parenthetical comment in between 110 and
23
23-6
56 Marshall Epistles 115-16 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 396-97 57 Stott Letters 84
22
23-6 are held together by the inclusio of ἐν σούσῳ γινώςκομεν in 23a and 5c58 These two
independent clauses are both elaborated on in 23b-5b and 6a-d respectively The
introduction and repetition of the ideas of keeping (σηπέψ) commands (ἐνσολή) tie vv3-5
together
23-6 at first glance seems distinct from 15-10 However the repetition of ὁ λέγψν
followed by both a negative (v4) and a positive (v6) claim has strong links back to the
conditional clauses of 15-10 Similarly although the vocabulary has changed from
κοινψνία to γινώςκψ the concept of relationship to God is still present Further still 15
and 23 can both be understood as introducing their individual units Each verse makes a
stark claim which is then elucidated and illustrated both positively and negatively A final
cohesive feature is that if 21-2 are a parenthesis as suggested above then there is
referential cohesion between 15 through to 2659 Θεόρ is introduced in 15 and thereafter
only referred to with pronominal references60
Given the cohesive features and the links with 15-10 it is therefore legitimate to
conclude that ldquothis section is in several aspects parallel tohellipthe preceding sectionrdquo61 23-6
constitute a new unit That the unit begins with καὶ need not raise concern Although this
is somewhat unexpected at boundary features the presence of καὶ alone does not carry
enough weight to rule out a unit boundary (cf 15)62 Paragraphs initiated with καὶ seem to
be a feature of 1 John63
58 The prepositional clause ἐν σούσῳ is also repeated in 4e and 5b however these occurrences are
anaphoric with a personal antecedent in 4a and 5a respectively The phrases in 3a and 5c are cataphoric and
refer to abstract concepts rather than specific individuals See Culy A Handbook 25 59 There is also a lone pronominal reference to God in 8b 60 The sole exception being the genitive phrase of 25b ἡ ἀγάπη σοῦ θεοῦ 61 C Haas M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for
Translators London United Bible Societies 1972) 43 62 Levinsohn Discourse Features 275 Kermit Titrud ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament
and an Application to 2 Peterrdquo in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed
David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 240-70 63 See 15 220 28 33 13 19 514
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
6
Existing Structural Proposals
It is far beyond the scope of this essay to cite exhaustively all writers and all structural
proposals for 1 John However over time three main groups have emerged into which one
can divide most writings on the subject One significant proponent of each group will be
presented and evaluated Firstly a lsquocyclical viewrsquo like that of Robert Law secondly a two-
part structure pioneered by Raymond Brown (lsquoa bipartite viewrsquo) and finally a less
conclusive proposal like that of I Howard Marshall (lsquoa linear viewrsquo)
Views Presented in Major Commentaries
Robert Law ndash A Cyclical View
Lawrsquos work although first published in 1909 has found considerable support amongst
scholars His proposal is characteristic of those which seek to divide and arrange the
material of 1 John according to themes or theological content Although quite dated his
proposal is considered worthy of attention due to the following it has received Brown calls
it ldquoone of the most famous and influential divisionsrdquo14 One or another form of cyclical
structure is proposed by Bruce Burdick and Stott15 Lawrsquos structure is also remarkably
14 Raymond E Brown The Epistles of John (vol 30 AB London Doubleday 1982) 121 15 F F Bruce The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992) 29 Donald W Burdick The Epistles of John
(Chicago Moody Press 1970) 14-17 John Stott The Letters of John (2d ed TNTC Leicester IVP 1990) 61
7
similar to the work of Theodor Haumlring although they worked and published
independently16
Law uses two words to summarise his view of the structure of 1 John ldquospiralrdquo and
ldquotestsrdquo It is ldquospiralrdquo because the progression of thought is not simply linear one idea after
the next in a straight line as is usually the case in Western literature Rather the work is
arranged around a centre ldquoalways recurring to the same topics but at a higher levelrdquo He
goes on to illustrate ldquo[the author takes] two or three melodieshellip[and by]introducing
themhelliprepeating them inverting them skilfully interlacing themhelliprears up from them an
edifice of stately harmoniesrdquo Secondly Law summarises 1 John as a series of ldquotestsrdquo The
book is comprised of numerous sets of criteria by which believers may ldquosatisfy themselves
of their being ldquobegotten of Godrdquordquo17
The combination of these two ideas leads to Lawrsquos overall structure of the book
there are three cyclesspirals each of which consists of three tests ldquodoing righteousness
loving one another and believing that Jesus is the Christrdquo18
While it is true that Law (and those who follow variations of his structure) has provided a
useful summary of the content of the book and has no doubt made 1 John meaningful and
accessible to many readers since publication there are a number of problems with his
proposal
Firstly a number of section breaks occur at seemingly inappropriate points The
divisions between the major sections are not problematic and occur at logical places within
the book (eg 22829 and 467) However a number of Lawrsquos subdivisions are less
straightforward The start of Paragraph A (18) in the First Cycle is problematic ndash even Law
himself seems somewhat confused on the matter He recognises that there are ldquothree
parallel pairs of antithesisrdquo within 16-2219 yet suggests that 18 marks the start of
16 Theodor Haring ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo in Theologische
Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet (ed Adolf von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892) 171-200 For further
comment and comparison see A E Brooke The Johannine Epistles (ICC Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1912) xxxiv-
xxxvii Robert Law The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John (2d ed Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1909) 24 17 Law Tests 6 18 Law Tests 5-6 19 Law Tests 65
8
Paragraph A20 To suggest that a new paragraph or section starts between the first and
second of three parallel antithesis is awkward
Secondly Lawrsquos structure falls down towards the end of 1 John where the three tests
are reduced in number to only two and their order is reversed Law admits regarding the
closing section that ldquothe logical analysis of it is the hardest part of our taskrdquo21 If a cyclical
structure was in Johnrsquos mind as he wrote one might expect him to have maintained some
consistency in his presentation of the tests But according to Law this is not the case
Rather in the Third Cycle the number of main themes is reduced to two Law states that
ldquorighteousness takes a subordinate placerdquo22 The previously primary theme of
righteousness drops out completely as it is absent from both the section headings and the
synopsis of the third major division spanning from 47 to 521
Thirdly Lawrsquos structure fails to take account of or adequately deal with difficult
passages within 1 John the most notable of these being 212-14 According to Law these
verses are a mere parenthesis and his structure requires that they are ldquoomittedrdquo in order to
maintain ldquothe unity of the paragraphrdquo23 While there are parentheses in 1 John verses
should not be categorised as such without considerable support There is strong evidence
that 212-14 mark the start of a major new section on 1 John (see on page 25) Lawrsquos
degradation of these verses is unnecessary
20 Law Tests 8 It is clear from the context that by ldquoparagraphrdquo Law means something similar to the
concept of ldquounitrdquo as defined above 21 Law Tests 15 22 Law Tests 15 23 Law Tests 10
9
Raymond Brown ndash A Binary View
A second major group of proposals are those that divide the body (15-512) of 1 John into
two parts (usually with an introduction (11-4) and conclusion (513-21))24 Of those who see
two halves in the body of 1 John many propose that the division is based on a certain
connection with the Gospel of John Of such authors Brown is the most prominent25
Brownrsquos division of 1 John is tied closely to his understanding of the authorship and
historical context of the letter In Brownrsquos view 1 John has been written by an author who
is part of the Johannine community which due to differing interpretations of the Gospel of
John had divided The author of 1 John regards the secessionists as heterodox and is
writing to his own community26 Regarding structure specifically Brown writes
If the epistolary author is drawing upon the theology and wording of the Johannine
tradition embodied in GJohn and assumes the mantle of evangelist as an interpreter of
that traditionhellip a priori it is not inconceivable that he used GJohn as a model in
structuring his comments in 1 John27
Brown then goes on to elaborate this theory into true structure show above
There are a number of problems with Brownrsquos theory The first is that his structure is so
tightly linked to his view of authorship The structure and authorship of 1 John are two of
24 Brown Epistles 764 Stephen S Smalley 1 2 3 John (WBC Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984) 25 See also W Hall Harris III 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis (Dallas Biblical Studies
2003) 26 Brown Epistles 69-70 27 Brown Epistles 124
10
the most uncertain and debated aspects of Johannine scholarship Given the difficult
textual grammatical and linguistic issues related to such a structure it seems that Brownrsquos
proposal based on little more than a presupposition that 1 John is intended to imitate the
Gospel of John
A second issue with Brownrsquos proposal is his own seeming uncertainty about it When
stating his view he only does so negatively ldquoa priori it is not inconceivable that he used
GJohn as a modelhelliprdquo28 That a proposal is ldquonot inconceivablerdquo does not make it necessarily
true It may well be the case that the author used the style and vocabulary of the Gospel of
John as his starting point but this does not necessitate that he also borrowed the structure
And without strong evidence within the text to support it the theory is not adequate In
this same connection when Brown explains his divisions his own confession is that
determining the point of division of the body of 1 John into two parts is much more
difficult than identifying an introduction and conclusion29
In addition to these general objections given above there are both syntactical and
lexical problems with Brownrsquos divisions
The syntactical issue with Brownrsquos proposal is that he makes the second major
section of the book begin with an ὅσι clause He argues that 311 and 15 are grammatically
parallel phrases and should therefore each be understood as introducing the themes of part
one and part two of the book The primary problem here is that ὅσι is a subordinating
conjunction and therefore necessitates that it is connected with a superordinate clause (ie
310)30 As Culy comments ldquoAlthough such an analysis may make good sense of the themes
of the letter it ignores the surface structure The ὅσι makes it clear that syntactically 311 is
subordinate to 310rdquo31 A secondary problem with this assertion is that although there are
many grammatical and lexical links between 15 and 311 the claim that these two verses
alone are parallel does not take account of all the data and similar occurrences in 1 John32
A lexical issue with Brownrsquos division is his correlation of 1 John 513 and John 2031
It is claimed that these two verses parallel one another Although there are a number of
lexical links between the two verses there are three issue to consider Firstly it is widely
recognised that 1 John has similar vocabulary to the Gospel of John and so some too much
28 Brown Epistles 124 29 Brown Epistles 125 30 BDF lists ὅσι in ch11 part 3c ldquoSubordinating (Hypotactic) Conjunctionsrdquo 31 Martin M Culy I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco Baylor 2004) 80 32 See comments below on 225 and the occurrences of αὕση
11
should not be read into lexical links between John 2031 and 1 John 513 Secondly given
the frequency and variety of use of the verb γπάυψ in 1 John it is dangerous to read too
much into this one occurrence Finally there is a considerable number of differences
between these two verses which one would not expect to find if the epistolary author was
intending to use John 2031 as the model for 513 For example the verb tense-form in John
is perfect while in 1 John it is aorist Also the clause structure in 1 John is unusual (see
diagram) with the verb γπάυψ having two parallel direct objects one at either end of the
verse John 2031 has no such complex structure
Thus it can be concluded that Brown does little to convince his readers that his
theory is robust enough to allow for the difficult issues surrounding 1 John There are a
significant number of theological and grammatical issues which make his structural
proposal dubious
I H Marshall ndash A Linear View
Finally the work of more recent commentators has been content to stop short of a rigid or
hierarchical proposal Marshall surveys a number of existing proposals and concludes
12
ldquoit seems preferable to regard the Epistle as being composed of a series of connected
paragraphs whose relation to one another is governed by association of ideas rather
than by a logical plan This does not mean that John is illogical but rather that his
Epistle is not meant to be divided into large sections on a logical basisrdquo33
Such a lsquolinearrsquo structure is also adopted by Kruse Johnson and a number of others34
One the one hand Marshall is very wise to be cautious about dividing 1 John Given the
plethora of differing theories and the voluminous writing on the subject his
lsquoindecisivenessrsquo is refreshing Also Marshallrsquos recognition that some of the connections
between paragraphs may not seem ldquologicalrdquo to us (ie ldquoassociation of ideasrdquo) is insightful A
further benefit of Marshallrsquos work is his refusal to arrange paragraphs hierarchically
Marshallrsquos structure simply divides the text into units and makes little comment on their
interrelationships
On the other hand there are still a number of issues with such a proposal Whereas
other writers have made proposals in which thematic or theological considerations dictate
the divisions (eg Law) Marshallrsquos divisions seem to be determined by convenience (eg
seeking a limited number of paragraphs of similar length) in order to structure his
commentary This works out in two ways in some instances Marshall joins together verses
which do not demonstrate any connection to one another For example he connects of
212-14 and 215-17 These two units are treated together by many commentators even
though apart from their proximity to one another there are no indications that they
should be treated as such Rather each unit as its own distinct structure and vocabulary
Alternatively Marshall sometimes divides paragraphs despite strong textual evidence that
they are connected An example is the division between 412 and 1335 As will be explained
below these verses form part of one unit having a distinct structure which is within a
larger section characterised by ἀγαπ roots
View Presented in Articles
In recent years with the development of discourse analysis and text-linguistics there has
been a movement away from attempting to establish the structure of 1 John based upon
33 I Howard Marshall The Epistles of John (NICNT Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978) 26 34 Colin G Kruse The Letters of John (The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester Apollos 2000)
21 Thomas F Johnson 1 2 and 3 John (New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle Paternoster 1995) 15-
16 35 Marshall Epistles 26 See below for a fuller treatment of these units
13
thematic andor theological considerations Instead various writers have attempted to
determine the structure based upon linguistic theory and discourse features We shall
briefly review and critique three such attempts
Robert E Longacre
Longacre claims that ldquodiscourse analysis can suggest a natural outline of the bookrdquo36 He
goes on to outline a number of discourse features which he will analyse to elucidate such a
structure 1 John he claims is divided into sixteen paragraphs based on the position of
vocatives These sixteen paragraphs are subsequently grouped further into three sections
based on the distribution of γπάυψ an introduction (11-229) a body (31-512) and a
conclusion (513-21) Other features such as the genre of 1 John which Longacre takes to be
hortatory discourse the concept of peaks (ie ldquopoints of cumulative developmentrdquo)37 and
the macrostructure of the book (ldquoa summaryhellipof a text which is stated so that it gives the
central thrust of the whole workrdquo)38 are also brought to bear on the structure of the text
Longacre argues for a doctrinal and an ethical peak in both the introduction and the
body of the book Thus 212-17 and 41-6 form the ethical peaks and 218-27 and 47-21 the
doctrinal peaks The macrostructure of 1 John is seen to be 319-24 which immediately
precedes the dual peaks of the body
Longacrersquos commitment to deriving a structure of 1 John from discourse features of the
text itself is admirable and his work highlights a number of significant characteristics of 1
John Nevertheless there are some weaknesses with his approach The primary issue with
is Longacrersquos over-emphasis on a limited number of discourse features Although five
discourse features are outlined at the beginning of his paper the derivation of a structure
for 1 John is based upon only two of these features the use of vocatives and the distribution
of γπάυψ The other three discourse features are merely analysed to clarify the structure
In this regard Culy helpfully points out
36 Robert Longacre ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Textrdquo
in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed David Alan Black Katherine
Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 271 37 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 279 38 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 280
14
ldquoGiven this distribution of vocatives it is not inappropriate to recognize that this
particular writer frequently uses vocatives to help mark boundaries Such an observation
does not require that vocatives were always used in this wayrdquo39
Not only are vocatives not an absolute marker of boundaries but there are numerous other
features which Longacre largely ignores (eg lexical cohesion and participant reference)
A second major weakness in Longacrersquos proposal is his treatment of 212-14 Given
his focus on vocatives and γπάυψ it is significant that these three verses contain six
occurrences of each Longacre does claim that 212-17 is ldquoan ethical peakrdquo but this
conclusion is based on ldquoa strong exhortation not to love the worldrdquo (ie vv15-17) and not
on the vocatives or repetition of γπάυψ Similarly Longacre notes that the verb γπάυψ
switches from present to aorist use between 213 and 14 and that it does not occur again
until 513 While such data seems important Longacre fails to deal with it adequately since
his first major division of the book does not occur until 22931 Inexplicably it seems that
two verses which contain such a high concentration of Longacrersquos primary criteria are of
no special significance to him
Keir L Hansford
Hansfordrsquos basic premise is that 1 John is poetic He believes a structure can and should be
derived from treating and dividing 1 John in such a way His work is unusual in that he does
not provide an overall outline of the book but rather presents the entire text of the book
laid out in lines columns and strophes ldquoLinesrdquo are clauses or phrases in parallelism ldquoI
arguethe whole of the epistle was constructed out of parallelismsrdquo40 Hansford then
groups and divides lines in two ways horizontally and vertically Horizontally lines are
grouped into eighteen ldquostrophesrdquo which share certain key words At the same time lines
are divided into one of three vertical columns ldquothe authority of the apostlerdquo ldquohuman
actionsJesusrsquo ministryrdquo and ldquoGodrsquos creation and judgementrdquo Hansford also seeks to mark
all chiasms
As with many structural proposals for 1 John Hansfordrsquos has some beneficial
insights In attempting to structure the whole of 1 John he has paid acute attention to
details within the text This has proved to be a fruitful exercise especially in his
39 Culy A Handbook xvi 40 Keir L Hansford ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo JOTT 5 no 2 (1992) 128
15
identification of number of lsquomicro-parallelismrsquo and chiasms which have often been
overlooked
Despite these insights Hansfordrsquos overall structure and broad divisions are
problematic The first criticism is that under close inspection it becomes noticeable that a
number of Hansfordrsquos decisions are forced An example of a forced chiasm can be seen in
410-12 where ἠγαπήκαμεν in 410 is linked with σεθέασαι in 412 The two words have no
semantic overlap and it is difficult to see how they can be related other than they both
have θεὸν as their object Similarly issues regarding the column divisions can be seen at
39 The initial part of the verse πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ (the subject of the clause)
is placed in the second column (ldquohuman actionJesusrsquo ministryrdquo) while the second part
ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιει (the predicate and object) is placed in the third column (ldquoGodrsquos reaction
and judgementrdquo) These phrases do not naturally fit with the thematic topics of the
columns into which they are placed
Secondly the ldquokeywordsrdquo that are listed for each strophe seem arbitrary Each of the
eighteen strophes has on average between 15-20 keywords While some of these keywords
are unique to that portion of text other words such as ldquotruthrdquo ldquoJesusrdquo ldquoChristrdquo ldquoFatherrdquo
ldquoknowrdquo and ldquobelieverdquo occur in multiple strophes When the general and rather limited
vocabulary of the whole book is considered it becomes evident that some of the keywords
are not particular to any strophe but rather to the whole of 1 John
Thirdly it is possible that what Hansford considers to be poetic features of the text
could be explained in other ways For example the reversal of word order of verb and
subject is mentioned twice in his article as evidence of parallelism and chiasm41 It is
possible however that such a switch can be justified by other discourse features and issues
of information structure Hansford does not give details or references to the clauses he is
referring to and so it is difficult to decide either way However it must be kept in mind that
there may be other explanations for such features
Finally if the author intended such rigid parallelism it seems strange that not all
the parallels are as clear as those in 212-14 Hansford fails to take account of the clear
differences between portions of the text In Hansfordrsquos outline 212-14 which without
doubt demonstrate the clearest parallelisms blend in to his poetry and do not stand out at
all as they do when the text of 1 John is read as a whole
41 Hansford ldquoPoetic Structurerdquo 129 135
16
John Christopher Thomas
Thomas admirably sets out to focus ldquoattention on the structure of 1 John as revealed by
the text itself and seeks as far as possible to allow the text to reveal its shape on its own
termsrdquo42 The outcome of Thomas work is to suggest a chiastic structure to the book as a
whole Thomas makes clear that he is well aware of the dangers and criticisms that such
proposals have faced in the past Nevertheless he suggests that 1 John divides into 11
sections 10 of which are parallel one being central The overall chiastic structure is shown
above Thomas understands each parallel section to vaguely share a common theme or
topic eg making God a liar antichrists confidence with the central section being entitled
ldquoLove one anotherrdquo43
There are a number of problems with Thomasrsquo extended chiasm Firstly Thomas claims
that the central section of the book (section F 311-18) is focussed on loving one another
Not only does this begin a new unit with an ὅσι clause (see the treatment of Brownrsquos work
above and the discussion on 225 below for the syntactical problems associated with such a
division) but it also fails to take note that the ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλοτρ occurs more frequently
outside of this section than inside44 Similarly so with sections E and E` (228-310 and 319-
24) which are entitled ldquoConfidencerdquo The noun παππηςία occurs four times in 1 John but
only two occurrences are with these units45
42 John Christopher Thomas ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo NT 40 no 4 (1998) 371 43 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 373 44 This ἵνα clause occurs at 311 but also at 323 47 and 12 45 See 228 321 417 and 514
17
Secondly although Thomas seeks not to overstretch the links between the parallel
sections of his chiasm46 his claim that ldquothe use of similar catch wordsphraseswhich
parallel one anotherrdquo indicate that he expects his parallel sections to have to a greater or
lesser degree similar words and phrases If such is the case it is very strange that the
primary and central theme of 15-22 (ie light and darkness which occurs 13 times in those
verses) does not reappear in its parallel section (56-12) While it is true that Thomasrsquo
criteria allows that not every detail of every section will be parallel a parallelism where the
primary these are not paralleled is perculiar
A further problem with sections B and B` is Thomasrsquo comment ldquoA final point of
contact is that both passages begin with similar statements ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo in
15 and ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo in 56rdquo47 In both English and Greek it is difficult to
see how these two phrases can be correlated
Καὶ ἔςσιν αὕση ἡ ἀγγελία Οὗσόρ ἐςσιν ὁ ἐλθὼν
ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo
Although both have ἔςσιν and a demonstrative pronoun the similarity ends there The
word orders are different as is the gender of the pronoun One begins with a coordinating
conjunction the other with asyndeton One has as its subject a feminine abstract noun the
other an articular participle
Thus even with Thomasrsquo relatively loose criteria of what constitutes an extended
chiasm it is clear that 1 John as a whole refuses to be organised so neatly
46 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 372 47 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 379
18
An Analysis of Discourse Features in 1 John
Inherent Structure
Despite the widely varying theories for structure in 1 John most writers recognise that
structure is not absolutely alien to the author48 There are some portions of the book which
are unanimously agreed upon as distinct parts The two most obvious examples are 11-4
and 212-14 Aside from its complex grammatical and syntactical issues 11-4 is universally
recognised by writers and commentators as a single part which introduces the main
topic(s) of Johnrsquos first letter Similarly the lexical cohesion and repetition of 212-14 prove
beyond any doubt that John was able skilfully and carefully to construct literary units
We shall now proceed through the text of 1 John identifying major sections and
particular units using the methodology outlined above derived from cohesive features of
the text before drawing conclusions about an overall structure of the book
sect11-4
1 John 11-4 forms an introduction to the whole book49 The main clause (3c) is introduced
by an initial relative clause which is subsequently modified by three parallel relative
clauses (1b c d) in turn modified by a prepositional phrase (1f) and a parenthetical
48 See Brown Epistles 118 49 Smalley 1 2 3 John 4 15
19
comment (2a-f)50 3a starts with a resumptive relative clause before introducing the main
indicative verb (ἀπαγγέλλομεν)51 11a-3c form one complex colon and are therefore
syntactically cohesive
There are a number of additional cohesive features within these verses There is
inclusio of the verbs ἀκούψ and ὀπάψ in 1c3b and 1d3a respectively Similarly so the use
of υανεπόψ at the beginning and end of the parenthetic v2 (a and f) Also 1st person plural
verbs are used repeatedly throughout and are juxtaposed with 2nd person pronominal
references to the recipients This combination of 1st and 2nd person reference introduces the
two primary lsquocharactersrsquo in the letter Lastly the feminine noun ζψή is introduced
immediately prior to the parenthesis of v2 (1f) and is referred to in all four cola within the
parenthesis ndash twice by repetition of the noun (forming another inclusio) and twice by
ellipsis of the direct object of the transitive verbs ὀπάψ and μαπστπέψ
The complexities of the grammar52 and the textual issues53 make no difference to the
structure or cohesion of the passage
sect15-211
After an initial introduction 1 Johnrsquos first section starts at 15 and continues through to
211 This section is made up of three units
50 Judith M Lieu I II amp III John A Commentary (NTL Louisville Westminster John Knox 2008) 37 51 Culy A Handbook 7 52 Stott Letters 62 53 Bruce M Metzger A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed Stuttgart Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft 2002) 639
20
15-22
Unanimously agreed unit boundaries such as those of 11-4 do more than simply
demonstrate Johnrsquos literary abilities They also provide certain markers from which other
literary units can be determined If the introduction ends at 14 then 15 must begin a new
section Similarly if a new unit begins at 212 then the previous unit must end at 211 It
will be argued below that the verses in between (ie 15-211) form one large section
comprised of three units (15-22 23-7 28-11)
Callow has already done much of the work on 15-211 and it is unnecessary to repeat
all of his findings54 Rather a few complementary observations will be made
15-10 are tied together by their use of 3rd class conditional sentences 16a 7a 8a 9a
and 10a all introduce a protasis with ἐὰν55 Vv6 8 and 10 make negative assertions while
54 John Callow ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament Approaches and
Results (ed Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed JSNTSupp Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1999) esp 402-
4 55 See Culy A Handbook xvii-xx on the nature of these conditionals as mitigated exhortations
21
vv7 and 9 are positive forming an alternating pattern Repetition of words and phrases
such as κοινψνία πεπιπασέψ and ldquoκαθαπίζει ἡμᾶρ ἀπὸ πάςηρ ἁμαπσίαρrdquo also tie these verses
together
The relation of 21-2 to 15-10 is debated Some see 21 as a parenthesis and v2
returning to the preceding thought as a sixth conditional clause adding a final positive
element56 Others understand both of these verses to be a parenthesis given that the
conditional clause is of a different nature to the preceding ones57 Given the shift from 1st
person verbs in the preceding conditionals to the 3rd person σὶρ in 21d it seems that the
latter is preferable In which case 21-2 form a parenthetical comment in between 110 and
23
23-6
56 Marshall Epistles 115-16 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 396-97 57 Stott Letters 84
22
23-6 are held together by the inclusio of ἐν σούσῳ γινώςκομεν in 23a and 5c58 These two
independent clauses are both elaborated on in 23b-5b and 6a-d respectively The
introduction and repetition of the ideas of keeping (σηπέψ) commands (ἐνσολή) tie vv3-5
together
23-6 at first glance seems distinct from 15-10 However the repetition of ὁ λέγψν
followed by both a negative (v4) and a positive (v6) claim has strong links back to the
conditional clauses of 15-10 Similarly although the vocabulary has changed from
κοινψνία to γινώςκψ the concept of relationship to God is still present Further still 15
and 23 can both be understood as introducing their individual units Each verse makes a
stark claim which is then elucidated and illustrated both positively and negatively A final
cohesive feature is that if 21-2 are a parenthesis as suggested above then there is
referential cohesion between 15 through to 2659 Θεόρ is introduced in 15 and thereafter
only referred to with pronominal references60
Given the cohesive features and the links with 15-10 it is therefore legitimate to
conclude that ldquothis section is in several aspects parallel tohellipthe preceding sectionrdquo61 23-6
constitute a new unit That the unit begins with καὶ need not raise concern Although this
is somewhat unexpected at boundary features the presence of καὶ alone does not carry
enough weight to rule out a unit boundary (cf 15)62 Paragraphs initiated with καὶ seem to
be a feature of 1 John63
58 The prepositional clause ἐν σούσῳ is also repeated in 4e and 5b however these occurrences are
anaphoric with a personal antecedent in 4a and 5a respectively The phrases in 3a and 5c are cataphoric and
refer to abstract concepts rather than specific individuals See Culy A Handbook 25 59 There is also a lone pronominal reference to God in 8b 60 The sole exception being the genitive phrase of 25b ἡ ἀγάπη σοῦ θεοῦ 61 C Haas M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for
Translators London United Bible Societies 1972) 43 62 Levinsohn Discourse Features 275 Kermit Titrud ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament
and an Application to 2 Peterrdquo in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed
David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 240-70 63 See 15 220 28 33 13 19 514
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
7
similar to the work of Theodor Haumlring although they worked and published
independently16
Law uses two words to summarise his view of the structure of 1 John ldquospiralrdquo and
ldquotestsrdquo It is ldquospiralrdquo because the progression of thought is not simply linear one idea after
the next in a straight line as is usually the case in Western literature Rather the work is
arranged around a centre ldquoalways recurring to the same topics but at a higher levelrdquo He
goes on to illustrate ldquo[the author takes] two or three melodieshellip[and by]introducing
themhelliprepeating them inverting them skilfully interlacing themhelliprears up from them an
edifice of stately harmoniesrdquo Secondly Law summarises 1 John as a series of ldquotestsrdquo The
book is comprised of numerous sets of criteria by which believers may ldquosatisfy themselves
of their being ldquobegotten of Godrdquordquo17
The combination of these two ideas leads to Lawrsquos overall structure of the book
there are three cyclesspirals each of which consists of three tests ldquodoing righteousness
loving one another and believing that Jesus is the Christrdquo18
While it is true that Law (and those who follow variations of his structure) has provided a
useful summary of the content of the book and has no doubt made 1 John meaningful and
accessible to many readers since publication there are a number of problems with his
proposal
Firstly a number of section breaks occur at seemingly inappropriate points The
divisions between the major sections are not problematic and occur at logical places within
the book (eg 22829 and 467) However a number of Lawrsquos subdivisions are less
straightforward The start of Paragraph A (18) in the First Cycle is problematic ndash even Law
himself seems somewhat confused on the matter He recognises that there are ldquothree
parallel pairs of antithesisrdquo within 16-2219 yet suggests that 18 marks the start of
16 Theodor Haring ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo in Theologische
Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet (ed Adolf von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892) 171-200 For further
comment and comparison see A E Brooke The Johannine Epistles (ICC Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1912) xxxiv-
xxxvii Robert Law The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John (2d ed Edinburgh T amp T Clark 1909) 24 17 Law Tests 6 18 Law Tests 5-6 19 Law Tests 65
8
Paragraph A20 To suggest that a new paragraph or section starts between the first and
second of three parallel antithesis is awkward
Secondly Lawrsquos structure falls down towards the end of 1 John where the three tests
are reduced in number to only two and their order is reversed Law admits regarding the
closing section that ldquothe logical analysis of it is the hardest part of our taskrdquo21 If a cyclical
structure was in Johnrsquos mind as he wrote one might expect him to have maintained some
consistency in his presentation of the tests But according to Law this is not the case
Rather in the Third Cycle the number of main themes is reduced to two Law states that
ldquorighteousness takes a subordinate placerdquo22 The previously primary theme of
righteousness drops out completely as it is absent from both the section headings and the
synopsis of the third major division spanning from 47 to 521
Thirdly Lawrsquos structure fails to take account of or adequately deal with difficult
passages within 1 John the most notable of these being 212-14 According to Law these
verses are a mere parenthesis and his structure requires that they are ldquoomittedrdquo in order to
maintain ldquothe unity of the paragraphrdquo23 While there are parentheses in 1 John verses
should not be categorised as such without considerable support There is strong evidence
that 212-14 mark the start of a major new section on 1 John (see on page 25) Lawrsquos
degradation of these verses is unnecessary
20 Law Tests 8 It is clear from the context that by ldquoparagraphrdquo Law means something similar to the
concept of ldquounitrdquo as defined above 21 Law Tests 15 22 Law Tests 15 23 Law Tests 10
9
Raymond Brown ndash A Binary View
A second major group of proposals are those that divide the body (15-512) of 1 John into
two parts (usually with an introduction (11-4) and conclusion (513-21))24 Of those who see
two halves in the body of 1 John many propose that the division is based on a certain
connection with the Gospel of John Of such authors Brown is the most prominent25
Brownrsquos division of 1 John is tied closely to his understanding of the authorship and
historical context of the letter In Brownrsquos view 1 John has been written by an author who
is part of the Johannine community which due to differing interpretations of the Gospel of
John had divided The author of 1 John regards the secessionists as heterodox and is
writing to his own community26 Regarding structure specifically Brown writes
If the epistolary author is drawing upon the theology and wording of the Johannine
tradition embodied in GJohn and assumes the mantle of evangelist as an interpreter of
that traditionhellip a priori it is not inconceivable that he used GJohn as a model in
structuring his comments in 1 John27
Brown then goes on to elaborate this theory into true structure show above
There are a number of problems with Brownrsquos theory The first is that his structure is so
tightly linked to his view of authorship The structure and authorship of 1 John are two of
24 Brown Epistles 764 Stephen S Smalley 1 2 3 John (WBC Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984) 25 See also W Hall Harris III 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis (Dallas Biblical Studies
2003) 26 Brown Epistles 69-70 27 Brown Epistles 124
10
the most uncertain and debated aspects of Johannine scholarship Given the difficult
textual grammatical and linguistic issues related to such a structure it seems that Brownrsquos
proposal based on little more than a presupposition that 1 John is intended to imitate the
Gospel of John
A second issue with Brownrsquos proposal is his own seeming uncertainty about it When
stating his view he only does so negatively ldquoa priori it is not inconceivable that he used
GJohn as a modelhelliprdquo28 That a proposal is ldquonot inconceivablerdquo does not make it necessarily
true It may well be the case that the author used the style and vocabulary of the Gospel of
John as his starting point but this does not necessitate that he also borrowed the structure
And without strong evidence within the text to support it the theory is not adequate In
this same connection when Brown explains his divisions his own confession is that
determining the point of division of the body of 1 John into two parts is much more
difficult than identifying an introduction and conclusion29
In addition to these general objections given above there are both syntactical and
lexical problems with Brownrsquos divisions
The syntactical issue with Brownrsquos proposal is that he makes the second major
section of the book begin with an ὅσι clause He argues that 311 and 15 are grammatically
parallel phrases and should therefore each be understood as introducing the themes of part
one and part two of the book The primary problem here is that ὅσι is a subordinating
conjunction and therefore necessitates that it is connected with a superordinate clause (ie
310)30 As Culy comments ldquoAlthough such an analysis may make good sense of the themes
of the letter it ignores the surface structure The ὅσι makes it clear that syntactically 311 is
subordinate to 310rdquo31 A secondary problem with this assertion is that although there are
many grammatical and lexical links between 15 and 311 the claim that these two verses
alone are parallel does not take account of all the data and similar occurrences in 1 John32
A lexical issue with Brownrsquos division is his correlation of 1 John 513 and John 2031
It is claimed that these two verses parallel one another Although there are a number of
lexical links between the two verses there are three issue to consider Firstly it is widely
recognised that 1 John has similar vocabulary to the Gospel of John and so some too much
28 Brown Epistles 124 29 Brown Epistles 125 30 BDF lists ὅσι in ch11 part 3c ldquoSubordinating (Hypotactic) Conjunctionsrdquo 31 Martin M Culy I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco Baylor 2004) 80 32 See comments below on 225 and the occurrences of αὕση
11
should not be read into lexical links between John 2031 and 1 John 513 Secondly given
the frequency and variety of use of the verb γπάυψ in 1 John it is dangerous to read too
much into this one occurrence Finally there is a considerable number of differences
between these two verses which one would not expect to find if the epistolary author was
intending to use John 2031 as the model for 513 For example the verb tense-form in John
is perfect while in 1 John it is aorist Also the clause structure in 1 John is unusual (see
diagram) with the verb γπάυψ having two parallel direct objects one at either end of the
verse John 2031 has no such complex structure
Thus it can be concluded that Brown does little to convince his readers that his
theory is robust enough to allow for the difficult issues surrounding 1 John There are a
significant number of theological and grammatical issues which make his structural
proposal dubious
I H Marshall ndash A Linear View
Finally the work of more recent commentators has been content to stop short of a rigid or
hierarchical proposal Marshall surveys a number of existing proposals and concludes
12
ldquoit seems preferable to regard the Epistle as being composed of a series of connected
paragraphs whose relation to one another is governed by association of ideas rather
than by a logical plan This does not mean that John is illogical but rather that his
Epistle is not meant to be divided into large sections on a logical basisrdquo33
Such a lsquolinearrsquo structure is also adopted by Kruse Johnson and a number of others34
One the one hand Marshall is very wise to be cautious about dividing 1 John Given the
plethora of differing theories and the voluminous writing on the subject his
lsquoindecisivenessrsquo is refreshing Also Marshallrsquos recognition that some of the connections
between paragraphs may not seem ldquologicalrdquo to us (ie ldquoassociation of ideasrdquo) is insightful A
further benefit of Marshallrsquos work is his refusal to arrange paragraphs hierarchically
Marshallrsquos structure simply divides the text into units and makes little comment on their
interrelationships
On the other hand there are still a number of issues with such a proposal Whereas
other writers have made proposals in which thematic or theological considerations dictate
the divisions (eg Law) Marshallrsquos divisions seem to be determined by convenience (eg
seeking a limited number of paragraphs of similar length) in order to structure his
commentary This works out in two ways in some instances Marshall joins together verses
which do not demonstrate any connection to one another For example he connects of
212-14 and 215-17 These two units are treated together by many commentators even
though apart from their proximity to one another there are no indications that they
should be treated as such Rather each unit as its own distinct structure and vocabulary
Alternatively Marshall sometimes divides paragraphs despite strong textual evidence that
they are connected An example is the division between 412 and 1335 As will be explained
below these verses form part of one unit having a distinct structure which is within a
larger section characterised by ἀγαπ roots
View Presented in Articles
In recent years with the development of discourse analysis and text-linguistics there has
been a movement away from attempting to establish the structure of 1 John based upon
33 I Howard Marshall The Epistles of John (NICNT Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978) 26 34 Colin G Kruse The Letters of John (The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester Apollos 2000)
21 Thomas F Johnson 1 2 and 3 John (New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle Paternoster 1995) 15-
16 35 Marshall Epistles 26 See below for a fuller treatment of these units
13
thematic andor theological considerations Instead various writers have attempted to
determine the structure based upon linguistic theory and discourse features We shall
briefly review and critique three such attempts
Robert E Longacre
Longacre claims that ldquodiscourse analysis can suggest a natural outline of the bookrdquo36 He
goes on to outline a number of discourse features which he will analyse to elucidate such a
structure 1 John he claims is divided into sixteen paragraphs based on the position of
vocatives These sixteen paragraphs are subsequently grouped further into three sections
based on the distribution of γπάυψ an introduction (11-229) a body (31-512) and a
conclusion (513-21) Other features such as the genre of 1 John which Longacre takes to be
hortatory discourse the concept of peaks (ie ldquopoints of cumulative developmentrdquo)37 and
the macrostructure of the book (ldquoa summaryhellipof a text which is stated so that it gives the
central thrust of the whole workrdquo)38 are also brought to bear on the structure of the text
Longacre argues for a doctrinal and an ethical peak in both the introduction and the
body of the book Thus 212-17 and 41-6 form the ethical peaks and 218-27 and 47-21 the
doctrinal peaks The macrostructure of 1 John is seen to be 319-24 which immediately
precedes the dual peaks of the body
Longacrersquos commitment to deriving a structure of 1 John from discourse features of the
text itself is admirable and his work highlights a number of significant characteristics of 1
John Nevertheless there are some weaknesses with his approach The primary issue with
is Longacrersquos over-emphasis on a limited number of discourse features Although five
discourse features are outlined at the beginning of his paper the derivation of a structure
for 1 John is based upon only two of these features the use of vocatives and the distribution
of γπάυψ The other three discourse features are merely analysed to clarify the structure
In this regard Culy helpfully points out
36 Robert Longacre ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Textrdquo
in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed David Alan Black Katherine
Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 271 37 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 279 38 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 280
14
ldquoGiven this distribution of vocatives it is not inappropriate to recognize that this
particular writer frequently uses vocatives to help mark boundaries Such an observation
does not require that vocatives were always used in this wayrdquo39
Not only are vocatives not an absolute marker of boundaries but there are numerous other
features which Longacre largely ignores (eg lexical cohesion and participant reference)
A second major weakness in Longacrersquos proposal is his treatment of 212-14 Given
his focus on vocatives and γπάυψ it is significant that these three verses contain six
occurrences of each Longacre does claim that 212-17 is ldquoan ethical peakrdquo but this
conclusion is based on ldquoa strong exhortation not to love the worldrdquo (ie vv15-17) and not
on the vocatives or repetition of γπάυψ Similarly Longacre notes that the verb γπάυψ
switches from present to aorist use between 213 and 14 and that it does not occur again
until 513 While such data seems important Longacre fails to deal with it adequately since
his first major division of the book does not occur until 22931 Inexplicably it seems that
two verses which contain such a high concentration of Longacrersquos primary criteria are of
no special significance to him
Keir L Hansford
Hansfordrsquos basic premise is that 1 John is poetic He believes a structure can and should be
derived from treating and dividing 1 John in such a way His work is unusual in that he does
not provide an overall outline of the book but rather presents the entire text of the book
laid out in lines columns and strophes ldquoLinesrdquo are clauses or phrases in parallelism ldquoI
arguethe whole of the epistle was constructed out of parallelismsrdquo40 Hansford then
groups and divides lines in two ways horizontally and vertically Horizontally lines are
grouped into eighteen ldquostrophesrdquo which share certain key words At the same time lines
are divided into one of three vertical columns ldquothe authority of the apostlerdquo ldquohuman
actionsJesusrsquo ministryrdquo and ldquoGodrsquos creation and judgementrdquo Hansford also seeks to mark
all chiasms
As with many structural proposals for 1 John Hansfordrsquos has some beneficial
insights In attempting to structure the whole of 1 John he has paid acute attention to
details within the text This has proved to be a fruitful exercise especially in his
39 Culy A Handbook xvi 40 Keir L Hansford ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo JOTT 5 no 2 (1992) 128
15
identification of number of lsquomicro-parallelismrsquo and chiasms which have often been
overlooked
Despite these insights Hansfordrsquos overall structure and broad divisions are
problematic The first criticism is that under close inspection it becomes noticeable that a
number of Hansfordrsquos decisions are forced An example of a forced chiasm can be seen in
410-12 where ἠγαπήκαμεν in 410 is linked with σεθέασαι in 412 The two words have no
semantic overlap and it is difficult to see how they can be related other than they both
have θεὸν as their object Similarly issues regarding the column divisions can be seen at
39 The initial part of the verse πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ (the subject of the clause)
is placed in the second column (ldquohuman actionJesusrsquo ministryrdquo) while the second part
ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιει (the predicate and object) is placed in the third column (ldquoGodrsquos reaction
and judgementrdquo) These phrases do not naturally fit with the thematic topics of the
columns into which they are placed
Secondly the ldquokeywordsrdquo that are listed for each strophe seem arbitrary Each of the
eighteen strophes has on average between 15-20 keywords While some of these keywords
are unique to that portion of text other words such as ldquotruthrdquo ldquoJesusrdquo ldquoChristrdquo ldquoFatherrdquo
ldquoknowrdquo and ldquobelieverdquo occur in multiple strophes When the general and rather limited
vocabulary of the whole book is considered it becomes evident that some of the keywords
are not particular to any strophe but rather to the whole of 1 John
Thirdly it is possible that what Hansford considers to be poetic features of the text
could be explained in other ways For example the reversal of word order of verb and
subject is mentioned twice in his article as evidence of parallelism and chiasm41 It is
possible however that such a switch can be justified by other discourse features and issues
of information structure Hansford does not give details or references to the clauses he is
referring to and so it is difficult to decide either way However it must be kept in mind that
there may be other explanations for such features
Finally if the author intended such rigid parallelism it seems strange that not all
the parallels are as clear as those in 212-14 Hansford fails to take account of the clear
differences between portions of the text In Hansfordrsquos outline 212-14 which without
doubt demonstrate the clearest parallelisms blend in to his poetry and do not stand out at
all as they do when the text of 1 John is read as a whole
41 Hansford ldquoPoetic Structurerdquo 129 135
16
John Christopher Thomas
Thomas admirably sets out to focus ldquoattention on the structure of 1 John as revealed by
the text itself and seeks as far as possible to allow the text to reveal its shape on its own
termsrdquo42 The outcome of Thomas work is to suggest a chiastic structure to the book as a
whole Thomas makes clear that he is well aware of the dangers and criticisms that such
proposals have faced in the past Nevertheless he suggests that 1 John divides into 11
sections 10 of which are parallel one being central The overall chiastic structure is shown
above Thomas understands each parallel section to vaguely share a common theme or
topic eg making God a liar antichrists confidence with the central section being entitled
ldquoLove one anotherrdquo43
There are a number of problems with Thomasrsquo extended chiasm Firstly Thomas claims
that the central section of the book (section F 311-18) is focussed on loving one another
Not only does this begin a new unit with an ὅσι clause (see the treatment of Brownrsquos work
above and the discussion on 225 below for the syntactical problems associated with such a
division) but it also fails to take note that the ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλοτρ occurs more frequently
outside of this section than inside44 Similarly so with sections E and E` (228-310 and 319-
24) which are entitled ldquoConfidencerdquo The noun παππηςία occurs four times in 1 John but
only two occurrences are with these units45
42 John Christopher Thomas ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo NT 40 no 4 (1998) 371 43 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 373 44 This ἵνα clause occurs at 311 but also at 323 47 and 12 45 See 228 321 417 and 514
17
Secondly although Thomas seeks not to overstretch the links between the parallel
sections of his chiasm46 his claim that ldquothe use of similar catch wordsphraseswhich
parallel one anotherrdquo indicate that he expects his parallel sections to have to a greater or
lesser degree similar words and phrases If such is the case it is very strange that the
primary and central theme of 15-22 (ie light and darkness which occurs 13 times in those
verses) does not reappear in its parallel section (56-12) While it is true that Thomasrsquo
criteria allows that not every detail of every section will be parallel a parallelism where the
primary these are not paralleled is perculiar
A further problem with sections B and B` is Thomasrsquo comment ldquoA final point of
contact is that both passages begin with similar statements ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo in
15 and ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo in 56rdquo47 In both English and Greek it is difficult to
see how these two phrases can be correlated
Καὶ ἔςσιν αὕση ἡ ἀγγελία Οὗσόρ ἐςσιν ὁ ἐλθὼν
ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo
Although both have ἔςσιν and a demonstrative pronoun the similarity ends there The
word orders are different as is the gender of the pronoun One begins with a coordinating
conjunction the other with asyndeton One has as its subject a feminine abstract noun the
other an articular participle
Thus even with Thomasrsquo relatively loose criteria of what constitutes an extended
chiasm it is clear that 1 John as a whole refuses to be organised so neatly
46 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 372 47 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 379
18
An Analysis of Discourse Features in 1 John
Inherent Structure
Despite the widely varying theories for structure in 1 John most writers recognise that
structure is not absolutely alien to the author48 There are some portions of the book which
are unanimously agreed upon as distinct parts The two most obvious examples are 11-4
and 212-14 Aside from its complex grammatical and syntactical issues 11-4 is universally
recognised by writers and commentators as a single part which introduces the main
topic(s) of Johnrsquos first letter Similarly the lexical cohesion and repetition of 212-14 prove
beyond any doubt that John was able skilfully and carefully to construct literary units
We shall now proceed through the text of 1 John identifying major sections and
particular units using the methodology outlined above derived from cohesive features of
the text before drawing conclusions about an overall structure of the book
sect11-4
1 John 11-4 forms an introduction to the whole book49 The main clause (3c) is introduced
by an initial relative clause which is subsequently modified by three parallel relative
clauses (1b c d) in turn modified by a prepositional phrase (1f) and a parenthetical
48 See Brown Epistles 118 49 Smalley 1 2 3 John 4 15
19
comment (2a-f)50 3a starts with a resumptive relative clause before introducing the main
indicative verb (ἀπαγγέλλομεν)51 11a-3c form one complex colon and are therefore
syntactically cohesive
There are a number of additional cohesive features within these verses There is
inclusio of the verbs ἀκούψ and ὀπάψ in 1c3b and 1d3a respectively Similarly so the use
of υανεπόψ at the beginning and end of the parenthetic v2 (a and f) Also 1st person plural
verbs are used repeatedly throughout and are juxtaposed with 2nd person pronominal
references to the recipients This combination of 1st and 2nd person reference introduces the
two primary lsquocharactersrsquo in the letter Lastly the feminine noun ζψή is introduced
immediately prior to the parenthesis of v2 (1f) and is referred to in all four cola within the
parenthesis ndash twice by repetition of the noun (forming another inclusio) and twice by
ellipsis of the direct object of the transitive verbs ὀπάψ and μαπστπέψ
The complexities of the grammar52 and the textual issues53 make no difference to the
structure or cohesion of the passage
sect15-211
After an initial introduction 1 Johnrsquos first section starts at 15 and continues through to
211 This section is made up of three units
50 Judith M Lieu I II amp III John A Commentary (NTL Louisville Westminster John Knox 2008) 37 51 Culy A Handbook 7 52 Stott Letters 62 53 Bruce M Metzger A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed Stuttgart Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft 2002) 639
20
15-22
Unanimously agreed unit boundaries such as those of 11-4 do more than simply
demonstrate Johnrsquos literary abilities They also provide certain markers from which other
literary units can be determined If the introduction ends at 14 then 15 must begin a new
section Similarly if a new unit begins at 212 then the previous unit must end at 211 It
will be argued below that the verses in between (ie 15-211) form one large section
comprised of three units (15-22 23-7 28-11)
Callow has already done much of the work on 15-211 and it is unnecessary to repeat
all of his findings54 Rather a few complementary observations will be made
15-10 are tied together by their use of 3rd class conditional sentences 16a 7a 8a 9a
and 10a all introduce a protasis with ἐὰν55 Vv6 8 and 10 make negative assertions while
54 John Callow ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament Approaches and
Results (ed Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed JSNTSupp Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1999) esp 402-
4 55 See Culy A Handbook xvii-xx on the nature of these conditionals as mitigated exhortations
21
vv7 and 9 are positive forming an alternating pattern Repetition of words and phrases
such as κοινψνία πεπιπασέψ and ldquoκαθαπίζει ἡμᾶρ ἀπὸ πάςηρ ἁμαπσίαρrdquo also tie these verses
together
The relation of 21-2 to 15-10 is debated Some see 21 as a parenthesis and v2
returning to the preceding thought as a sixth conditional clause adding a final positive
element56 Others understand both of these verses to be a parenthesis given that the
conditional clause is of a different nature to the preceding ones57 Given the shift from 1st
person verbs in the preceding conditionals to the 3rd person σὶρ in 21d it seems that the
latter is preferable In which case 21-2 form a parenthetical comment in between 110 and
23
23-6
56 Marshall Epistles 115-16 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 396-97 57 Stott Letters 84
22
23-6 are held together by the inclusio of ἐν σούσῳ γινώςκομεν in 23a and 5c58 These two
independent clauses are both elaborated on in 23b-5b and 6a-d respectively The
introduction and repetition of the ideas of keeping (σηπέψ) commands (ἐνσολή) tie vv3-5
together
23-6 at first glance seems distinct from 15-10 However the repetition of ὁ λέγψν
followed by both a negative (v4) and a positive (v6) claim has strong links back to the
conditional clauses of 15-10 Similarly although the vocabulary has changed from
κοινψνία to γινώςκψ the concept of relationship to God is still present Further still 15
and 23 can both be understood as introducing their individual units Each verse makes a
stark claim which is then elucidated and illustrated both positively and negatively A final
cohesive feature is that if 21-2 are a parenthesis as suggested above then there is
referential cohesion between 15 through to 2659 Θεόρ is introduced in 15 and thereafter
only referred to with pronominal references60
Given the cohesive features and the links with 15-10 it is therefore legitimate to
conclude that ldquothis section is in several aspects parallel tohellipthe preceding sectionrdquo61 23-6
constitute a new unit That the unit begins with καὶ need not raise concern Although this
is somewhat unexpected at boundary features the presence of καὶ alone does not carry
enough weight to rule out a unit boundary (cf 15)62 Paragraphs initiated with καὶ seem to
be a feature of 1 John63
58 The prepositional clause ἐν σούσῳ is also repeated in 4e and 5b however these occurrences are
anaphoric with a personal antecedent in 4a and 5a respectively The phrases in 3a and 5c are cataphoric and
refer to abstract concepts rather than specific individuals See Culy A Handbook 25 59 There is also a lone pronominal reference to God in 8b 60 The sole exception being the genitive phrase of 25b ἡ ἀγάπη σοῦ θεοῦ 61 C Haas M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for
Translators London United Bible Societies 1972) 43 62 Levinsohn Discourse Features 275 Kermit Titrud ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament
and an Application to 2 Peterrdquo in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed
David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 240-70 63 See 15 220 28 33 13 19 514
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
8
Paragraph A20 To suggest that a new paragraph or section starts between the first and
second of three parallel antithesis is awkward
Secondly Lawrsquos structure falls down towards the end of 1 John where the three tests
are reduced in number to only two and their order is reversed Law admits regarding the
closing section that ldquothe logical analysis of it is the hardest part of our taskrdquo21 If a cyclical
structure was in Johnrsquos mind as he wrote one might expect him to have maintained some
consistency in his presentation of the tests But according to Law this is not the case
Rather in the Third Cycle the number of main themes is reduced to two Law states that
ldquorighteousness takes a subordinate placerdquo22 The previously primary theme of
righteousness drops out completely as it is absent from both the section headings and the
synopsis of the third major division spanning from 47 to 521
Thirdly Lawrsquos structure fails to take account of or adequately deal with difficult
passages within 1 John the most notable of these being 212-14 According to Law these
verses are a mere parenthesis and his structure requires that they are ldquoomittedrdquo in order to
maintain ldquothe unity of the paragraphrdquo23 While there are parentheses in 1 John verses
should not be categorised as such without considerable support There is strong evidence
that 212-14 mark the start of a major new section on 1 John (see on page 25) Lawrsquos
degradation of these verses is unnecessary
20 Law Tests 8 It is clear from the context that by ldquoparagraphrdquo Law means something similar to the
concept of ldquounitrdquo as defined above 21 Law Tests 15 22 Law Tests 15 23 Law Tests 10
9
Raymond Brown ndash A Binary View
A second major group of proposals are those that divide the body (15-512) of 1 John into
two parts (usually with an introduction (11-4) and conclusion (513-21))24 Of those who see
two halves in the body of 1 John many propose that the division is based on a certain
connection with the Gospel of John Of such authors Brown is the most prominent25
Brownrsquos division of 1 John is tied closely to his understanding of the authorship and
historical context of the letter In Brownrsquos view 1 John has been written by an author who
is part of the Johannine community which due to differing interpretations of the Gospel of
John had divided The author of 1 John regards the secessionists as heterodox and is
writing to his own community26 Regarding structure specifically Brown writes
If the epistolary author is drawing upon the theology and wording of the Johannine
tradition embodied in GJohn and assumes the mantle of evangelist as an interpreter of
that traditionhellip a priori it is not inconceivable that he used GJohn as a model in
structuring his comments in 1 John27
Brown then goes on to elaborate this theory into true structure show above
There are a number of problems with Brownrsquos theory The first is that his structure is so
tightly linked to his view of authorship The structure and authorship of 1 John are two of
24 Brown Epistles 764 Stephen S Smalley 1 2 3 John (WBC Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984) 25 See also W Hall Harris III 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis (Dallas Biblical Studies
2003) 26 Brown Epistles 69-70 27 Brown Epistles 124
10
the most uncertain and debated aspects of Johannine scholarship Given the difficult
textual grammatical and linguistic issues related to such a structure it seems that Brownrsquos
proposal based on little more than a presupposition that 1 John is intended to imitate the
Gospel of John
A second issue with Brownrsquos proposal is his own seeming uncertainty about it When
stating his view he only does so negatively ldquoa priori it is not inconceivable that he used
GJohn as a modelhelliprdquo28 That a proposal is ldquonot inconceivablerdquo does not make it necessarily
true It may well be the case that the author used the style and vocabulary of the Gospel of
John as his starting point but this does not necessitate that he also borrowed the structure
And without strong evidence within the text to support it the theory is not adequate In
this same connection when Brown explains his divisions his own confession is that
determining the point of division of the body of 1 John into two parts is much more
difficult than identifying an introduction and conclusion29
In addition to these general objections given above there are both syntactical and
lexical problems with Brownrsquos divisions
The syntactical issue with Brownrsquos proposal is that he makes the second major
section of the book begin with an ὅσι clause He argues that 311 and 15 are grammatically
parallel phrases and should therefore each be understood as introducing the themes of part
one and part two of the book The primary problem here is that ὅσι is a subordinating
conjunction and therefore necessitates that it is connected with a superordinate clause (ie
310)30 As Culy comments ldquoAlthough such an analysis may make good sense of the themes
of the letter it ignores the surface structure The ὅσι makes it clear that syntactically 311 is
subordinate to 310rdquo31 A secondary problem with this assertion is that although there are
many grammatical and lexical links between 15 and 311 the claim that these two verses
alone are parallel does not take account of all the data and similar occurrences in 1 John32
A lexical issue with Brownrsquos division is his correlation of 1 John 513 and John 2031
It is claimed that these two verses parallel one another Although there are a number of
lexical links between the two verses there are three issue to consider Firstly it is widely
recognised that 1 John has similar vocabulary to the Gospel of John and so some too much
28 Brown Epistles 124 29 Brown Epistles 125 30 BDF lists ὅσι in ch11 part 3c ldquoSubordinating (Hypotactic) Conjunctionsrdquo 31 Martin M Culy I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco Baylor 2004) 80 32 See comments below on 225 and the occurrences of αὕση
11
should not be read into lexical links between John 2031 and 1 John 513 Secondly given
the frequency and variety of use of the verb γπάυψ in 1 John it is dangerous to read too
much into this one occurrence Finally there is a considerable number of differences
between these two verses which one would not expect to find if the epistolary author was
intending to use John 2031 as the model for 513 For example the verb tense-form in John
is perfect while in 1 John it is aorist Also the clause structure in 1 John is unusual (see
diagram) with the verb γπάυψ having two parallel direct objects one at either end of the
verse John 2031 has no such complex structure
Thus it can be concluded that Brown does little to convince his readers that his
theory is robust enough to allow for the difficult issues surrounding 1 John There are a
significant number of theological and grammatical issues which make his structural
proposal dubious
I H Marshall ndash A Linear View
Finally the work of more recent commentators has been content to stop short of a rigid or
hierarchical proposal Marshall surveys a number of existing proposals and concludes
12
ldquoit seems preferable to regard the Epistle as being composed of a series of connected
paragraphs whose relation to one another is governed by association of ideas rather
than by a logical plan This does not mean that John is illogical but rather that his
Epistle is not meant to be divided into large sections on a logical basisrdquo33
Such a lsquolinearrsquo structure is also adopted by Kruse Johnson and a number of others34
One the one hand Marshall is very wise to be cautious about dividing 1 John Given the
plethora of differing theories and the voluminous writing on the subject his
lsquoindecisivenessrsquo is refreshing Also Marshallrsquos recognition that some of the connections
between paragraphs may not seem ldquologicalrdquo to us (ie ldquoassociation of ideasrdquo) is insightful A
further benefit of Marshallrsquos work is his refusal to arrange paragraphs hierarchically
Marshallrsquos structure simply divides the text into units and makes little comment on their
interrelationships
On the other hand there are still a number of issues with such a proposal Whereas
other writers have made proposals in which thematic or theological considerations dictate
the divisions (eg Law) Marshallrsquos divisions seem to be determined by convenience (eg
seeking a limited number of paragraphs of similar length) in order to structure his
commentary This works out in two ways in some instances Marshall joins together verses
which do not demonstrate any connection to one another For example he connects of
212-14 and 215-17 These two units are treated together by many commentators even
though apart from their proximity to one another there are no indications that they
should be treated as such Rather each unit as its own distinct structure and vocabulary
Alternatively Marshall sometimes divides paragraphs despite strong textual evidence that
they are connected An example is the division between 412 and 1335 As will be explained
below these verses form part of one unit having a distinct structure which is within a
larger section characterised by ἀγαπ roots
View Presented in Articles
In recent years with the development of discourse analysis and text-linguistics there has
been a movement away from attempting to establish the structure of 1 John based upon
33 I Howard Marshall The Epistles of John (NICNT Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978) 26 34 Colin G Kruse The Letters of John (The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester Apollos 2000)
21 Thomas F Johnson 1 2 and 3 John (New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle Paternoster 1995) 15-
16 35 Marshall Epistles 26 See below for a fuller treatment of these units
13
thematic andor theological considerations Instead various writers have attempted to
determine the structure based upon linguistic theory and discourse features We shall
briefly review and critique three such attempts
Robert E Longacre
Longacre claims that ldquodiscourse analysis can suggest a natural outline of the bookrdquo36 He
goes on to outline a number of discourse features which he will analyse to elucidate such a
structure 1 John he claims is divided into sixteen paragraphs based on the position of
vocatives These sixteen paragraphs are subsequently grouped further into three sections
based on the distribution of γπάυψ an introduction (11-229) a body (31-512) and a
conclusion (513-21) Other features such as the genre of 1 John which Longacre takes to be
hortatory discourse the concept of peaks (ie ldquopoints of cumulative developmentrdquo)37 and
the macrostructure of the book (ldquoa summaryhellipof a text which is stated so that it gives the
central thrust of the whole workrdquo)38 are also brought to bear on the structure of the text
Longacre argues for a doctrinal and an ethical peak in both the introduction and the
body of the book Thus 212-17 and 41-6 form the ethical peaks and 218-27 and 47-21 the
doctrinal peaks The macrostructure of 1 John is seen to be 319-24 which immediately
precedes the dual peaks of the body
Longacrersquos commitment to deriving a structure of 1 John from discourse features of the
text itself is admirable and his work highlights a number of significant characteristics of 1
John Nevertheless there are some weaknesses with his approach The primary issue with
is Longacrersquos over-emphasis on a limited number of discourse features Although five
discourse features are outlined at the beginning of his paper the derivation of a structure
for 1 John is based upon only two of these features the use of vocatives and the distribution
of γπάυψ The other three discourse features are merely analysed to clarify the structure
In this regard Culy helpfully points out
36 Robert Longacre ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Textrdquo
in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed David Alan Black Katherine
Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 271 37 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 279 38 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 280
14
ldquoGiven this distribution of vocatives it is not inappropriate to recognize that this
particular writer frequently uses vocatives to help mark boundaries Such an observation
does not require that vocatives were always used in this wayrdquo39
Not only are vocatives not an absolute marker of boundaries but there are numerous other
features which Longacre largely ignores (eg lexical cohesion and participant reference)
A second major weakness in Longacrersquos proposal is his treatment of 212-14 Given
his focus on vocatives and γπάυψ it is significant that these three verses contain six
occurrences of each Longacre does claim that 212-17 is ldquoan ethical peakrdquo but this
conclusion is based on ldquoa strong exhortation not to love the worldrdquo (ie vv15-17) and not
on the vocatives or repetition of γπάυψ Similarly Longacre notes that the verb γπάυψ
switches from present to aorist use between 213 and 14 and that it does not occur again
until 513 While such data seems important Longacre fails to deal with it adequately since
his first major division of the book does not occur until 22931 Inexplicably it seems that
two verses which contain such a high concentration of Longacrersquos primary criteria are of
no special significance to him
Keir L Hansford
Hansfordrsquos basic premise is that 1 John is poetic He believes a structure can and should be
derived from treating and dividing 1 John in such a way His work is unusual in that he does
not provide an overall outline of the book but rather presents the entire text of the book
laid out in lines columns and strophes ldquoLinesrdquo are clauses or phrases in parallelism ldquoI
arguethe whole of the epistle was constructed out of parallelismsrdquo40 Hansford then
groups and divides lines in two ways horizontally and vertically Horizontally lines are
grouped into eighteen ldquostrophesrdquo which share certain key words At the same time lines
are divided into one of three vertical columns ldquothe authority of the apostlerdquo ldquohuman
actionsJesusrsquo ministryrdquo and ldquoGodrsquos creation and judgementrdquo Hansford also seeks to mark
all chiasms
As with many structural proposals for 1 John Hansfordrsquos has some beneficial
insights In attempting to structure the whole of 1 John he has paid acute attention to
details within the text This has proved to be a fruitful exercise especially in his
39 Culy A Handbook xvi 40 Keir L Hansford ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo JOTT 5 no 2 (1992) 128
15
identification of number of lsquomicro-parallelismrsquo and chiasms which have often been
overlooked
Despite these insights Hansfordrsquos overall structure and broad divisions are
problematic The first criticism is that under close inspection it becomes noticeable that a
number of Hansfordrsquos decisions are forced An example of a forced chiasm can be seen in
410-12 where ἠγαπήκαμεν in 410 is linked with σεθέασαι in 412 The two words have no
semantic overlap and it is difficult to see how they can be related other than they both
have θεὸν as their object Similarly issues regarding the column divisions can be seen at
39 The initial part of the verse πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ (the subject of the clause)
is placed in the second column (ldquohuman actionJesusrsquo ministryrdquo) while the second part
ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιει (the predicate and object) is placed in the third column (ldquoGodrsquos reaction
and judgementrdquo) These phrases do not naturally fit with the thematic topics of the
columns into which they are placed
Secondly the ldquokeywordsrdquo that are listed for each strophe seem arbitrary Each of the
eighteen strophes has on average between 15-20 keywords While some of these keywords
are unique to that portion of text other words such as ldquotruthrdquo ldquoJesusrdquo ldquoChristrdquo ldquoFatherrdquo
ldquoknowrdquo and ldquobelieverdquo occur in multiple strophes When the general and rather limited
vocabulary of the whole book is considered it becomes evident that some of the keywords
are not particular to any strophe but rather to the whole of 1 John
Thirdly it is possible that what Hansford considers to be poetic features of the text
could be explained in other ways For example the reversal of word order of verb and
subject is mentioned twice in his article as evidence of parallelism and chiasm41 It is
possible however that such a switch can be justified by other discourse features and issues
of information structure Hansford does not give details or references to the clauses he is
referring to and so it is difficult to decide either way However it must be kept in mind that
there may be other explanations for such features
Finally if the author intended such rigid parallelism it seems strange that not all
the parallels are as clear as those in 212-14 Hansford fails to take account of the clear
differences between portions of the text In Hansfordrsquos outline 212-14 which without
doubt demonstrate the clearest parallelisms blend in to his poetry and do not stand out at
all as they do when the text of 1 John is read as a whole
41 Hansford ldquoPoetic Structurerdquo 129 135
16
John Christopher Thomas
Thomas admirably sets out to focus ldquoattention on the structure of 1 John as revealed by
the text itself and seeks as far as possible to allow the text to reveal its shape on its own
termsrdquo42 The outcome of Thomas work is to suggest a chiastic structure to the book as a
whole Thomas makes clear that he is well aware of the dangers and criticisms that such
proposals have faced in the past Nevertheless he suggests that 1 John divides into 11
sections 10 of which are parallel one being central The overall chiastic structure is shown
above Thomas understands each parallel section to vaguely share a common theme or
topic eg making God a liar antichrists confidence with the central section being entitled
ldquoLove one anotherrdquo43
There are a number of problems with Thomasrsquo extended chiasm Firstly Thomas claims
that the central section of the book (section F 311-18) is focussed on loving one another
Not only does this begin a new unit with an ὅσι clause (see the treatment of Brownrsquos work
above and the discussion on 225 below for the syntactical problems associated with such a
division) but it also fails to take note that the ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλοτρ occurs more frequently
outside of this section than inside44 Similarly so with sections E and E` (228-310 and 319-
24) which are entitled ldquoConfidencerdquo The noun παππηςία occurs four times in 1 John but
only two occurrences are with these units45
42 John Christopher Thomas ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo NT 40 no 4 (1998) 371 43 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 373 44 This ἵνα clause occurs at 311 but also at 323 47 and 12 45 See 228 321 417 and 514
17
Secondly although Thomas seeks not to overstretch the links between the parallel
sections of his chiasm46 his claim that ldquothe use of similar catch wordsphraseswhich
parallel one anotherrdquo indicate that he expects his parallel sections to have to a greater or
lesser degree similar words and phrases If such is the case it is very strange that the
primary and central theme of 15-22 (ie light and darkness which occurs 13 times in those
verses) does not reappear in its parallel section (56-12) While it is true that Thomasrsquo
criteria allows that not every detail of every section will be parallel a parallelism where the
primary these are not paralleled is perculiar
A further problem with sections B and B` is Thomasrsquo comment ldquoA final point of
contact is that both passages begin with similar statements ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo in
15 and ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo in 56rdquo47 In both English and Greek it is difficult to
see how these two phrases can be correlated
Καὶ ἔςσιν αὕση ἡ ἀγγελία Οὗσόρ ἐςσιν ὁ ἐλθὼν
ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo
Although both have ἔςσιν and a demonstrative pronoun the similarity ends there The
word orders are different as is the gender of the pronoun One begins with a coordinating
conjunction the other with asyndeton One has as its subject a feminine abstract noun the
other an articular participle
Thus even with Thomasrsquo relatively loose criteria of what constitutes an extended
chiasm it is clear that 1 John as a whole refuses to be organised so neatly
46 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 372 47 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 379
18
An Analysis of Discourse Features in 1 John
Inherent Structure
Despite the widely varying theories for structure in 1 John most writers recognise that
structure is not absolutely alien to the author48 There are some portions of the book which
are unanimously agreed upon as distinct parts The two most obvious examples are 11-4
and 212-14 Aside from its complex grammatical and syntactical issues 11-4 is universally
recognised by writers and commentators as a single part which introduces the main
topic(s) of Johnrsquos first letter Similarly the lexical cohesion and repetition of 212-14 prove
beyond any doubt that John was able skilfully and carefully to construct literary units
We shall now proceed through the text of 1 John identifying major sections and
particular units using the methodology outlined above derived from cohesive features of
the text before drawing conclusions about an overall structure of the book
sect11-4
1 John 11-4 forms an introduction to the whole book49 The main clause (3c) is introduced
by an initial relative clause which is subsequently modified by three parallel relative
clauses (1b c d) in turn modified by a prepositional phrase (1f) and a parenthetical
48 See Brown Epistles 118 49 Smalley 1 2 3 John 4 15
19
comment (2a-f)50 3a starts with a resumptive relative clause before introducing the main
indicative verb (ἀπαγγέλλομεν)51 11a-3c form one complex colon and are therefore
syntactically cohesive
There are a number of additional cohesive features within these verses There is
inclusio of the verbs ἀκούψ and ὀπάψ in 1c3b and 1d3a respectively Similarly so the use
of υανεπόψ at the beginning and end of the parenthetic v2 (a and f) Also 1st person plural
verbs are used repeatedly throughout and are juxtaposed with 2nd person pronominal
references to the recipients This combination of 1st and 2nd person reference introduces the
two primary lsquocharactersrsquo in the letter Lastly the feminine noun ζψή is introduced
immediately prior to the parenthesis of v2 (1f) and is referred to in all four cola within the
parenthesis ndash twice by repetition of the noun (forming another inclusio) and twice by
ellipsis of the direct object of the transitive verbs ὀπάψ and μαπστπέψ
The complexities of the grammar52 and the textual issues53 make no difference to the
structure or cohesion of the passage
sect15-211
After an initial introduction 1 Johnrsquos first section starts at 15 and continues through to
211 This section is made up of three units
50 Judith M Lieu I II amp III John A Commentary (NTL Louisville Westminster John Knox 2008) 37 51 Culy A Handbook 7 52 Stott Letters 62 53 Bruce M Metzger A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed Stuttgart Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft 2002) 639
20
15-22
Unanimously agreed unit boundaries such as those of 11-4 do more than simply
demonstrate Johnrsquos literary abilities They also provide certain markers from which other
literary units can be determined If the introduction ends at 14 then 15 must begin a new
section Similarly if a new unit begins at 212 then the previous unit must end at 211 It
will be argued below that the verses in between (ie 15-211) form one large section
comprised of three units (15-22 23-7 28-11)
Callow has already done much of the work on 15-211 and it is unnecessary to repeat
all of his findings54 Rather a few complementary observations will be made
15-10 are tied together by their use of 3rd class conditional sentences 16a 7a 8a 9a
and 10a all introduce a protasis with ἐὰν55 Vv6 8 and 10 make negative assertions while
54 John Callow ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament Approaches and
Results (ed Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed JSNTSupp Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1999) esp 402-
4 55 See Culy A Handbook xvii-xx on the nature of these conditionals as mitigated exhortations
21
vv7 and 9 are positive forming an alternating pattern Repetition of words and phrases
such as κοινψνία πεπιπασέψ and ldquoκαθαπίζει ἡμᾶρ ἀπὸ πάςηρ ἁμαπσίαρrdquo also tie these verses
together
The relation of 21-2 to 15-10 is debated Some see 21 as a parenthesis and v2
returning to the preceding thought as a sixth conditional clause adding a final positive
element56 Others understand both of these verses to be a parenthesis given that the
conditional clause is of a different nature to the preceding ones57 Given the shift from 1st
person verbs in the preceding conditionals to the 3rd person σὶρ in 21d it seems that the
latter is preferable In which case 21-2 form a parenthetical comment in between 110 and
23
23-6
56 Marshall Epistles 115-16 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 396-97 57 Stott Letters 84
22
23-6 are held together by the inclusio of ἐν σούσῳ γινώςκομεν in 23a and 5c58 These two
independent clauses are both elaborated on in 23b-5b and 6a-d respectively The
introduction and repetition of the ideas of keeping (σηπέψ) commands (ἐνσολή) tie vv3-5
together
23-6 at first glance seems distinct from 15-10 However the repetition of ὁ λέγψν
followed by both a negative (v4) and a positive (v6) claim has strong links back to the
conditional clauses of 15-10 Similarly although the vocabulary has changed from
κοινψνία to γινώςκψ the concept of relationship to God is still present Further still 15
and 23 can both be understood as introducing their individual units Each verse makes a
stark claim which is then elucidated and illustrated both positively and negatively A final
cohesive feature is that if 21-2 are a parenthesis as suggested above then there is
referential cohesion between 15 through to 2659 Θεόρ is introduced in 15 and thereafter
only referred to with pronominal references60
Given the cohesive features and the links with 15-10 it is therefore legitimate to
conclude that ldquothis section is in several aspects parallel tohellipthe preceding sectionrdquo61 23-6
constitute a new unit That the unit begins with καὶ need not raise concern Although this
is somewhat unexpected at boundary features the presence of καὶ alone does not carry
enough weight to rule out a unit boundary (cf 15)62 Paragraphs initiated with καὶ seem to
be a feature of 1 John63
58 The prepositional clause ἐν σούσῳ is also repeated in 4e and 5b however these occurrences are
anaphoric with a personal antecedent in 4a and 5a respectively The phrases in 3a and 5c are cataphoric and
refer to abstract concepts rather than specific individuals See Culy A Handbook 25 59 There is also a lone pronominal reference to God in 8b 60 The sole exception being the genitive phrase of 25b ἡ ἀγάπη σοῦ θεοῦ 61 C Haas M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for
Translators London United Bible Societies 1972) 43 62 Levinsohn Discourse Features 275 Kermit Titrud ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament
and an Application to 2 Peterrdquo in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed
David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 240-70 63 See 15 220 28 33 13 19 514
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
9
Raymond Brown ndash A Binary View
A second major group of proposals are those that divide the body (15-512) of 1 John into
two parts (usually with an introduction (11-4) and conclusion (513-21))24 Of those who see
two halves in the body of 1 John many propose that the division is based on a certain
connection with the Gospel of John Of such authors Brown is the most prominent25
Brownrsquos division of 1 John is tied closely to his understanding of the authorship and
historical context of the letter In Brownrsquos view 1 John has been written by an author who
is part of the Johannine community which due to differing interpretations of the Gospel of
John had divided The author of 1 John regards the secessionists as heterodox and is
writing to his own community26 Regarding structure specifically Brown writes
If the epistolary author is drawing upon the theology and wording of the Johannine
tradition embodied in GJohn and assumes the mantle of evangelist as an interpreter of
that traditionhellip a priori it is not inconceivable that he used GJohn as a model in
structuring his comments in 1 John27
Brown then goes on to elaborate this theory into true structure show above
There are a number of problems with Brownrsquos theory The first is that his structure is so
tightly linked to his view of authorship The structure and authorship of 1 John are two of
24 Brown Epistles 764 Stephen S Smalley 1 2 3 John (WBC Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984) 25 See also W Hall Harris III 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis (Dallas Biblical Studies
2003) 26 Brown Epistles 69-70 27 Brown Epistles 124
10
the most uncertain and debated aspects of Johannine scholarship Given the difficult
textual grammatical and linguistic issues related to such a structure it seems that Brownrsquos
proposal based on little more than a presupposition that 1 John is intended to imitate the
Gospel of John
A second issue with Brownrsquos proposal is his own seeming uncertainty about it When
stating his view he only does so negatively ldquoa priori it is not inconceivable that he used
GJohn as a modelhelliprdquo28 That a proposal is ldquonot inconceivablerdquo does not make it necessarily
true It may well be the case that the author used the style and vocabulary of the Gospel of
John as his starting point but this does not necessitate that he also borrowed the structure
And without strong evidence within the text to support it the theory is not adequate In
this same connection when Brown explains his divisions his own confession is that
determining the point of division of the body of 1 John into two parts is much more
difficult than identifying an introduction and conclusion29
In addition to these general objections given above there are both syntactical and
lexical problems with Brownrsquos divisions
The syntactical issue with Brownrsquos proposal is that he makes the second major
section of the book begin with an ὅσι clause He argues that 311 and 15 are grammatically
parallel phrases and should therefore each be understood as introducing the themes of part
one and part two of the book The primary problem here is that ὅσι is a subordinating
conjunction and therefore necessitates that it is connected with a superordinate clause (ie
310)30 As Culy comments ldquoAlthough such an analysis may make good sense of the themes
of the letter it ignores the surface structure The ὅσι makes it clear that syntactically 311 is
subordinate to 310rdquo31 A secondary problem with this assertion is that although there are
many grammatical and lexical links between 15 and 311 the claim that these two verses
alone are parallel does not take account of all the data and similar occurrences in 1 John32
A lexical issue with Brownrsquos division is his correlation of 1 John 513 and John 2031
It is claimed that these two verses parallel one another Although there are a number of
lexical links between the two verses there are three issue to consider Firstly it is widely
recognised that 1 John has similar vocabulary to the Gospel of John and so some too much
28 Brown Epistles 124 29 Brown Epistles 125 30 BDF lists ὅσι in ch11 part 3c ldquoSubordinating (Hypotactic) Conjunctionsrdquo 31 Martin M Culy I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco Baylor 2004) 80 32 See comments below on 225 and the occurrences of αὕση
11
should not be read into lexical links between John 2031 and 1 John 513 Secondly given
the frequency and variety of use of the verb γπάυψ in 1 John it is dangerous to read too
much into this one occurrence Finally there is a considerable number of differences
between these two verses which one would not expect to find if the epistolary author was
intending to use John 2031 as the model for 513 For example the verb tense-form in John
is perfect while in 1 John it is aorist Also the clause structure in 1 John is unusual (see
diagram) with the verb γπάυψ having two parallel direct objects one at either end of the
verse John 2031 has no such complex structure
Thus it can be concluded that Brown does little to convince his readers that his
theory is robust enough to allow for the difficult issues surrounding 1 John There are a
significant number of theological and grammatical issues which make his structural
proposal dubious
I H Marshall ndash A Linear View
Finally the work of more recent commentators has been content to stop short of a rigid or
hierarchical proposal Marshall surveys a number of existing proposals and concludes
12
ldquoit seems preferable to regard the Epistle as being composed of a series of connected
paragraphs whose relation to one another is governed by association of ideas rather
than by a logical plan This does not mean that John is illogical but rather that his
Epistle is not meant to be divided into large sections on a logical basisrdquo33
Such a lsquolinearrsquo structure is also adopted by Kruse Johnson and a number of others34
One the one hand Marshall is very wise to be cautious about dividing 1 John Given the
plethora of differing theories and the voluminous writing on the subject his
lsquoindecisivenessrsquo is refreshing Also Marshallrsquos recognition that some of the connections
between paragraphs may not seem ldquologicalrdquo to us (ie ldquoassociation of ideasrdquo) is insightful A
further benefit of Marshallrsquos work is his refusal to arrange paragraphs hierarchically
Marshallrsquos structure simply divides the text into units and makes little comment on their
interrelationships
On the other hand there are still a number of issues with such a proposal Whereas
other writers have made proposals in which thematic or theological considerations dictate
the divisions (eg Law) Marshallrsquos divisions seem to be determined by convenience (eg
seeking a limited number of paragraphs of similar length) in order to structure his
commentary This works out in two ways in some instances Marshall joins together verses
which do not demonstrate any connection to one another For example he connects of
212-14 and 215-17 These two units are treated together by many commentators even
though apart from their proximity to one another there are no indications that they
should be treated as such Rather each unit as its own distinct structure and vocabulary
Alternatively Marshall sometimes divides paragraphs despite strong textual evidence that
they are connected An example is the division between 412 and 1335 As will be explained
below these verses form part of one unit having a distinct structure which is within a
larger section characterised by ἀγαπ roots
View Presented in Articles
In recent years with the development of discourse analysis and text-linguistics there has
been a movement away from attempting to establish the structure of 1 John based upon
33 I Howard Marshall The Epistles of John (NICNT Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978) 26 34 Colin G Kruse The Letters of John (The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester Apollos 2000)
21 Thomas F Johnson 1 2 and 3 John (New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle Paternoster 1995) 15-
16 35 Marshall Epistles 26 See below for a fuller treatment of these units
13
thematic andor theological considerations Instead various writers have attempted to
determine the structure based upon linguistic theory and discourse features We shall
briefly review and critique three such attempts
Robert E Longacre
Longacre claims that ldquodiscourse analysis can suggest a natural outline of the bookrdquo36 He
goes on to outline a number of discourse features which he will analyse to elucidate such a
structure 1 John he claims is divided into sixteen paragraphs based on the position of
vocatives These sixteen paragraphs are subsequently grouped further into three sections
based on the distribution of γπάυψ an introduction (11-229) a body (31-512) and a
conclusion (513-21) Other features such as the genre of 1 John which Longacre takes to be
hortatory discourse the concept of peaks (ie ldquopoints of cumulative developmentrdquo)37 and
the macrostructure of the book (ldquoa summaryhellipof a text which is stated so that it gives the
central thrust of the whole workrdquo)38 are also brought to bear on the structure of the text
Longacre argues for a doctrinal and an ethical peak in both the introduction and the
body of the book Thus 212-17 and 41-6 form the ethical peaks and 218-27 and 47-21 the
doctrinal peaks The macrostructure of 1 John is seen to be 319-24 which immediately
precedes the dual peaks of the body
Longacrersquos commitment to deriving a structure of 1 John from discourse features of the
text itself is admirable and his work highlights a number of significant characteristics of 1
John Nevertheless there are some weaknesses with his approach The primary issue with
is Longacrersquos over-emphasis on a limited number of discourse features Although five
discourse features are outlined at the beginning of his paper the derivation of a structure
for 1 John is based upon only two of these features the use of vocatives and the distribution
of γπάυψ The other three discourse features are merely analysed to clarify the structure
In this regard Culy helpfully points out
36 Robert Longacre ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Textrdquo
in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed David Alan Black Katherine
Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 271 37 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 279 38 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 280
14
ldquoGiven this distribution of vocatives it is not inappropriate to recognize that this
particular writer frequently uses vocatives to help mark boundaries Such an observation
does not require that vocatives were always used in this wayrdquo39
Not only are vocatives not an absolute marker of boundaries but there are numerous other
features which Longacre largely ignores (eg lexical cohesion and participant reference)
A second major weakness in Longacrersquos proposal is his treatment of 212-14 Given
his focus on vocatives and γπάυψ it is significant that these three verses contain six
occurrences of each Longacre does claim that 212-17 is ldquoan ethical peakrdquo but this
conclusion is based on ldquoa strong exhortation not to love the worldrdquo (ie vv15-17) and not
on the vocatives or repetition of γπάυψ Similarly Longacre notes that the verb γπάυψ
switches from present to aorist use between 213 and 14 and that it does not occur again
until 513 While such data seems important Longacre fails to deal with it adequately since
his first major division of the book does not occur until 22931 Inexplicably it seems that
two verses which contain such a high concentration of Longacrersquos primary criteria are of
no special significance to him
Keir L Hansford
Hansfordrsquos basic premise is that 1 John is poetic He believes a structure can and should be
derived from treating and dividing 1 John in such a way His work is unusual in that he does
not provide an overall outline of the book but rather presents the entire text of the book
laid out in lines columns and strophes ldquoLinesrdquo are clauses or phrases in parallelism ldquoI
arguethe whole of the epistle was constructed out of parallelismsrdquo40 Hansford then
groups and divides lines in two ways horizontally and vertically Horizontally lines are
grouped into eighteen ldquostrophesrdquo which share certain key words At the same time lines
are divided into one of three vertical columns ldquothe authority of the apostlerdquo ldquohuman
actionsJesusrsquo ministryrdquo and ldquoGodrsquos creation and judgementrdquo Hansford also seeks to mark
all chiasms
As with many structural proposals for 1 John Hansfordrsquos has some beneficial
insights In attempting to structure the whole of 1 John he has paid acute attention to
details within the text This has proved to be a fruitful exercise especially in his
39 Culy A Handbook xvi 40 Keir L Hansford ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo JOTT 5 no 2 (1992) 128
15
identification of number of lsquomicro-parallelismrsquo and chiasms which have often been
overlooked
Despite these insights Hansfordrsquos overall structure and broad divisions are
problematic The first criticism is that under close inspection it becomes noticeable that a
number of Hansfordrsquos decisions are forced An example of a forced chiasm can be seen in
410-12 where ἠγαπήκαμεν in 410 is linked with σεθέασαι in 412 The two words have no
semantic overlap and it is difficult to see how they can be related other than they both
have θεὸν as their object Similarly issues regarding the column divisions can be seen at
39 The initial part of the verse πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ (the subject of the clause)
is placed in the second column (ldquohuman actionJesusrsquo ministryrdquo) while the second part
ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιει (the predicate and object) is placed in the third column (ldquoGodrsquos reaction
and judgementrdquo) These phrases do not naturally fit with the thematic topics of the
columns into which they are placed
Secondly the ldquokeywordsrdquo that are listed for each strophe seem arbitrary Each of the
eighteen strophes has on average between 15-20 keywords While some of these keywords
are unique to that portion of text other words such as ldquotruthrdquo ldquoJesusrdquo ldquoChristrdquo ldquoFatherrdquo
ldquoknowrdquo and ldquobelieverdquo occur in multiple strophes When the general and rather limited
vocabulary of the whole book is considered it becomes evident that some of the keywords
are not particular to any strophe but rather to the whole of 1 John
Thirdly it is possible that what Hansford considers to be poetic features of the text
could be explained in other ways For example the reversal of word order of verb and
subject is mentioned twice in his article as evidence of parallelism and chiasm41 It is
possible however that such a switch can be justified by other discourse features and issues
of information structure Hansford does not give details or references to the clauses he is
referring to and so it is difficult to decide either way However it must be kept in mind that
there may be other explanations for such features
Finally if the author intended such rigid parallelism it seems strange that not all
the parallels are as clear as those in 212-14 Hansford fails to take account of the clear
differences between portions of the text In Hansfordrsquos outline 212-14 which without
doubt demonstrate the clearest parallelisms blend in to his poetry and do not stand out at
all as they do when the text of 1 John is read as a whole
41 Hansford ldquoPoetic Structurerdquo 129 135
16
John Christopher Thomas
Thomas admirably sets out to focus ldquoattention on the structure of 1 John as revealed by
the text itself and seeks as far as possible to allow the text to reveal its shape on its own
termsrdquo42 The outcome of Thomas work is to suggest a chiastic structure to the book as a
whole Thomas makes clear that he is well aware of the dangers and criticisms that such
proposals have faced in the past Nevertheless he suggests that 1 John divides into 11
sections 10 of which are parallel one being central The overall chiastic structure is shown
above Thomas understands each parallel section to vaguely share a common theme or
topic eg making God a liar antichrists confidence with the central section being entitled
ldquoLove one anotherrdquo43
There are a number of problems with Thomasrsquo extended chiasm Firstly Thomas claims
that the central section of the book (section F 311-18) is focussed on loving one another
Not only does this begin a new unit with an ὅσι clause (see the treatment of Brownrsquos work
above and the discussion on 225 below for the syntactical problems associated with such a
division) but it also fails to take note that the ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλοτρ occurs more frequently
outside of this section than inside44 Similarly so with sections E and E` (228-310 and 319-
24) which are entitled ldquoConfidencerdquo The noun παππηςία occurs four times in 1 John but
only two occurrences are with these units45
42 John Christopher Thomas ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo NT 40 no 4 (1998) 371 43 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 373 44 This ἵνα clause occurs at 311 but also at 323 47 and 12 45 See 228 321 417 and 514
17
Secondly although Thomas seeks not to overstretch the links between the parallel
sections of his chiasm46 his claim that ldquothe use of similar catch wordsphraseswhich
parallel one anotherrdquo indicate that he expects his parallel sections to have to a greater or
lesser degree similar words and phrases If such is the case it is very strange that the
primary and central theme of 15-22 (ie light and darkness which occurs 13 times in those
verses) does not reappear in its parallel section (56-12) While it is true that Thomasrsquo
criteria allows that not every detail of every section will be parallel a parallelism where the
primary these are not paralleled is perculiar
A further problem with sections B and B` is Thomasrsquo comment ldquoA final point of
contact is that both passages begin with similar statements ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo in
15 and ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo in 56rdquo47 In both English and Greek it is difficult to
see how these two phrases can be correlated
Καὶ ἔςσιν αὕση ἡ ἀγγελία Οὗσόρ ἐςσιν ὁ ἐλθὼν
ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo
Although both have ἔςσιν and a demonstrative pronoun the similarity ends there The
word orders are different as is the gender of the pronoun One begins with a coordinating
conjunction the other with asyndeton One has as its subject a feminine abstract noun the
other an articular participle
Thus even with Thomasrsquo relatively loose criteria of what constitutes an extended
chiasm it is clear that 1 John as a whole refuses to be organised so neatly
46 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 372 47 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 379
18
An Analysis of Discourse Features in 1 John
Inherent Structure
Despite the widely varying theories for structure in 1 John most writers recognise that
structure is not absolutely alien to the author48 There are some portions of the book which
are unanimously agreed upon as distinct parts The two most obvious examples are 11-4
and 212-14 Aside from its complex grammatical and syntactical issues 11-4 is universally
recognised by writers and commentators as a single part which introduces the main
topic(s) of Johnrsquos first letter Similarly the lexical cohesion and repetition of 212-14 prove
beyond any doubt that John was able skilfully and carefully to construct literary units
We shall now proceed through the text of 1 John identifying major sections and
particular units using the methodology outlined above derived from cohesive features of
the text before drawing conclusions about an overall structure of the book
sect11-4
1 John 11-4 forms an introduction to the whole book49 The main clause (3c) is introduced
by an initial relative clause which is subsequently modified by three parallel relative
clauses (1b c d) in turn modified by a prepositional phrase (1f) and a parenthetical
48 See Brown Epistles 118 49 Smalley 1 2 3 John 4 15
19
comment (2a-f)50 3a starts with a resumptive relative clause before introducing the main
indicative verb (ἀπαγγέλλομεν)51 11a-3c form one complex colon and are therefore
syntactically cohesive
There are a number of additional cohesive features within these verses There is
inclusio of the verbs ἀκούψ and ὀπάψ in 1c3b and 1d3a respectively Similarly so the use
of υανεπόψ at the beginning and end of the parenthetic v2 (a and f) Also 1st person plural
verbs are used repeatedly throughout and are juxtaposed with 2nd person pronominal
references to the recipients This combination of 1st and 2nd person reference introduces the
two primary lsquocharactersrsquo in the letter Lastly the feminine noun ζψή is introduced
immediately prior to the parenthesis of v2 (1f) and is referred to in all four cola within the
parenthesis ndash twice by repetition of the noun (forming another inclusio) and twice by
ellipsis of the direct object of the transitive verbs ὀπάψ and μαπστπέψ
The complexities of the grammar52 and the textual issues53 make no difference to the
structure or cohesion of the passage
sect15-211
After an initial introduction 1 Johnrsquos first section starts at 15 and continues through to
211 This section is made up of three units
50 Judith M Lieu I II amp III John A Commentary (NTL Louisville Westminster John Knox 2008) 37 51 Culy A Handbook 7 52 Stott Letters 62 53 Bruce M Metzger A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed Stuttgart Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft 2002) 639
20
15-22
Unanimously agreed unit boundaries such as those of 11-4 do more than simply
demonstrate Johnrsquos literary abilities They also provide certain markers from which other
literary units can be determined If the introduction ends at 14 then 15 must begin a new
section Similarly if a new unit begins at 212 then the previous unit must end at 211 It
will be argued below that the verses in between (ie 15-211) form one large section
comprised of three units (15-22 23-7 28-11)
Callow has already done much of the work on 15-211 and it is unnecessary to repeat
all of his findings54 Rather a few complementary observations will be made
15-10 are tied together by their use of 3rd class conditional sentences 16a 7a 8a 9a
and 10a all introduce a protasis with ἐὰν55 Vv6 8 and 10 make negative assertions while
54 John Callow ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament Approaches and
Results (ed Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed JSNTSupp Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1999) esp 402-
4 55 See Culy A Handbook xvii-xx on the nature of these conditionals as mitigated exhortations
21
vv7 and 9 are positive forming an alternating pattern Repetition of words and phrases
such as κοινψνία πεπιπασέψ and ldquoκαθαπίζει ἡμᾶρ ἀπὸ πάςηρ ἁμαπσίαρrdquo also tie these verses
together
The relation of 21-2 to 15-10 is debated Some see 21 as a parenthesis and v2
returning to the preceding thought as a sixth conditional clause adding a final positive
element56 Others understand both of these verses to be a parenthesis given that the
conditional clause is of a different nature to the preceding ones57 Given the shift from 1st
person verbs in the preceding conditionals to the 3rd person σὶρ in 21d it seems that the
latter is preferable In which case 21-2 form a parenthetical comment in between 110 and
23
23-6
56 Marshall Epistles 115-16 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 396-97 57 Stott Letters 84
22
23-6 are held together by the inclusio of ἐν σούσῳ γινώςκομεν in 23a and 5c58 These two
independent clauses are both elaborated on in 23b-5b and 6a-d respectively The
introduction and repetition of the ideas of keeping (σηπέψ) commands (ἐνσολή) tie vv3-5
together
23-6 at first glance seems distinct from 15-10 However the repetition of ὁ λέγψν
followed by both a negative (v4) and a positive (v6) claim has strong links back to the
conditional clauses of 15-10 Similarly although the vocabulary has changed from
κοινψνία to γινώςκψ the concept of relationship to God is still present Further still 15
and 23 can both be understood as introducing their individual units Each verse makes a
stark claim which is then elucidated and illustrated both positively and negatively A final
cohesive feature is that if 21-2 are a parenthesis as suggested above then there is
referential cohesion between 15 through to 2659 Θεόρ is introduced in 15 and thereafter
only referred to with pronominal references60
Given the cohesive features and the links with 15-10 it is therefore legitimate to
conclude that ldquothis section is in several aspects parallel tohellipthe preceding sectionrdquo61 23-6
constitute a new unit That the unit begins with καὶ need not raise concern Although this
is somewhat unexpected at boundary features the presence of καὶ alone does not carry
enough weight to rule out a unit boundary (cf 15)62 Paragraphs initiated with καὶ seem to
be a feature of 1 John63
58 The prepositional clause ἐν σούσῳ is also repeated in 4e and 5b however these occurrences are
anaphoric with a personal antecedent in 4a and 5a respectively The phrases in 3a and 5c are cataphoric and
refer to abstract concepts rather than specific individuals See Culy A Handbook 25 59 There is also a lone pronominal reference to God in 8b 60 The sole exception being the genitive phrase of 25b ἡ ἀγάπη σοῦ θεοῦ 61 C Haas M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for
Translators London United Bible Societies 1972) 43 62 Levinsohn Discourse Features 275 Kermit Titrud ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament
and an Application to 2 Peterrdquo in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed
David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 240-70 63 See 15 220 28 33 13 19 514
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
10
the most uncertain and debated aspects of Johannine scholarship Given the difficult
textual grammatical and linguistic issues related to such a structure it seems that Brownrsquos
proposal based on little more than a presupposition that 1 John is intended to imitate the
Gospel of John
A second issue with Brownrsquos proposal is his own seeming uncertainty about it When
stating his view he only does so negatively ldquoa priori it is not inconceivable that he used
GJohn as a modelhelliprdquo28 That a proposal is ldquonot inconceivablerdquo does not make it necessarily
true It may well be the case that the author used the style and vocabulary of the Gospel of
John as his starting point but this does not necessitate that he also borrowed the structure
And without strong evidence within the text to support it the theory is not adequate In
this same connection when Brown explains his divisions his own confession is that
determining the point of division of the body of 1 John into two parts is much more
difficult than identifying an introduction and conclusion29
In addition to these general objections given above there are both syntactical and
lexical problems with Brownrsquos divisions
The syntactical issue with Brownrsquos proposal is that he makes the second major
section of the book begin with an ὅσι clause He argues that 311 and 15 are grammatically
parallel phrases and should therefore each be understood as introducing the themes of part
one and part two of the book The primary problem here is that ὅσι is a subordinating
conjunction and therefore necessitates that it is connected with a superordinate clause (ie
310)30 As Culy comments ldquoAlthough such an analysis may make good sense of the themes
of the letter it ignores the surface structure The ὅσι makes it clear that syntactically 311 is
subordinate to 310rdquo31 A secondary problem with this assertion is that although there are
many grammatical and lexical links between 15 and 311 the claim that these two verses
alone are parallel does not take account of all the data and similar occurrences in 1 John32
A lexical issue with Brownrsquos division is his correlation of 1 John 513 and John 2031
It is claimed that these two verses parallel one another Although there are a number of
lexical links between the two verses there are three issue to consider Firstly it is widely
recognised that 1 John has similar vocabulary to the Gospel of John and so some too much
28 Brown Epistles 124 29 Brown Epistles 125 30 BDF lists ὅσι in ch11 part 3c ldquoSubordinating (Hypotactic) Conjunctionsrdquo 31 Martin M Culy I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco Baylor 2004) 80 32 See comments below on 225 and the occurrences of αὕση
11
should not be read into lexical links between John 2031 and 1 John 513 Secondly given
the frequency and variety of use of the verb γπάυψ in 1 John it is dangerous to read too
much into this one occurrence Finally there is a considerable number of differences
between these two verses which one would not expect to find if the epistolary author was
intending to use John 2031 as the model for 513 For example the verb tense-form in John
is perfect while in 1 John it is aorist Also the clause structure in 1 John is unusual (see
diagram) with the verb γπάυψ having two parallel direct objects one at either end of the
verse John 2031 has no such complex structure
Thus it can be concluded that Brown does little to convince his readers that his
theory is robust enough to allow for the difficult issues surrounding 1 John There are a
significant number of theological and grammatical issues which make his structural
proposal dubious
I H Marshall ndash A Linear View
Finally the work of more recent commentators has been content to stop short of a rigid or
hierarchical proposal Marshall surveys a number of existing proposals and concludes
12
ldquoit seems preferable to regard the Epistle as being composed of a series of connected
paragraphs whose relation to one another is governed by association of ideas rather
than by a logical plan This does not mean that John is illogical but rather that his
Epistle is not meant to be divided into large sections on a logical basisrdquo33
Such a lsquolinearrsquo structure is also adopted by Kruse Johnson and a number of others34
One the one hand Marshall is very wise to be cautious about dividing 1 John Given the
plethora of differing theories and the voluminous writing on the subject his
lsquoindecisivenessrsquo is refreshing Also Marshallrsquos recognition that some of the connections
between paragraphs may not seem ldquologicalrdquo to us (ie ldquoassociation of ideasrdquo) is insightful A
further benefit of Marshallrsquos work is his refusal to arrange paragraphs hierarchically
Marshallrsquos structure simply divides the text into units and makes little comment on their
interrelationships
On the other hand there are still a number of issues with such a proposal Whereas
other writers have made proposals in which thematic or theological considerations dictate
the divisions (eg Law) Marshallrsquos divisions seem to be determined by convenience (eg
seeking a limited number of paragraphs of similar length) in order to structure his
commentary This works out in two ways in some instances Marshall joins together verses
which do not demonstrate any connection to one another For example he connects of
212-14 and 215-17 These two units are treated together by many commentators even
though apart from their proximity to one another there are no indications that they
should be treated as such Rather each unit as its own distinct structure and vocabulary
Alternatively Marshall sometimes divides paragraphs despite strong textual evidence that
they are connected An example is the division between 412 and 1335 As will be explained
below these verses form part of one unit having a distinct structure which is within a
larger section characterised by ἀγαπ roots
View Presented in Articles
In recent years with the development of discourse analysis and text-linguistics there has
been a movement away from attempting to establish the structure of 1 John based upon
33 I Howard Marshall The Epistles of John (NICNT Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978) 26 34 Colin G Kruse The Letters of John (The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester Apollos 2000)
21 Thomas F Johnson 1 2 and 3 John (New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle Paternoster 1995) 15-
16 35 Marshall Epistles 26 See below for a fuller treatment of these units
13
thematic andor theological considerations Instead various writers have attempted to
determine the structure based upon linguistic theory and discourse features We shall
briefly review and critique three such attempts
Robert E Longacre
Longacre claims that ldquodiscourse analysis can suggest a natural outline of the bookrdquo36 He
goes on to outline a number of discourse features which he will analyse to elucidate such a
structure 1 John he claims is divided into sixteen paragraphs based on the position of
vocatives These sixteen paragraphs are subsequently grouped further into three sections
based on the distribution of γπάυψ an introduction (11-229) a body (31-512) and a
conclusion (513-21) Other features such as the genre of 1 John which Longacre takes to be
hortatory discourse the concept of peaks (ie ldquopoints of cumulative developmentrdquo)37 and
the macrostructure of the book (ldquoa summaryhellipof a text which is stated so that it gives the
central thrust of the whole workrdquo)38 are also brought to bear on the structure of the text
Longacre argues for a doctrinal and an ethical peak in both the introduction and the
body of the book Thus 212-17 and 41-6 form the ethical peaks and 218-27 and 47-21 the
doctrinal peaks The macrostructure of 1 John is seen to be 319-24 which immediately
precedes the dual peaks of the body
Longacrersquos commitment to deriving a structure of 1 John from discourse features of the
text itself is admirable and his work highlights a number of significant characteristics of 1
John Nevertheless there are some weaknesses with his approach The primary issue with
is Longacrersquos over-emphasis on a limited number of discourse features Although five
discourse features are outlined at the beginning of his paper the derivation of a structure
for 1 John is based upon only two of these features the use of vocatives and the distribution
of γπάυψ The other three discourse features are merely analysed to clarify the structure
In this regard Culy helpfully points out
36 Robert Longacre ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Textrdquo
in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed David Alan Black Katherine
Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 271 37 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 279 38 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 280
14
ldquoGiven this distribution of vocatives it is not inappropriate to recognize that this
particular writer frequently uses vocatives to help mark boundaries Such an observation
does not require that vocatives were always used in this wayrdquo39
Not only are vocatives not an absolute marker of boundaries but there are numerous other
features which Longacre largely ignores (eg lexical cohesion and participant reference)
A second major weakness in Longacrersquos proposal is his treatment of 212-14 Given
his focus on vocatives and γπάυψ it is significant that these three verses contain six
occurrences of each Longacre does claim that 212-17 is ldquoan ethical peakrdquo but this
conclusion is based on ldquoa strong exhortation not to love the worldrdquo (ie vv15-17) and not
on the vocatives or repetition of γπάυψ Similarly Longacre notes that the verb γπάυψ
switches from present to aorist use between 213 and 14 and that it does not occur again
until 513 While such data seems important Longacre fails to deal with it adequately since
his first major division of the book does not occur until 22931 Inexplicably it seems that
two verses which contain such a high concentration of Longacrersquos primary criteria are of
no special significance to him
Keir L Hansford
Hansfordrsquos basic premise is that 1 John is poetic He believes a structure can and should be
derived from treating and dividing 1 John in such a way His work is unusual in that he does
not provide an overall outline of the book but rather presents the entire text of the book
laid out in lines columns and strophes ldquoLinesrdquo are clauses or phrases in parallelism ldquoI
arguethe whole of the epistle was constructed out of parallelismsrdquo40 Hansford then
groups and divides lines in two ways horizontally and vertically Horizontally lines are
grouped into eighteen ldquostrophesrdquo which share certain key words At the same time lines
are divided into one of three vertical columns ldquothe authority of the apostlerdquo ldquohuman
actionsJesusrsquo ministryrdquo and ldquoGodrsquos creation and judgementrdquo Hansford also seeks to mark
all chiasms
As with many structural proposals for 1 John Hansfordrsquos has some beneficial
insights In attempting to structure the whole of 1 John he has paid acute attention to
details within the text This has proved to be a fruitful exercise especially in his
39 Culy A Handbook xvi 40 Keir L Hansford ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo JOTT 5 no 2 (1992) 128
15
identification of number of lsquomicro-parallelismrsquo and chiasms which have often been
overlooked
Despite these insights Hansfordrsquos overall structure and broad divisions are
problematic The first criticism is that under close inspection it becomes noticeable that a
number of Hansfordrsquos decisions are forced An example of a forced chiasm can be seen in
410-12 where ἠγαπήκαμεν in 410 is linked with σεθέασαι in 412 The two words have no
semantic overlap and it is difficult to see how they can be related other than they both
have θεὸν as their object Similarly issues regarding the column divisions can be seen at
39 The initial part of the verse πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ (the subject of the clause)
is placed in the second column (ldquohuman actionJesusrsquo ministryrdquo) while the second part
ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιει (the predicate and object) is placed in the third column (ldquoGodrsquos reaction
and judgementrdquo) These phrases do not naturally fit with the thematic topics of the
columns into which they are placed
Secondly the ldquokeywordsrdquo that are listed for each strophe seem arbitrary Each of the
eighteen strophes has on average between 15-20 keywords While some of these keywords
are unique to that portion of text other words such as ldquotruthrdquo ldquoJesusrdquo ldquoChristrdquo ldquoFatherrdquo
ldquoknowrdquo and ldquobelieverdquo occur in multiple strophes When the general and rather limited
vocabulary of the whole book is considered it becomes evident that some of the keywords
are not particular to any strophe but rather to the whole of 1 John
Thirdly it is possible that what Hansford considers to be poetic features of the text
could be explained in other ways For example the reversal of word order of verb and
subject is mentioned twice in his article as evidence of parallelism and chiasm41 It is
possible however that such a switch can be justified by other discourse features and issues
of information structure Hansford does not give details or references to the clauses he is
referring to and so it is difficult to decide either way However it must be kept in mind that
there may be other explanations for such features
Finally if the author intended such rigid parallelism it seems strange that not all
the parallels are as clear as those in 212-14 Hansford fails to take account of the clear
differences between portions of the text In Hansfordrsquos outline 212-14 which without
doubt demonstrate the clearest parallelisms blend in to his poetry and do not stand out at
all as they do when the text of 1 John is read as a whole
41 Hansford ldquoPoetic Structurerdquo 129 135
16
John Christopher Thomas
Thomas admirably sets out to focus ldquoattention on the structure of 1 John as revealed by
the text itself and seeks as far as possible to allow the text to reveal its shape on its own
termsrdquo42 The outcome of Thomas work is to suggest a chiastic structure to the book as a
whole Thomas makes clear that he is well aware of the dangers and criticisms that such
proposals have faced in the past Nevertheless he suggests that 1 John divides into 11
sections 10 of which are parallel one being central The overall chiastic structure is shown
above Thomas understands each parallel section to vaguely share a common theme or
topic eg making God a liar antichrists confidence with the central section being entitled
ldquoLove one anotherrdquo43
There are a number of problems with Thomasrsquo extended chiasm Firstly Thomas claims
that the central section of the book (section F 311-18) is focussed on loving one another
Not only does this begin a new unit with an ὅσι clause (see the treatment of Brownrsquos work
above and the discussion on 225 below for the syntactical problems associated with such a
division) but it also fails to take note that the ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλοτρ occurs more frequently
outside of this section than inside44 Similarly so with sections E and E` (228-310 and 319-
24) which are entitled ldquoConfidencerdquo The noun παππηςία occurs four times in 1 John but
only two occurrences are with these units45
42 John Christopher Thomas ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo NT 40 no 4 (1998) 371 43 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 373 44 This ἵνα clause occurs at 311 but also at 323 47 and 12 45 See 228 321 417 and 514
17
Secondly although Thomas seeks not to overstretch the links between the parallel
sections of his chiasm46 his claim that ldquothe use of similar catch wordsphraseswhich
parallel one anotherrdquo indicate that he expects his parallel sections to have to a greater or
lesser degree similar words and phrases If such is the case it is very strange that the
primary and central theme of 15-22 (ie light and darkness which occurs 13 times in those
verses) does not reappear in its parallel section (56-12) While it is true that Thomasrsquo
criteria allows that not every detail of every section will be parallel a parallelism where the
primary these are not paralleled is perculiar
A further problem with sections B and B` is Thomasrsquo comment ldquoA final point of
contact is that both passages begin with similar statements ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo in
15 and ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo in 56rdquo47 In both English and Greek it is difficult to
see how these two phrases can be correlated
Καὶ ἔςσιν αὕση ἡ ἀγγελία Οὗσόρ ἐςσιν ὁ ἐλθὼν
ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo
Although both have ἔςσιν and a demonstrative pronoun the similarity ends there The
word orders are different as is the gender of the pronoun One begins with a coordinating
conjunction the other with asyndeton One has as its subject a feminine abstract noun the
other an articular participle
Thus even with Thomasrsquo relatively loose criteria of what constitutes an extended
chiasm it is clear that 1 John as a whole refuses to be organised so neatly
46 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 372 47 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 379
18
An Analysis of Discourse Features in 1 John
Inherent Structure
Despite the widely varying theories for structure in 1 John most writers recognise that
structure is not absolutely alien to the author48 There are some portions of the book which
are unanimously agreed upon as distinct parts The two most obvious examples are 11-4
and 212-14 Aside from its complex grammatical and syntactical issues 11-4 is universally
recognised by writers and commentators as a single part which introduces the main
topic(s) of Johnrsquos first letter Similarly the lexical cohesion and repetition of 212-14 prove
beyond any doubt that John was able skilfully and carefully to construct literary units
We shall now proceed through the text of 1 John identifying major sections and
particular units using the methodology outlined above derived from cohesive features of
the text before drawing conclusions about an overall structure of the book
sect11-4
1 John 11-4 forms an introduction to the whole book49 The main clause (3c) is introduced
by an initial relative clause which is subsequently modified by three parallel relative
clauses (1b c d) in turn modified by a prepositional phrase (1f) and a parenthetical
48 See Brown Epistles 118 49 Smalley 1 2 3 John 4 15
19
comment (2a-f)50 3a starts with a resumptive relative clause before introducing the main
indicative verb (ἀπαγγέλλομεν)51 11a-3c form one complex colon and are therefore
syntactically cohesive
There are a number of additional cohesive features within these verses There is
inclusio of the verbs ἀκούψ and ὀπάψ in 1c3b and 1d3a respectively Similarly so the use
of υανεπόψ at the beginning and end of the parenthetic v2 (a and f) Also 1st person plural
verbs are used repeatedly throughout and are juxtaposed with 2nd person pronominal
references to the recipients This combination of 1st and 2nd person reference introduces the
two primary lsquocharactersrsquo in the letter Lastly the feminine noun ζψή is introduced
immediately prior to the parenthesis of v2 (1f) and is referred to in all four cola within the
parenthesis ndash twice by repetition of the noun (forming another inclusio) and twice by
ellipsis of the direct object of the transitive verbs ὀπάψ and μαπστπέψ
The complexities of the grammar52 and the textual issues53 make no difference to the
structure or cohesion of the passage
sect15-211
After an initial introduction 1 Johnrsquos first section starts at 15 and continues through to
211 This section is made up of three units
50 Judith M Lieu I II amp III John A Commentary (NTL Louisville Westminster John Knox 2008) 37 51 Culy A Handbook 7 52 Stott Letters 62 53 Bruce M Metzger A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed Stuttgart Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft 2002) 639
20
15-22
Unanimously agreed unit boundaries such as those of 11-4 do more than simply
demonstrate Johnrsquos literary abilities They also provide certain markers from which other
literary units can be determined If the introduction ends at 14 then 15 must begin a new
section Similarly if a new unit begins at 212 then the previous unit must end at 211 It
will be argued below that the verses in between (ie 15-211) form one large section
comprised of three units (15-22 23-7 28-11)
Callow has already done much of the work on 15-211 and it is unnecessary to repeat
all of his findings54 Rather a few complementary observations will be made
15-10 are tied together by their use of 3rd class conditional sentences 16a 7a 8a 9a
and 10a all introduce a protasis with ἐὰν55 Vv6 8 and 10 make negative assertions while
54 John Callow ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament Approaches and
Results (ed Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed JSNTSupp Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1999) esp 402-
4 55 See Culy A Handbook xvii-xx on the nature of these conditionals as mitigated exhortations
21
vv7 and 9 are positive forming an alternating pattern Repetition of words and phrases
such as κοινψνία πεπιπασέψ and ldquoκαθαπίζει ἡμᾶρ ἀπὸ πάςηρ ἁμαπσίαρrdquo also tie these verses
together
The relation of 21-2 to 15-10 is debated Some see 21 as a parenthesis and v2
returning to the preceding thought as a sixth conditional clause adding a final positive
element56 Others understand both of these verses to be a parenthesis given that the
conditional clause is of a different nature to the preceding ones57 Given the shift from 1st
person verbs in the preceding conditionals to the 3rd person σὶρ in 21d it seems that the
latter is preferable In which case 21-2 form a parenthetical comment in between 110 and
23
23-6
56 Marshall Epistles 115-16 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 396-97 57 Stott Letters 84
22
23-6 are held together by the inclusio of ἐν σούσῳ γινώςκομεν in 23a and 5c58 These two
independent clauses are both elaborated on in 23b-5b and 6a-d respectively The
introduction and repetition of the ideas of keeping (σηπέψ) commands (ἐνσολή) tie vv3-5
together
23-6 at first glance seems distinct from 15-10 However the repetition of ὁ λέγψν
followed by both a negative (v4) and a positive (v6) claim has strong links back to the
conditional clauses of 15-10 Similarly although the vocabulary has changed from
κοινψνία to γινώςκψ the concept of relationship to God is still present Further still 15
and 23 can both be understood as introducing their individual units Each verse makes a
stark claim which is then elucidated and illustrated both positively and negatively A final
cohesive feature is that if 21-2 are a parenthesis as suggested above then there is
referential cohesion between 15 through to 2659 Θεόρ is introduced in 15 and thereafter
only referred to with pronominal references60
Given the cohesive features and the links with 15-10 it is therefore legitimate to
conclude that ldquothis section is in several aspects parallel tohellipthe preceding sectionrdquo61 23-6
constitute a new unit That the unit begins with καὶ need not raise concern Although this
is somewhat unexpected at boundary features the presence of καὶ alone does not carry
enough weight to rule out a unit boundary (cf 15)62 Paragraphs initiated with καὶ seem to
be a feature of 1 John63
58 The prepositional clause ἐν σούσῳ is also repeated in 4e and 5b however these occurrences are
anaphoric with a personal antecedent in 4a and 5a respectively The phrases in 3a and 5c are cataphoric and
refer to abstract concepts rather than specific individuals See Culy A Handbook 25 59 There is also a lone pronominal reference to God in 8b 60 The sole exception being the genitive phrase of 25b ἡ ἀγάπη σοῦ θεοῦ 61 C Haas M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for
Translators London United Bible Societies 1972) 43 62 Levinsohn Discourse Features 275 Kermit Titrud ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament
and an Application to 2 Peterrdquo in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed
David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 240-70 63 See 15 220 28 33 13 19 514
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
11
should not be read into lexical links between John 2031 and 1 John 513 Secondly given
the frequency and variety of use of the verb γπάυψ in 1 John it is dangerous to read too
much into this one occurrence Finally there is a considerable number of differences
between these two verses which one would not expect to find if the epistolary author was
intending to use John 2031 as the model for 513 For example the verb tense-form in John
is perfect while in 1 John it is aorist Also the clause structure in 1 John is unusual (see
diagram) with the verb γπάυψ having two parallel direct objects one at either end of the
verse John 2031 has no such complex structure
Thus it can be concluded that Brown does little to convince his readers that his
theory is robust enough to allow for the difficult issues surrounding 1 John There are a
significant number of theological and grammatical issues which make his structural
proposal dubious
I H Marshall ndash A Linear View
Finally the work of more recent commentators has been content to stop short of a rigid or
hierarchical proposal Marshall surveys a number of existing proposals and concludes
12
ldquoit seems preferable to regard the Epistle as being composed of a series of connected
paragraphs whose relation to one another is governed by association of ideas rather
than by a logical plan This does not mean that John is illogical but rather that his
Epistle is not meant to be divided into large sections on a logical basisrdquo33
Such a lsquolinearrsquo structure is also adopted by Kruse Johnson and a number of others34
One the one hand Marshall is very wise to be cautious about dividing 1 John Given the
plethora of differing theories and the voluminous writing on the subject his
lsquoindecisivenessrsquo is refreshing Also Marshallrsquos recognition that some of the connections
between paragraphs may not seem ldquologicalrdquo to us (ie ldquoassociation of ideasrdquo) is insightful A
further benefit of Marshallrsquos work is his refusal to arrange paragraphs hierarchically
Marshallrsquos structure simply divides the text into units and makes little comment on their
interrelationships
On the other hand there are still a number of issues with such a proposal Whereas
other writers have made proposals in which thematic or theological considerations dictate
the divisions (eg Law) Marshallrsquos divisions seem to be determined by convenience (eg
seeking a limited number of paragraphs of similar length) in order to structure his
commentary This works out in two ways in some instances Marshall joins together verses
which do not demonstrate any connection to one another For example he connects of
212-14 and 215-17 These two units are treated together by many commentators even
though apart from their proximity to one another there are no indications that they
should be treated as such Rather each unit as its own distinct structure and vocabulary
Alternatively Marshall sometimes divides paragraphs despite strong textual evidence that
they are connected An example is the division between 412 and 1335 As will be explained
below these verses form part of one unit having a distinct structure which is within a
larger section characterised by ἀγαπ roots
View Presented in Articles
In recent years with the development of discourse analysis and text-linguistics there has
been a movement away from attempting to establish the structure of 1 John based upon
33 I Howard Marshall The Epistles of John (NICNT Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978) 26 34 Colin G Kruse The Letters of John (The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester Apollos 2000)
21 Thomas F Johnson 1 2 and 3 John (New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle Paternoster 1995) 15-
16 35 Marshall Epistles 26 See below for a fuller treatment of these units
13
thematic andor theological considerations Instead various writers have attempted to
determine the structure based upon linguistic theory and discourse features We shall
briefly review and critique three such attempts
Robert E Longacre
Longacre claims that ldquodiscourse analysis can suggest a natural outline of the bookrdquo36 He
goes on to outline a number of discourse features which he will analyse to elucidate such a
structure 1 John he claims is divided into sixteen paragraphs based on the position of
vocatives These sixteen paragraphs are subsequently grouped further into three sections
based on the distribution of γπάυψ an introduction (11-229) a body (31-512) and a
conclusion (513-21) Other features such as the genre of 1 John which Longacre takes to be
hortatory discourse the concept of peaks (ie ldquopoints of cumulative developmentrdquo)37 and
the macrostructure of the book (ldquoa summaryhellipof a text which is stated so that it gives the
central thrust of the whole workrdquo)38 are also brought to bear on the structure of the text
Longacre argues for a doctrinal and an ethical peak in both the introduction and the
body of the book Thus 212-17 and 41-6 form the ethical peaks and 218-27 and 47-21 the
doctrinal peaks The macrostructure of 1 John is seen to be 319-24 which immediately
precedes the dual peaks of the body
Longacrersquos commitment to deriving a structure of 1 John from discourse features of the
text itself is admirable and his work highlights a number of significant characteristics of 1
John Nevertheless there are some weaknesses with his approach The primary issue with
is Longacrersquos over-emphasis on a limited number of discourse features Although five
discourse features are outlined at the beginning of his paper the derivation of a structure
for 1 John is based upon only two of these features the use of vocatives and the distribution
of γπάυψ The other three discourse features are merely analysed to clarify the structure
In this regard Culy helpfully points out
36 Robert Longacre ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Textrdquo
in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed David Alan Black Katherine
Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 271 37 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 279 38 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 280
14
ldquoGiven this distribution of vocatives it is not inappropriate to recognize that this
particular writer frequently uses vocatives to help mark boundaries Such an observation
does not require that vocatives were always used in this wayrdquo39
Not only are vocatives not an absolute marker of boundaries but there are numerous other
features which Longacre largely ignores (eg lexical cohesion and participant reference)
A second major weakness in Longacrersquos proposal is his treatment of 212-14 Given
his focus on vocatives and γπάυψ it is significant that these three verses contain six
occurrences of each Longacre does claim that 212-17 is ldquoan ethical peakrdquo but this
conclusion is based on ldquoa strong exhortation not to love the worldrdquo (ie vv15-17) and not
on the vocatives or repetition of γπάυψ Similarly Longacre notes that the verb γπάυψ
switches from present to aorist use between 213 and 14 and that it does not occur again
until 513 While such data seems important Longacre fails to deal with it adequately since
his first major division of the book does not occur until 22931 Inexplicably it seems that
two verses which contain such a high concentration of Longacrersquos primary criteria are of
no special significance to him
Keir L Hansford
Hansfordrsquos basic premise is that 1 John is poetic He believes a structure can and should be
derived from treating and dividing 1 John in such a way His work is unusual in that he does
not provide an overall outline of the book but rather presents the entire text of the book
laid out in lines columns and strophes ldquoLinesrdquo are clauses or phrases in parallelism ldquoI
arguethe whole of the epistle was constructed out of parallelismsrdquo40 Hansford then
groups and divides lines in two ways horizontally and vertically Horizontally lines are
grouped into eighteen ldquostrophesrdquo which share certain key words At the same time lines
are divided into one of three vertical columns ldquothe authority of the apostlerdquo ldquohuman
actionsJesusrsquo ministryrdquo and ldquoGodrsquos creation and judgementrdquo Hansford also seeks to mark
all chiasms
As with many structural proposals for 1 John Hansfordrsquos has some beneficial
insights In attempting to structure the whole of 1 John he has paid acute attention to
details within the text This has proved to be a fruitful exercise especially in his
39 Culy A Handbook xvi 40 Keir L Hansford ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo JOTT 5 no 2 (1992) 128
15
identification of number of lsquomicro-parallelismrsquo and chiasms which have often been
overlooked
Despite these insights Hansfordrsquos overall structure and broad divisions are
problematic The first criticism is that under close inspection it becomes noticeable that a
number of Hansfordrsquos decisions are forced An example of a forced chiasm can be seen in
410-12 where ἠγαπήκαμεν in 410 is linked with σεθέασαι in 412 The two words have no
semantic overlap and it is difficult to see how they can be related other than they both
have θεὸν as their object Similarly issues regarding the column divisions can be seen at
39 The initial part of the verse πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ (the subject of the clause)
is placed in the second column (ldquohuman actionJesusrsquo ministryrdquo) while the second part
ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιει (the predicate and object) is placed in the third column (ldquoGodrsquos reaction
and judgementrdquo) These phrases do not naturally fit with the thematic topics of the
columns into which they are placed
Secondly the ldquokeywordsrdquo that are listed for each strophe seem arbitrary Each of the
eighteen strophes has on average between 15-20 keywords While some of these keywords
are unique to that portion of text other words such as ldquotruthrdquo ldquoJesusrdquo ldquoChristrdquo ldquoFatherrdquo
ldquoknowrdquo and ldquobelieverdquo occur in multiple strophes When the general and rather limited
vocabulary of the whole book is considered it becomes evident that some of the keywords
are not particular to any strophe but rather to the whole of 1 John
Thirdly it is possible that what Hansford considers to be poetic features of the text
could be explained in other ways For example the reversal of word order of verb and
subject is mentioned twice in his article as evidence of parallelism and chiasm41 It is
possible however that such a switch can be justified by other discourse features and issues
of information structure Hansford does not give details or references to the clauses he is
referring to and so it is difficult to decide either way However it must be kept in mind that
there may be other explanations for such features
Finally if the author intended such rigid parallelism it seems strange that not all
the parallels are as clear as those in 212-14 Hansford fails to take account of the clear
differences between portions of the text In Hansfordrsquos outline 212-14 which without
doubt demonstrate the clearest parallelisms blend in to his poetry and do not stand out at
all as they do when the text of 1 John is read as a whole
41 Hansford ldquoPoetic Structurerdquo 129 135
16
John Christopher Thomas
Thomas admirably sets out to focus ldquoattention on the structure of 1 John as revealed by
the text itself and seeks as far as possible to allow the text to reveal its shape on its own
termsrdquo42 The outcome of Thomas work is to suggest a chiastic structure to the book as a
whole Thomas makes clear that he is well aware of the dangers and criticisms that such
proposals have faced in the past Nevertheless he suggests that 1 John divides into 11
sections 10 of which are parallel one being central The overall chiastic structure is shown
above Thomas understands each parallel section to vaguely share a common theme or
topic eg making God a liar antichrists confidence with the central section being entitled
ldquoLove one anotherrdquo43
There are a number of problems with Thomasrsquo extended chiasm Firstly Thomas claims
that the central section of the book (section F 311-18) is focussed on loving one another
Not only does this begin a new unit with an ὅσι clause (see the treatment of Brownrsquos work
above and the discussion on 225 below for the syntactical problems associated with such a
division) but it also fails to take note that the ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλοτρ occurs more frequently
outside of this section than inside44 Similarly so with sections E and E` (228-310 and 319-
24) which are entitled ldquoConfidencerdquo The noun παππηςία occurs four times in 1 John but
only two occurrences are with these units45
42 John Christopher Thomas ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo NT 40 no 4 (1998) 371 43 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 373 44 This ἵνα clause occurs at 311 but also at 323 47 and 12 45 See 228 321 417 and 514
17
Secondly although Thomas seeks not to overstretch the links between the parallel
sections of his chiasm46 his claim that ldquothe use of similar catch wordsphraseswhich
parallel one anotherrdquo indicate that he expects his parallel sections to have to a greater or
lesser degree similar words and phrases If such is the case it is very strange that the
primary and central theme of 15-22 (ie light and darkness which occurs 13 times in those
verses) does not reappear in its parallel section (56-12) While it is true that Thomasrsquo
criteria allows that not every detail of every section will be parallel a parallelism where the
primary these are not paralleled is perculiar
A further problem with sections B and B` is Thomasrsquo comment ldquoA final point of
contact is that both passages begin with similar statements ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo in
15 and ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo in 56rdquo47 In both English and Greek it is difficult to
see how these two phrases can be correlated
Καὶ ἔςσιν αὕση ἡ ἀγγελία Οὗσόρ ἐςσιν ὁ ἐλθὼν
ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo
Although both have ἔςσιν and a demonstrative pronoun the similarity ends there The
word orders are different as is the gender of the pronoun One begins with a coordinating
conjunction the other with asyndeton One has as its subject a feminine abstract noun the
other an articular participle
Thus even with Thomasrsquo relatively loose criteria of what constitutes an extended
chiasm it is clear that 1 John as a whole refuses to be organised so neatly
46 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 372 47 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 379
18
An Analysis of Discourse Features in 1 John
Inherent Structure
Despite the widely varying theories for structure in 1 John most writers recognise that
structure is not absolutely alien to the author48 There are some portions of the book which
are unanimously agreed upon as distinct parts The two most obvious examples are 11-4
and 212-14 Aside from its complex grammatical and syntactical issues 11-4 is universally
recognised by writers and commentators as a single part which introduces the main
topic(s) of Johnrsquos first letter Similarly the lexical cohesion and repetition of 212-14 prove
beyond any doubt that John was able skilfully and carefully to construct literary units
We shall now proceed through the text of 1 John identifying major sections and
particular units using the methodology outlined above derived from cohesive features of
the text before drawing conclusions about an overall structure of the book
sect11-4
1 John 11-4 forms an introduction to the whole book49 The main clause (3c) is introduced
by an initial relative clause which is subsequently modified by three parallel relative
clauses (1b c d) in turn modified by a prepositional phrase (1f) and a parenthetical
48 See Brown Epistles 118 49 Smalley 1 2 3 John 4 15
19
comment (2a-f)50 3a starts with a resumptive relative clause before introducing the main
indicative verb (ἀπαγγέλλομεν)51 11a-3c form one complex colon and are therefore
syntactically cohesive
There are a number of additional cohesive features within these verses There is
inclusio of the verbs ἀκούψ and ὀπάψ in 1c3b and 1d3a respectively Similarly so the use
of υανεπόψ at the beginning and end of the parenthetic v2 (a and f) Also 1st person plural
verbs are used repeatedly throughout and are juxtaposed with 2nd person pronominal
references to the recipients This combination of 1st and 2nd person reference introduces the
two primary lsquocharactersrsquo in the letter Lastly the feminine noun ζψή is introduced
immediately prior to the parenthesis of v2 (1f) and is referred to in all four cola within the
parenthesis ndash twice by repetition of the noun (forming another inclusio) and twice by
ellipsis of the direct object of the transitive verbs ὀπάψ and μαπστπέψ
The complexities of the grammar52 and the textual issues53 make no difference to the
structure or cohesion of the passage
sect15-211
After an initial introduction 1 Johnrsquos first section starts at 15 and continues through to
211 This section is made up of three units
50 Judith M Lieu I II amp III John A Commentary (NTL Louisville Westminster John Knox 2008) 37 51 Culy A Handbook 7 52 Stott Letters 62 53 Bruce M Metzger A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed Stuttgart Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft 2002) 639
20
15-22
Unanimously agreed unit boundaries such as those of 11-4 do more than simply
demonstrate Johnrsquos literary abilities They also provide certain markers from which other
literary units can be determined If the introduction ends at 14 then 15 must begin a new
section Similarly if a new unit begins at 212 then the previous unit must end at 211 It
will be argued below that the verses in between (ie 15-211) form one large section
comprised of three units (15-22 23-7 28-11)
Callow has already done much of the work on 15-211 and it is unnecessary to repeat
all of his findings54 Rather a few complementary observations will be made
15-10 are tied together by their use of 3rd class conditional sentences 16a 7a 8a 9a
and 10a all introduce a protasis with ἐὰν55 Vv6 8 and 10 make negative assertions while
54 John Callow ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament Approaches and
Results (ed Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed JSNTSupp Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1999) esp 402-
4 55 See Culy A Handbook xvii-xx on the nature of these conditionals as mitigated exhortations
21
vv7 and 9 are positive forming an alternating pattern Repetition of words and phrases
such as κοινψνία πεπιπασέψ and ldquoκαθαπίζει ἡμᾶρ ἀπὸ πάςηρ ἁμαπσίαρrdquo also tie these verses
together
The relation of 21-2 to 15-10 is debated Some see 21 as a parenthesis and v2
returning to the preceding thought as a sixth conditional clause adding a final positive
element56 Others understand both of these verses to be a parenthesis given that the
conditional clause is of a different nature to the preceding ones57 Given the shift from 1st
person verbs in the preceding conditionals to the 3rd person σὶρ in 21d it seems that the
latter is preferable In which case 21-2 form a parenthetical comment in between 110 and
23
23-6
56 Marshall Epistles 115-16 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 396-97 57 Stott Letters 84
22
23-6 are held together by the inclusio of ἐν σούσῳ γινώςκομεν in 23a and 5c58 These two
independent clauses are both elaborated on in 23b-5b and 6a-d respectively The
introduction and repetition of the ideas of keeping (σηπέψ) commands (ἐνσολή) tie vv3-5
together
23-6 at first glance seems distinct from 15-10 However the repetition of ὁ λέγψν
followed by both a negative (v4) and a positive (v6) claim has strong links back to the
conditional clauses of 15-10 Similarly although the vocabulary has changed from
κοινψνία to γινώςκψ the concept of relationship to God is still present Further still 15
and 23 can both be understood as introducing their individual units Each verse makes a
stark claim which is then elucidated and illustrated both positively and negatively A final
cohesive feature is that if 21-2 are a parenthesis as suggested above then there is
referential cohesion between 15 through to 2659 Θεόρ is introduced in 15 and thereafter
only referred to with pronominal references60
Given the cohesive features and the links with 15-10 it is therefore legitimate to
conclude that ldquothis section is in several aspects parallel tohellipthe preceding sectionrdquo61 23-6
constitute a new unit That the unit begins with καὶ need not raise concern Although this
is somewhat unexpected at boundary features the presence of καὶ alone does not carry
enough weight to rule out a unit boundary (cf 15)62 Paragraphs initiated with καὶ seem to
be a feature of 1 John63
58 The prepositional clause ἐν σούσῳ is also repeated in 4e and 5b however these occurrences are
anaphoric with a personal antecedent in 4a and 5a respectively The phrases in 3a and 5c are cataphoric and
refer to abstract concepts rather than specific individuals See Culy A Handbook 25 59 There is also a lone pronominal reference to God in 8b 60 The sole exception being the genitive phrase of 25b ἡ ἀγάπη σοῦ θεοῦ 61 C Haas M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for
Translators London United Bible Societies 1972) 43 62 Levinsohn Discourse Features 275 Kermit Titrud ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament
and an Application to 2 Peterrdquo in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed
David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 240-70 63 See 15 220 28 33 13 19 514
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
12
ldquoit seems preferable to regard the Epistle as being composed of a series of connected
paragraphs whose relation to one another is governed by association of ideas rather
than by a logical plan This does not mean that John is illogical but rather that his
Epistle is not meant to be divided into large sections on a logical basisrdquo33
Such a lsquolinearrsquo structure is also adopted by Kruse Johnson and a number of others34
One the one hand Marshall is very wise to be cautious about dividing 1 John Given the
plethora of differing theories and the voluminous writing on the subject his
lsquoindecisivenessrsquo is refreshing Also Marshallrsquos recognition that some of the connections
between paragraphs may not seem ldquologicalrdquo to us (ie ldquoassociation of ideasrdquo) is insightful A
further benefit of Marshallrsquos work is his refusal to arrange paragraphs hierarchically
Marshallrsquos structure simply divides the text into units and makes little comment on their
interrelationships
On the other hand there are still a number of issues with such a proposal Whereas
other writers have made proposals in which thematic or theological considerations dictate
the divisions (eg Law) Marshallrsquos divisions seem to be determined by convenience (eg
seeking a limited number of paragraphs of similar length) in order to structure his
commentary This works out in two ways in some instances Marshall joins together verses
which do not demonstrate any connection to one another For example he connects of
212-14 and 215-17 These two units are treated together by many commentators even
though apart from their proximity to one another there are no indications that they
should be treated as such Rather each unit as its own distinct structure and vocabulary
Alternatively Marshall sometimes divides paragraphs despite strong textual evidence that
they are connected An example is the division between 412 and 1335 As will be explained
below these verses form part of one unit having a distinct structure which is within a
larger section characterised by ἀγαπ roots
View Presented in Articles
In recent years with the development of discourse analysis and text-linguistics there has
been a movement away from attempting to establish the structure of 1 John based upon
33 I Howard Marshall The Epistles of John (NICNT Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978) 26 34 Colin G Kruse The Letters of John (The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester Apollos 2000)
21 Thomas F Johnson 1 2 and 3 John (New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle Paternoster 1995) 15-
16 35 Marshall Epistles 26 See below for a fuller treatment of these units
13
thematic andor theological considerations Instead various writers have attempted to
determine the structure based upon linguistic theory and discourse features We shall
briefly review and critique three such attempts
Robert E Longacre
Longacre claims that ldquodiscourse analysis can suggest a natural outline of the bookrdquo36 He
goes on to outline a number of discourse features which he will analyse to elucidate such a
structure 1 John he claims is divided into sixteen paragraphs based on the position of
vocatives These sixteen paragraphs are subsequently grouped further into three sections
based on the distribution of γπάυψ an introduction (11-229) a body (31-512) and a
conclusion (513-21) Other features such as the genre of 1 John which Longacre takes to be
hortatory discourse the concept of peaks (ie ldquopoints of cumulative developmentrdquo)37 and
the macrostructure of the book (ldquoa summaryhellipof a text which is stated so that it gives the
central thrust of the whole workrdquo)38 are also brought to bear on the structure of the text
Longacre argues for a doctrinal and an ethical peak in both the introduction and the
body of the book Thus 212-17 and 41-6 form the ethical peaks and 218-27 and 47-21 the
doctrinal peaks The macrostructure of 1 John is seen to be 319-24 which immediately
precedes the dual peaks of the body
Longacrersquos commitment to deriving a structure of 1 John from discourse features of the
text itself is admirable and his work highlights a number of significant characteristics of 1
John Nevertheless there are some weaknesses with his approach The primary issue with
is Longacrersquos over-emphasis on a limited number of discourse features Although five
discourse features are outlined at the beginning of his paper the derivation of a structure
for 1 John is based upon only two of these features the use of vocatives and the distribution
of γπάυψ The other three discourse features are merely analysed to clarify the structure
In this regard Culy helpfully points out
36 Robert Longacre ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Textrdquo
in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed David Alan Black Katherine
Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 271 37 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 279 38 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 280
14
ldquoGiven this distribution of vocatives it is not inappropriate to recognize that this
particular writer frequently uses vocatives to help mark boundaries Such an observation
does not require that vocatives were always used in this wayrdquo39
Not only are vocatives not an absolute marker of boundaries but there are numerous other
features which Longacre largely ignores (eg lexical cohesion and participant reference)
A second major weakness in Longacrersquos proposal is his treatment of 212-14 Given
his focus on vocatives and γπάυψ it is significant that these three verses contain six
occurrences of each Longacre does claim that 212-17 is ldquoan ethical peakrdquo but this
conclusion is based on ldquoa strong exhortation not to love the worldrdquo (ie vv15-17) and not
on the vocatives or repetition of γπάυψ Similarly Longacre notes that the verb γπάυψ
switches from present to aorist use between 213 and 14 and that it does not occur again
until 513 While such data seems important Longacre fails to deal with it adequately since
his first major division of the book does not occur until 22931 Inexplicably it seems that
two verses which contain such a high concentration of Longacrersquos primary criteria are of
no special significance to him
Keir L Hansford
Hansfordrsquos basic premise is that 1 John is poetic He believes a structure can and should be
derived from treating and dividing 1 John in such a way His work is unusual in that he does
not provide an overall outline of the book but rather presents the entire text of the book
laid out in lines columns and strophes ldquoLinesrdquo are clauses or phrases in parallelism ldquoI
arguethe whole of the epistle was constructed out of parallelismsrdquo40 Hansford then
groups and divides lines in two ways horizontally and vertically Horizontally lines are
grouped into eighteen ldquostrophesrdquo which share certain key words At the same time lines
are divided into one of three vertical columns ldquothe authority of the apostlerdquo ldquohuman
actionsJesusrsquo ministryrdquo and ldquoGodrsquos creation and judgementrdquo Hansford also seeks to mark
all chiasms
As with many structural proposals for 1 John Hansfordrsquos has some beneficial
insights In attempting to structure the whole of 1 John he has paid acute attention to
details within the text This has proved to be a fruitful exercise especially in his
39 Culy A Handbook xvi 40 Keir L Hansford ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo JOTT 5 no 2 (1992) 128
15
identification of number of lsquomicro-parallelismrsquo and chiasms which have often been
overlooked
Despite these insights Hansfordrsquos overall structure and broad divisions are
problematic The first criticism is that under close inspection it becomes noticeable that a
number of Hansfordrsquos decisions are forced An example of a forced chiasm can be seen in
410-12 where ἠγαπήκαμεν in 410 is linked with σεθέασαι in 412 The two words have no
semantic overlap and it is difficult to see how they can be related other than they both
have θεὸν as their object Similarly issues regarding the column divisions can be seen at
39 The initial part of the verse πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ (the subject of the clause)
is placed in the second column (ldquohuman actionJesusrsquo ministryrdquo) while the second part
ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιει (the predicate and object) is placed in the third column (ldquoGodrsquos reaction
and judgementrdquo) These phrases do not naturally fit with the thematic topics of the
columns into which they are placed
Secondly the ldquokeywordsrdquo that are listed for each strophe seem arbitrary Each of the
eighteen strophes has on average between 15-20 keywords While some of these keywords
are unique to that portion of text other words such as ldquotruthrdquo ldquoJesusrdquo ldquoChristrdquo ldquoFatherrdquo
ldquoknowrdquo and ldquobelieverdquo occur in multiple strophes When the general and rather limited
vocabulary of the whole book is considered it becomes evident that some of the keywords
are not particular to any strophe but rather to the whole of 1 John
Thirdly it is possible that what Hansford considers to be poetic features of the text
could be explained in other ways For example the reversal of word order of verb and
subject is mentioned twice in his article as evidence of parallelism and chiasm41 It is
possible however that such a switch can be justified by other discourse features and issues
of information structure Hansford does not give details or references to the clauses he is
referring to and so it is difficult to decide either way However it must be kept in mind that
there may be other explanations for such features
Finally if the author intended such rigid parallelism it seems strange that not all
the parallels are as clear as those in 212-14 Hansford fails to take account of the clear
differences between portions of the text In Hansfordrsquos outline 212-14 which without
doubt demonstrate the clearest parallelisms blend in to his poetry and do not stand out at
all as they do when the text of 1 John is read as a whole
41 Hansford ldquoPoetic Structurerdquo 129 135
16
John Christopher Thomas
Thomas admirably sets out to focus ldquoattention on the structure of 1 John as revealed by
the text itself and seeks as far as possible to allow the text to reveal its shape on its own
termsrdquo42 The outcome of Thomas work is to suggest a chiastic structure to the book as a
whole Thomas makes clear that he is well aware of the dangers and criticisms that such
proposals have faced in the past Nevertheless he suggests that 1 John divides into 11
sections 10 of which are parallel one being central The overall chiastic structure is shown
above Thomas understands each parallel section to vaguely share a common theme or
topic eg making God a liar antichrists confidence with the central section being entitled
ldquoLove one anotherrdquo43
There are a number of problems with Thomasrsquo extended chiasm Firstly Thomas claims
that the central section of the book (section F 311-18) is focussed on loving one another
Not only does this begin a new unit with an ὅσι clause (see the treatment of Brownrsquos work
above and the discussion on 225 below for the syntactical problems associated with such a
division) but it also fails to take note that the ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλοτρ occurs more frequently
outside of this section than inside44 Similarly so with sections E and E` (228-310 and 319-
24) which are entitled ldquoConfidencerdquo The noun παππηςία occurs four times in 1 John but
only two occurrences are with these units45
42 John Christopher Thomas ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo NT 40 no 4 (1998) 371 43 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 373 44 This ἵνα clause occurs at 311 but also at 323 47 and 12 45 See 228 321 417 and 514
17
Secondly although Thomas seeks not to overstretch the links between the parallel
sections of his chiasm46 his claim that ldquothe use of similar catch wordsphraseswhich
parallel one anotherrdquo indicate that he expects his parallel sections to have to a greater or
lesser degree similar words and phrases If such is the case it is very strange that the
primary and central theme of 15-22 (ie light and darkness which occurs 13 times in those
verses) does not reappear in its parallel section (56-12) While it is true that Thomasrsquo
criteria allows that not every detail of every section will be parallel a parallelism where the
primary these are not paralleled is perculiar
A further problem with sections B and B` is Thomasrsquo comment ldquoA final point of
contact is that both passages begin with similar statements ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo in
15 and ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo in 56rdquo47 In both English and Greek it is difficult to
see how these two phrases can be correlated
Καὶ ἔςσιν αὕση ἡ ἀγγελία Οὗσόρ ἐςσιν ὁ ἐλθὼν
ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo
Although both have ἔςσιν and a demonstrative pronoun the similarity ends there The
word orders are different as is the gender of the pronoun One begins with a coordinating
conjunction the other with asyndeton One has as its subject a feminine abstract noun the
other an articular participle
Thus even with Thomasrsquo relatively loose criteria of what constitutes an extended
chiasm it is clear that 1 John as a whole refuses to be organised so neatly
46 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 372 47 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 379
18
An Analysis of Discourse Features in 1 John
Inherent Structure
Despite the widely varying theories for structure in 1 John most writers recognise that
structure is not absolutely alien to the author48 There are some portions of the book which
are unanimously agreed upon as distinct parts The two most obvious examples are 11-4
and 212-14 Aside from its complex grammatical and syntactical issues 11-4 is universally
recognised by writers and commentators as a single part which introduces the main
topic(s) of Johnrsquos first letter Similarly the lexical cohesion and repetition of 212-14 prove
beyond any doubt that John was able skilfully and carefully to construct literary units
We shall now proceed through the text of 1 John identifying major sections and
particular units using the methodology outlined above derived from cohesive features of
the text before drawing conclusions about an overall structure of the book
sect11-4
1 John 11-4 forms an introduction to the whole book49 The main clause (3c) is introduced
by an initial relative clause which is subsequently modified by three parallel relative
clauses (1b c d) in turn modified by a prepositional phrase (1f) and a parenthetical
48 See Brown Epistles 118 49 Smalley 1 2 3 John 4 15
19
comment (2a-f)50 3a starts with a resumptive relative clause before introducing the main
indicative verb (ἀπαγγέλλομεν)51 11a-3c form one complex colon and are therefore
syntactically cohesive
There are a number of additional cohesive features within these verses There is
inclusio of the verbs ἀκούψ and ὀπάψ in 1c3b and 1d3a respectively Similarly so the use
of υανεπόψ at the beginning and end of the parenthetic v2 (a and f) Also 1st person plural
verbs are used repeatedly throughout and are juxtaposed with 2nd person pronominal
references to the recipients This combination of 1st and 2nd person reference introduces the
two primary lsquocharactersrsquo in the letter Lastly the feminine noun ζψή is introduced
immediately prior to the parenthesis of v2 (1f) and is referred to in all four cola within the
parenthesis ndash twice by repetition of the noun (forming another inclusio) and twice by
ellipsis of the direct object of the transitive verbs ὀπάψ and μαπστπέψ
The complexities of the grammar52 and the textual issues53 make no difference to the
structure or cohesion of the passage
sect15-211
After an initial introduction 1 Johnrsquos first section starts at 15 and continues through to
211 This section is made up of three units
50 Judith M Lieu I II amp III John A Commentary (NTL Louisville Westminster John Knox 2008) 37 51 Culy A Handbook 7 52 Stott Letters 62 53 Bruce M Metzger A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed Stuttgart Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft 2002) 639
20
15-22
Unanimously agreed unit boundaries such as those of 11-4 do more than simply
demonstrate Johnrsquos literary abilities They also provide certain markers from which other
literary units can be determined If the introduction ends at 14 then 15 must begin a new
section Similarly if a new unit begins at 212 then the previous unit must end at 211 It
will be argued below that the verses in between (ie 15-211) form one large section
comprised of three units (15-22 23-7 28-11)
Callow has already done much of the work on 15-211 and it is unnecessary to repeat
all of his findings54 Rather a few complementary observations will be made
15-10 are tied together by their use of 3rd class conditional sentences 16a 7a 8a 9a
and 10a all introduce a protasis with ἐὰν55 Vv6 8 and 10 make negative assertions while
54 John Callow ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament Approaches and
Results (ed Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed JSNTSupp Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1999) esp 402-
4 55 See Culy A Handbook xvii-xx on the nature of these conditionals as mitigated exhortations
21
vv7 and 9 are positive forming an alternating pattern Repetition of words and phrases
such as κοινψνία πεπιπασέψ and ldquoκαθαπίζει ἡμᾶρ ἀπὸ πάςηρ ἁμαπσίαρrdquo also tie these verses
together
The relation of 21-2 to 15-10 is debated Some see 21 as a parenthesis and v2
returning to the preceding thought as a sixth conditional clause adding a final positive
element56 Others understand both of these verses to be a parenthesis given that the
conditional clause is of a different nature to the preceding ones57 Given the shift from 1st
person verbs in the preceding conditionals to the 3rd person σὶρ in 21d it seems that the
latter is preferable In which case 21-2 form a parenthetical comment in between 110 and
23
23-6
56 Marshall Epistles 115-16 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 396-97 57 Stott Letters 84
22
23-6 are held together by the inclusio of ἐν σούσῳ γινώςκομεν in 23a and 5c58 These two
independent clauses are both elaborated on in 23b-5b and 6a-d respectively The
introduction and repetition of the ideas of keeping (σηπέψ) commands (ἐνσολή) tie vv3-5
together
23-6 at first glance seems distinct from 15-10 However the repetition of ὁ λέγψν
followed by both a negative (v4) and a positive (v6) claim has strong links back to the
conditional clauses of 15-10 Similarly although the vocabulary has changed from
κοινψνία to γινώςκψ the concept of relationship to God is still present Further still 15
and 23 can both be understood as introducing their individual units Each verse makes a
stark claim which is then elucidated and illustrated both positively and negatively A final
cohesive feature is that if 21-2 are a parenthesis as suggested above then there is
referential cohesion between 15 through to 2659 Θεόρ is introduced in 15 and thereafter
only referred to with pronominal references60
Given the cohesive features and the links with 15-10 it is therefore legitimate to
conclude that ldquothis section is in several aspects parallel tohellipthe preceding sectionrdquo61 23-6
constitute a new unit That the unit begins with καὶ need not raise concern Although this
is somewhat unexpected at boundary features the presence of καὶ alone does not carry
enough weight to rule out a unit boundary (cf 15)62 Paragraphs initiated with καὶ seem to
be a feature of 1 John63
58 The prepositional clause ἐν σούσῳ is also repeated in 4e and 5b however these occurrences are
anaphoric with a personal antecedent in 4a and 5a respectively The phrases in 3a and 5c are cataphoric and
refer to abstract concepts rather than specific individuals See Culy A Handbook 25 59 There is also a lone pronominal reference to God in 8b 60 The sole exception being the genitive phrase of 25b ἡ ἀγάπη σοῦ θεοῦ 61 C Haas M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for
Translators London United Bible Societies 1972) 43 62 Levinsohn Discourse Features 275 Kermit Titrud ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament
and an Application to 2 Peterrdquo in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed
David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 240-70 63 See 15 220 28 33 13 19 514
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
13
thematic andor theological considerations Instead various writers have attempted to
determine the structure based upon linguistic theory and discourse features We shall
briefly review and critique three such attempts
Robert E Longacre
Longacre claims that ldquodiscourse analysis can suggest a natural outline of the bookrdquo36 He
goes on to outline a number of discourse features which he will analyse to elucidate such a
structure 1 John he claims is divided into sixteen paragraphs based on the position of
vocatives These sixteen paragraphs are subsequently grouped further into three sections
based on the distribution of γπάυψ an introduction (11-229) a body (31-512) and a
conclusion (513-21) Other features such as the genre of 1 John which Longacre takes to be
hortatory discourse the concept of peaks (ie ldquopoints of cumulative developmentrdquo)37 and
the macrostructure of the book (ldquoa summaryhellipof a text which is stated so that it gives the
central thrust of the whole workrdquo)38 are also brought to bear on the structure of the text
Longacre argues for a doctrinal and an ethical peak in both the introduction and the
body of the book Thus 212-17 and 41-6 form the ethical peaks and 218-27 and 47-21 the
doctrinal peaks The macrostructure of 1 John is seen to be 319-24 which immediately
precedes the dual peaks of the body
Longacrersquos commitment to deriving a structure of 1 John from discourse features of the
text itself is admirable and his work highlights a number of significant characteristics of 1
John Nevertheless there are some weaknesses with his approach The primary issue with
is Longacrersquos over-emphasis on a limited number of discourse features Although five
discourse features are outlined at the beginning of his paper the derivation of a structure
for 1 John is based upon only two of these features the use of vocatives and the distribution
of γπάυψ The other three discourse features are merely analysed to clarify the structure
In this regard Culy helpfully points out
36 Robert Longacre ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Textrdquo
in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed David Alan Black Katherine
Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 271 37 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 279 38 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 280
14
ldquoGiven this distribution of vocatives it is not inappropriate to recognize that this
particular writer frequently uses vocatives to help mark boundaries Such an observation
does not require that vocatives were always used in this wayrdquo39
Not only are vocatives not an absolute marker of boundaries but there are numerous other
features which Longacre largely ignores (eg lexical cohesion and participant reference)
A second major weakness in Longacrersquos proposal is his treatment of 212-14 Given
his focus on vocatives and γπάυψ it is significant that these three verses contain six
occurrences of each Longacre does claim that 212-17 is ldquoan ethical peakrdquo but this
conclusion is based on ldquoa strong exhortation not to love the worldrdquo (ie vv15-17) and not
on the vocatives or repetition of γπάυψ Similarly Longacre notes that the verb γπάυψ
switches from present to aorist use between 213 and 14 and that it does not occur again
until 513 While such data seems important Longacre fails to deal with it adequately since
his first major division of the book does not occur until 22931 Inexplicably it seems that
two verses which contain such a high concentration of Longacrersquos primary criteria are of
no special significance to him
Keir L Hansford
Hansfordrsquos basic premise is that 1 John is poetic He believes a structure can and should be
derived from treating and dividing 1 John in such a way His work is unusual in that he does
not provide an overall outline of the book but rather presents the entire text of the book
laid out in lines columns and strophes ldquoLinesrdquo are clauses or phrases in parallelism ldquoI
arguethe whole of the epistle was constructed out of parallelismsrdquo40 Hansford then
groups and divides lines in two ways horizontally and vertically Horizontally lines are
grouped into eighteen ldquostrophesrdquo which share certain key words At the same time lines
are divided into one of three vertical columns ldquothe authority of the apostlerdquo ldquohuman
actionsJesusrsquo ministryrdquo and ldquoGodrsquos creation and judgementrdquo Hansford also seeks to mark
all chiasms
As with many structural proposals for 1 John Hansfordrsquos has some beneficial
insights In attempting to structure the whole of 1 John he has paid acute attention to
details within the text This has proved to be a fruitful exercise especially in his
39 Culy A Handbook xvi 40 Keir L Hansford ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo JOTT 5 no 2 (1992) 128
15
identification of number of lsquomicro-parallelismrsquo and chiasms which have often been
overlooked
Despite these insights Hansfordrsquos overall structure and broad divisions are
problematic The first criticism is that under close inspection it becomes noticeable that a
number of Hansfordrsquos decisions are forced An example of a forced chiasm can be seen in
410-12 where ἠγαπήκαμεν in 410 is linked with σεθέασαι in 412 The two words have no
semantic overlap and it is difficult to see how they can be related other than they both
have θεὸν as their object Similarly issues regarding the column divisions can be seen at
39 The initial part of the verse πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ (the subject of the clause)
is placed in the second column (ldquohuman actionJesusrsquo ministryrdquo) while the second part
ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιει (the predicate and object) is placed in the third column (ldquoGodrsquos reaction
and judgementrdquo) These phrases do not naturally fit with the thematic topics of the
columns into which they are placed
Secondly the ldquokeywordsrdquo that are listed for each strophe seem arbitrary Each of the
eighteen strophes has on average between 15-20 keywords While some of these keywords
are unique to that portion of text other words such as ldquotruthrdquo ldquoJesusrdquo ldquoChristrdquo ldquoFatherrdquo
ldquoknowrdquo and ldquobelieverdquo occur in multiple strophes When the general and rather limited
vocabulary of the whole book is considered it becomes evident that some of the keywords
are not particular to any strophe but rather to the whole of 1 John
Thirdly it is possible that what Hansford considers to be poetic features of the text
could be explained in other ways For example the reversal of word order of verb and
subject is mentioned twice in his article as evidence of parallelism and chiasm41 It is
possible however that such a switch can be justified by other discourse features and issues
of information structure Hansford does not give details or references to the clauses he is
referring to and so it is difficult to decide either way However it must be kept in mind that
there may be other explanations for such features
Finally if the author intended such rigid parallelism it seems strange that not all
the parallels are as clear as those in 212-14 Hansford fails to take account of the clear
differences between portions of the text In Hansfordrsquos outline 212-14 which without
doubt demonstrate the clearest parallelisms blend in to his poetry and do not stand out at
all as they do when the text of 1 John is read as a whole
41 Hansford ldquoPoetic Structurerdquo 129 135
16
John Christopher Thomas
Thomas admirably sets out to focus ldquoattention on the structure of 1 John as revealed by
the text itself and seeks as far as possible to allow the text to reveal its shape on its own
termsrdquo42 The outcome of Thomas work is to suggest a chiastic structure to the book as a
whole Thomas makes clear that he is well aware of the dangers and criticisms that such
proposals have faced in the past Nevertheless he suggests that 1 John divides into 11
sections 10 of which are parallel one being central The overall chiastic structure is shown
above Thomas understands each parallel section to vaguely share a common theme or
topic eg making God a liar antichrists confidence with the central section being entitled
ldquoLove one anotherrdquo43
There are a number of problems with Thomasrsquo extended chiasm Firstly Thomas claims
that the central section of the book (section F 311-18) is focussed on loving one another
Not only does this begin a new unit with an ὅσι clause (see the treatment of Brownrsquos work
above and the discussion on 225 below for the syntactical problems associated with such a
division) but it also fails to take note that the ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλοτρ occurs more frequently
outside of this section than inside44 Similarly so with sections E and E` (228-310 and 319-
24) which are entitled ldquoConfidencerdquo The noun παππηςία occurs four times in 1 John but
only two occurrences are with these units45
42 John Christopher Thomas ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo NT 40 no 4 (1998) 371 43 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 373 44 This ἵνα clause occurs at 311 but also at 323 47 and 12 45 See 228 321 417 and 514
17
Secondly although Thomas seeks not to overstretch the links between the parallel
sections of his chiasm46 his claim that ldquothe use of similar catch wordsphraseswhich
parallel one anotherrdquo indicate that he expects his parallel sections to have to a greater or
lesser degree similar words and phrases If such is the case it is very strange that the
primary and central theme of 15-22 (ie light and darkness which occurs 13 times in those
verses) does not reappear in its parallel section (56-12) While it is true that Thomasrsquo
criteria allows that not every detail of every section will be parallel a parallelism where the
primary these are not paralleled is perculiar
A further problem with sections B and B` is Thomasrsquo comment ldquoA final point of
contact is that both passages begin with similar statements ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo in
15 and ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo in 56rdquo47 In both English and Greek it is difficult to
see how these two phrases can be correlated
Καὶ ἔςσιν αὕση ἡ ἀγγελία Οὗσόρ ἐςσιν ὁ ἐλθὼν
ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo
Although both have ἔςσιν and a demonstrative pronoun the similarity ends there The
word orders are different as is the gender of the pronoun One begins with a coordinating
conjunction the other with asyndeton One has as its subject a feminine abstract noun the
other an articular participle
Thus even with Thomasrsquo relatively loose criteria of what constitutes an extended
chiasm it is clear that 1 John as a whole refuses to be organised so neatly
46 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 372 47 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 379
18
An Analysis of Discourse Features in 1 John
Inherent Structure
Despite the widely varying theories for structure in 1 John most writers recognise that
structure is not absolutely alien to the author48 There are some portions of the book which
are unanimously agreed upon as distinct parts The two most obvious examples are 11-4
and 212-14 Aside from its complex grammatical and syntactical issues 11-4 is universally
recognised by writers and commentators as a single part which introduces the main
topic(s) of Johnrsquos first letter Similarly the lexical cohesion and repetition of 212-14 prove
beyond any doubt that John was able skilfully and carefully to construct literary units
We shall now proceed through the text of 1 John identifying major sections and
particular units using the methodology outlined above derived from cohesive features of
the text before drawing conclusions about an overall structure of the book
sect11-4
1 John 11-4 forms an introduction to the whole book49 The main clause (3c) is introduced
by an initial relative clause which is subsequently modified by three parallel relative
clauses (1b c d) in turn modified by a prepositional phrase (1f) and a parenthetical
48 See Brown Epistles 118 49 Smalley 1 2 3 John 4 15
19
comment (2a-f)50 3a starts with a resumptive relative clause before introducing the main
indicative verb (ἀπαγγέλλομεν)51 11a-3c form one complex colon and are therefore
syntactically cohesive
There are a number of additional cohesive features within these verses There is
inclusio of the verbs ἀκούψ and ὀπάψ in 1c3b and 1d3a respectively Similarly so the use
of υανεπόψ at the beginning and end of the parenthetic v2 (a and f) Also 1st person plural
verbs are used repeatedly throughout and are juxtaposed with 2nd person pronominal
references to the recipients This combination of 1st and 2nd person reference introduces the
two primary lsquocharactersrsquo in the letter Lastly the feminine noun ζψή is introduced
immediately prior to the parenthesis of v2 (1f) and is referred to in all four cola within the
parenthesis ndash twice by repetition of the noun (forming another inclusio) and twice by
ellipsis of the direct object of the transitive verbs ὀπάψ and μαπστπέψ
The complexities of the grammar52 and the textual issues53 make no difference to the
structure or cohesion of the passage
sect15-211
After an initial introduction 1 Johnrsquos first section starts at 15 and continues through to
211 This section is made up of three units
50 Judith M Lieu I II amp III John A Commentary (NTL Louisville Westminster John Knox 2008) 37 51 Culy A Handbook 7 52 Stott Letters 62 53 Bruce M Metzger A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed Stuttgart Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft 2002) 639
20
15-22
Unanimously agreed unit boundaries such as those of 11-4 do more than simply
demonstrate Johnrsquos literary abilities They also provide certain markers from which other
literary units can be determined If the introduction ends at 14 then 15 must begin a new
section Similarly if a new unit begins at 212 then the previous unit must end at 211 It
will be argued below that the verses in between (ie 15-211) form one large section
comprised of three units (15-22 23-7 28-11)
Callow has already done much of the work on 15-211 and it is unnecessary to repeat
all of his findings54 Rather a few complementary observations will be made
15-10 are tied together by their use of 3rd class conditional sentences 16a 7a 8a 9a
and 10a all introduce a protasis with ἐὰν55 Vv6 8 and 10 make negative assertions while
54 John Callow ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament Approaches and
Results (ed Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed JSNTSupp Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1999) esp 402-
4 55 See Culy A Handbook xvii-xx on the nature of these conditionals as mitigated exhortations
21
vv7 and 9 are positive forming an alternating pattern Repetition of words and phrases
such as κοινψνία πεπιπασέψ and ldquoκαθαπίζει ἡμᾶρ ἀπὸ πάςηρ ἁμαπσίαρrdquo also tie these verses
together
The relation of 21-2 to 15-10 is debated Some see 21 as a parenthesis and v2
returning to the preceding thought as a sixth conditional clause adding a final positive
element56 Others understand both of these verses to be a parenthesis given that the
conditional clause is of a different nature to the preceding ones57 Given the shift from 1st
person verbs in the preceding conditionals to the 3rd person σὶρ in 21d it seems that the
latter is preferable In which case 21-2 form a parenthetical comment in between 110 and
23
23-6
56 Marshall Epistles 115-16 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 396-97 57 Stott Letters 84
22
23-6 are held together by the inclusio of ἐν σούσῳ γινώςκομεν in 23a and 5c58 These two
independent clauses are both elaborated on in 23b-5b and 6a-d respectively The
introduction and repetition of the ideas of keeping (σηπέψ) commands (ἐνσολή) tie vv3-5
together
23-6 at first glance seems distinct from 15-10 However the repetition of ὁ λέγψν
followed by both a negative (v4) and a positive (v6) claim has strong links back to the
conditional clauses of 15-10 Similarly although the vocabulary has changed from
κοινψνία to γινώςκψ the concept of relationship to God is still present Further still 15
and 23 can both be understood as introducing their individual units Each verse makes a
stark claim which is then elucidated and illustrated both positively and negatively A final
cohesive feature is that if 21-2 are a parenthesis as suggested above then there is
referential cohesion between 15 through to 2659 Θεόρ is introduced in 15 and thereafter
only referred to with pronominal references60
Given the cohesive features and the links with 15-10 it is therefore legitimate to
conclude that ldquothis section is in several aspects parallel tohellipthe preceding sectionrdquo61 23-6
constitute a new unit That the unit begins with καὶ need not raise concern Although this
is somewhat unexpected at boundary features the presence of καὶ alone does not carry
enough weight to rule out a unit boundary (cf 15)62 Paragraphs initiated with καὶ seem to
be a feature of 1 John63
58 The prepositional clause ἐν σούσῳ is also repeated in 4e and 5b however these occurrences are
anaphoric with a personal antecedent in 4a and 5a respectively The phrases in 3a and 5c are cataphoric and
refer to abstract concepts rather than specific individuals See Culy A Handbook 25 59 There is also a lone pronominal reference to God in 8b 60 The sole exception being the genitive phrase of 25b ἡ ἀγάπη σοῦ θεοῦ 61 C Haas M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for
Translators London United Bible Societies 1972) 43 62 Levinsohn Discourse Features 275 Kermit Titrud ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament
and an Application to 2 Peterrdquo in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed
David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 240-70 63 See 15 220 28 33 13 19 514
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
14
ldquoGiven this distribution of vocatives it is not inappropriate to recognize that this
particular writer frequently uses vocatives to help mark boundaries Such an observation
does not require that vocatives were always used in this wayrdquo39
Not only are vocatives not an absolute marker of boundaries but there are numerous other
features which Longacre largely ignores (eg lexical cohesion and participant reference)
A second major weakness in Longacrersquos proposal is his treatment of 212-14 Given
his focus on vocatives and γπάυψ it is significant that these three verses contain six
occurrences of each Longacre does claim that 212-17 is ldquoan ethical peakrdquo but this
conclusion is based on ldquoa strong exhortation not to love the worldrdquo (ie vv15-17) and not
on the vocatives or repetition of γπάυψ Similarly Longacre notes that the verb γπάυψ
switches from present to aorist use between 213 and 14 and that it does not occur again
until 513 While such data seems important Longacre fails to deal with it adequately since
his first major division of the book does not occur until 22931 Inexplicably it seems that
two verses which contain such a high concentration of Longacrersquos primary criteria are of
no special significance to him
Keir L Hansford
Hansfordrsquos basic premise is that 1 John is poetic He believes a structure can and should be
derived from treating and dividing 1 John in such a way His work is unusual in that he does
not provide an overall outline of the book but rather presents the entire text of the book
laid out in lines columns and strophes ldquoLinesrdquo are clauses or phrases in parallelism ldquoI
arguethe whole of the epistle was constructed out of parallelismsrdquo40 Hansford then
groups and divides lines in two ways horizontally and vertically Horizontally lines are
grouped into eighteen ldquostrophesrdquo which share certain key words At the same time lines
are divided into one of three vertical columns ldquothe authority of the apostlerdquo ldquohuman
actionsJesusrsquo ministryrdquo and ldquoGodrsquos creation and judgementrdquo Hansford also seeks to mark
all chiasms
As with many structural proposals for 1 John Hansfordrsquos has some beneficial
insights In attempting to structure the whole of 1 John he has paid acute attention to
details within the text This has proved to be a fruitful exercise especially in his
39 Culy A Handbook xvi 40 Keir L Hansford ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo JOTT 5 no 2 (1992) 128
15
identification of number of lsquomicro-parallelismrsquo and chiasms which have often been
overlooked
Despite these insights Hansfordrsquos overall structure and broad divisions are
problematic The first criticism is that under close inspection it becomes noticeable that a
number of Hansfordrsquos decisions are forced An example of a forced chiasm can be seen in
410-12 where ἠγαπήκαμεν in 410 is linked with σεθέασαι in 412 The two words have no
semantic overlap and it is difficult to see how they can be related other than they both
have θεὸν as their object Similarly issues regarding the column divisions can be seen at
39 The initial part of the verse πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ (the subject of the clause)
is placed in the second column (ldquohuman actionJesusrsquo ministryrdquo) while the second part
ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιει (the predicate and object) is placed in the third column (ldquoGodrsquos reaction
and judgementrdquo) These phrases do not naturally fit with the thematic topics of the
columns into which they are placed
Secondly the ldquokeywordsrdquo that are listed for each strophe seem arbitrary Each of the
eighteen strophes has on average between 15-20 keywords While some of these keywords
are unique to that portion of text other words such as ldquotruthrdquo ldquoJesusrdquo ldquoChristrdquo ldquoFatherrdquo
ldquoknowrdquo and ldquobelieverdquo occur in multiple strophes When the general and rather limited
vocabulary of the whole book is considered it becomes evident that some of the keywords
are not particular to any strophe but rather to the whole of 1 John
Thirdly it is possible that what Hansford considers to be poetic features of the text
could be explained in other ways For example the reversal of word order of verb and
subject is mentioned twice in his article as evidence of parallelism and chiasm41 It is
possible however that such a switch can be justified by other discourse features and issues
of information structure Hansford does not give details or references to the clauses he is
referring to and so it is difficult to decide either way However it must be kept in mind that
there may be other explanations for such features
Finally if the author intended such rigid parallelism it seems strange that not all
the parallels are as clear as those in 212-14 Hansford fails to take account of the clear
differences between portions of the text In Hansfordrsquos outline 212-14 which without
doubt demonstrate the clearest parallelisms blend in to his poetry and do not stand out at
all as they do when the text of 1 John is read as a whole
41 Hansford ldquoPoetic Structurerdquo 129 135
16
John Christopher Thomas
Thomas admirably sets out to focus ldquoattention on the structure of 1 John as revealed by
the text itself and seeks as far as possible to allow the text to reveal its shape on its own
termsrdquo42 The outcome of Thomas work is to suggest a chiastic structure to the book as a
whole Thomas makes clear that he is well aware of the dangers and criticisms that such
proposals have faced in the past Nevertheless he suggests that 1 John divides into 11
sections 10 of which are parallel one being central The overall chiastic structure is shown
above Thomas understands each parallel section to vaguely share a common theme or
topic eg making God a liar antichrists confidence with the central section being entitled
ldquoLove one anotherrdquo43
There are a number of problems with Thomasrsquo extended chiasm Firstly Thomas claims
that the central section of the book (section F 311-18) is focussed on loving one another
Not only does this begin a new unit with an ὅσι clause (see the treatment of Brownrsquos work
above and the discussion on 225 below for the syntactical problems associated with such a
division) but it also fails to take note that the ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλοτρ occurs more frequently
outside of this section than inside44 Similarly so with sections E and E` (228-310 and 319-
24) which are entitled ldquoConfidencerdquo The noun παππηςία occurs four times in 1 John but
only two occurrences are with these units45
42 John Christopher Thomas ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo NT 40 no 4 (1998) 371 43 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 373 44 This ἵνα clause occurs at 311 but also at 323 47 and 12 45 See 228 321 417 and 514
17
Secondly although Thomas seeks not to overstretch the links between the parallel
sections of his chiasm46 his claim that ldquothe use of similar catch wordsphraseswhich
parallel one anotherrdquo indicate that he expects his parallel sections to have to a greater or
lesser degree similar words and phrases If such is the case it is very strange that the
primary and central theme of 15-22 (ie light and darkness which occurs 13 times in those
verses) does not reappear in its parallel section (56-12) While it is true that Thomasrsquo
criteria allows that not every detail of every section will be parallel a parallelism where the
primary these are not paralleled is perculiar
A further problem with sections B and B` is Thomasrsquo comment ldquoA final point of
contact is that both passages begin with similar statements ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo in
15 and ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo in 56rdquo47 In both English and Greek it is difficult to
see how these two phrases can be correlated
Καὶ ἔςσιν αὕση ἡ ἀγγελία Οὗσόρ ἐςσιν ὁ ἐλθὼν
ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo
Although both have ἔςσιν and a demonstrative pronoun the similarity ends there The
word orders are different as is the gender of the pronoun One begins with a coordinating
conjunction the other with asyndeton One has as its subject a feminine abstract noun the
other an articular participle
Thus even with Thomasrsquo relatively loose criteria of what constitutes an extended
chiasm it is clear that 1 John as a whole refuses to be organised so neatly
46 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 372 47 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 379
18
An Analysis of Discourse Features in 1 John
Inherent Structure
Despite the widely varying theories for structure in 1 John most writers recognise that
structure is not absolutely alien to the author48 There are some portions of the book which
are unanimously agreed upon as distinct parts The two most obvious examples are 11-4
and 212-14 Aside from its complex grammatical and syntactical issues 11-4 is universally
recognised by writers and commentators as a single part which introduces the main
topic(s) of Johnrsquos first letter Similarly the lexical cohesion and repetition of 212-14 prove
beyond any doubt that John was able skilfully and carefully to construct literary units
We shall now proceed through the text of 1 John identifying major sections and
particular units using the methodology outlined above derived from cohesive features of
the text before drawing conclusions about an overall structure of the book
sect11-4
1 John 11-4 forms an introduction to the whole book49 The main clause (3c) is introduced
by an initial relative clause which is subsequently modified by three parallel relative
clauses (1b c d) in turn modified by a prepositional phrase (1f) and a parenthetical
48 See Brown Epistles 118 49 Smalley 1 2 3 John 4 15
19
comment (2a-f)50 3a starts with a resumptive relative clause before introducing the main
indicative verb (ἀπαγγέλλομεν)51 11a-3c form one complex colon and are therefore
syntactically cohesive
There are a number of additional cohesive features within these verses There is
inclusio of the verbs ἀκούψ and ὀπάψ in 1c3b and 1d3a respectively Similarly so the use
of υανεπόψ at the beginning and end of the parenthetic v2 (a and f) Also 1st person plural
verbs are used repeatedly throughout and are juxtaposed with 2nd person pronominal
references to the recipients This combination of 1st and 2nd person reference introduces the
two primary lsquocharactersrsquo in the letter Lastly the feminine noun ζψή is introduced
immediately prior to the parenthesis of v2 (1f) and is referred to in all four cola within the
parenthesis ndash twice by repetition of the noun (forming another inclusio) and twice by
ellipsis of the direct object of the transitive verbs ὀπάψ and μαπστπέψ
The complexities of the grammar52 and the textual issues53 make no difference to the
structure or cohesion of the passage
sect15-211
After an initial introduction 1 Johnrsquos first section starts at 15 and continues through to
211 This section is made up of three units
50 Judith M Lieu I II amp III John A Commentary (NTL Louisville Westminster John Knox 2008) 37 51 Culy A Handbook 7 52 Stott Letters 62 53 Bruce M Metzger A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed Stuttgart Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft 2002) 639
20
15-22
Unanimously agreed unit boundaries such as those of 11-4 do more than simply
demonstrate Johnrsquos literary abilities They also provide certain markers from which other
literary units can be determined If the introduction ends at 14 then 15 must begin a new
section Similarly if a new unit begins at 212 then the previous unit must end at 211 It
will be argued below that the verses in between (ie 15-211) form one large section
comprised of three units (15-22 23-7 28-11)
Callow has already done much of the work on 15-211 and it is unnecessary to repeat
all of his findings54 Rather a few complementary observations will be made
15-10 are tied together by their use of 3rd class conditional sentences 16a 7a 8a 9a
and 10a all introduce a protasis with ἐὰν55 Vv6 8 and 10 make negative assertions while
54 John Callow ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament Approaches and
Results (ed Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed JSNTSupp Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1999) esp 402-
4 55 See Culy A Handbook xvii-xx on the nature of these conditionals as mitigated exhortations
21
vv7 and 9 are positive forming an alternating pattern Repetition of words and phrases
such as κοινψνία πεπιπασέψ and ldquoκαθαπίζει ἡμᾶρ ἀπὸ πάςηρ ἁμαπσίαρrdquo also tie these verses
together
The relation of 21-2 to 15-10 is debated Some see 21 as a parenthesis and v2
returning to the preceding thought as a sixth conditional clause adding a final positive
element56 Others understand both of these verses to be a parenthesis given that the
conditional clause is of a different nature to the preceding ones57 Given the shift from 1st
person verbs in the preceding conditionals to the 3rd person σὶρ in 21d it seems that the
latter is preferable In which case 21-2 form a parenthetical comment in between 110 and
23
23-6
56 Marshall Epistles 115-16 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 396-97 57 Stott Letters 84
22
23-6 are held together by the inclusio of ἐν σούσῳ γινώςκομεν in 23a and 5c58 These two
independent clauses are both elaborated on in 23b-5b and 6a-d respectively The
introduction and repetition of the ideas of keeping (σηπέψ) commands (ἐνσολή) tie vv3-5
together
23-6 at first glance seems distinct from 15-10 However the repetition of ὁ λέγψν
followed by both a negative (v4) and a positive (v6) claim has strong links back to the
conditional clauses of 15-10 Similarly although the vocabulary has changed from
κοινψνία to γινώςκψ the concept of relationship to God is still present Further still 15
and 23 can both be understood as introducing their individual units Each verse makes a
stark claim which is then elucidated and illustrated both positively and negatively A final
cohesive feature is that if 21-2 are a parenthesis as suggested above then there is
referential cohesion between 15 through to 2659 Θεόρ is introduced in 15 and thereafter
only referred to with pronominal references60
Given the cohesive features and the links with 15-10 it is therefore legitimate to
conclude that ldquothis section is in several aspects parallel tohellipthe preceding sectionrdquo61 23-6
constitute a new unit That the unit begins with καὶ need not raise concern Although this
is somewhat unexpected at boundary features the presence of καὶ alone does not carry
enough weight to rule out a unit boundary (cf 15)62 Paragraphs initiated with καὶ seem to
be a feature of 1 John63
58 The prepositional clause ἐν σούσῳ is also repeated in 4e and 5b however these occurrences are
anaphoric with a personal antecedent in 4a and 5a respectively The phrases in 3a and 5c are cataphoric and
refer to abstract concepts rather than specific individuals See Culy A Handbook 25 59 There is also a lone pronominal reference to God in 8b 60 The sole exception being the genitive phrase of 25b ἡ ἀγάπη σοῦ θεοῦ 61 C Haas M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for
Translators London United Bible Societies 1972) 43 62 Levinsohn Discourse Features 275 Kermit Titrud ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament
and an Application to 2 Peterrdquo in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed
David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 240-70 63 See 15 220 28 33 13 19 514
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
15
identification of number of lsquomicro-parallelismrsquo and chiasms which have often been
overlooked
Despite these insights Hansfordrsquos overall structure and broad divisions are
problematic The first criticism is that under close inspection it becomes noticeable that a
number of Hansfordrsquos decisions are forced An example of a forced chiasm can be seen in
410-12 where ἠγαπήκαμεν in 410 is linked with σεθέασαι in 412 The two words have no
semantic overlap and it is difficult to see how they can be related other than they both
have θεὸν as their object Similarly issues regarding the column divisions can be seen at
39 The initial part of the verse πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ (the subject of the clause)
is placed in the second column (ldquohuman actionJesusrsquo ministryrdquo) while the second part
ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιει (the predicate and object) is placed in the third column (ldquoGodrsquos reaction
and judgementrdquo) These phrases do not naturally fit with the thematic topics of the
columns into which they are placed
Secondly the ldquokeywordsrdquo that are listed for each strophe seem arbitrary Each of the
eighteen strophes has on average between 15-20 keywords While some of these keywords
are unique to that portion of text other words such as ldquotruthrdquo ldquoJesusrdquo ldquoChristrdquo ldquoFatherrdquo
ldquoknowrdquo and ldquobelieverdquo occur in multiple strophes When the general and rather limited
vocabulary of the whole book is considered it becomes evident that some of the keywords
are not particular to any strophe but rather to the whole of 1 John
Thirdly it is possible that what Hansford considers to be poetic features of the text
could be explained in other ways For example the reversal of word order of verb and
subject is mentioned twice in his article as evidence of parallelism and chiasm41 It is
possible however that such a switch can be justified by other discourse features and issues
of information structure Hansford does not give details or references to the clauses he is
referring to and so it is difficult to decide either way However it must be kept in mind that
there may be other explanations for such features
Finally if the author intended such rigid parallelism it seems strange that not all
the parallels are as clear as those in 212-14 Hansford fails to take account of the clear
differences between portions of the text In Hansfordrsquos outline 212-14 which without
doubt demonstrate the clearest parallelisms blend in to his poetry and do not stand out at
all as they do when the text of 1 John is read as a whole
41 Hansford ldquoPoetic Structurerdquo 129 135
16
John Christopher Thomas
Thomas admirably sets out to focus ldquoattention on the structure of 1 John as revealed by
the text itself and seeks as far as possible to allow the text to reveal its shape on its own
termsrdquo42 The outcome of Thomas work is to suggest a chiastic structure to the book as a
whole Thomas makes clear that he is well aware of the dangers and criticisms that such
proposals have faced in the past Nevertheless he suggests that 1 John divides into 11
sections 10 of which are parallel one being central The overall chiastic structure is shown
above Thomas understands each parallel section to vaguely share a common theme or
topic eg making God a liar antichrists confidence with the central section being entitled
ldquoLove one anotherrdquo43
There are a number of problems with Thomasrsquo extended chiasm Firstly Thomas claims
that the central section of the book (section F 311-18) is focussed on loving one another
Not only does this begin a new unit with an ὅσι clause (see the treatment of Brownrsquos work
above and the discussion on 225 below for the syntactical problems associated with such a
division) but it also fails to take note that the ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλοτρ occurs more frequently
outside of this section than inside44 Similarly so with sections E and E` (228-310 and 319-
24) which are entitled ldquoConfidencerdquo The noun παππηςία occurs four times in 1 John but
only two occurrences are with these units45
42 John Christopher Thomas ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo NT 40 no 4 (1998) 371 43 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 373 44 This ἵνα clause occurs at 311 but also at 323 47 and 12 45 See 228 321 417 and 514
17
Secondly although Thomas seeks not to overstretch the links between the parallel
sections of his chiasm46 his claim that ldquothe use of similar catch wordsphraseswhich
parallel one anotherrdquo indicate that he expects his parallel sections to have to a greater or
lesser degree similar words and phrases If such is the case it is very strange that the
primary and central theme of 15-22 (ie light and darkness which occurs 13 times in those
verses) does not reappear in its parallel section (56-12) While it is true that Thomasrsquo
criteria allows that not every detail of every section will be parallel a parallelism where the
primary these are not paralleled is perculiar
A further problem with sections B and B` is Thomasrsquo comment ldquoA final point of
contact is that both passages begin with similar statements ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo in
15 and ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo in 56rdquo47 In both English and Greek it is difficult to
see how these two phrases can be correlated
Καὶ ἔςσιν αὕση ἡ ἀγγελία Οὗσόρ ἐςσιν ὁ ἐλθὼν
ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo
Although both have ἔςσιν and a demonstrative pronoun the similarity ends there The
word orders are different as is the gender of the pronoun One begins with a coordinating
conjunction the other with asyndeton One has as its subject a feminine abstract noun the
other an articular participle
Thus even with Thomasrsquo relatively loose criteria of what constitutes an extended
chiasm it is clear that 1 John as a whole refuses to be organised so neatly
46 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 372 47 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 379
18
An Analysis of Discourse Features in 1 John
Inherent Structure
Despite the widely varying theories for structure in 1 John most writers recognise that
structure is not absolutely alien to the author48 There are some portions of the book which
are unanimously agreed upon as distinct parts The two most obvious examples are 11-4
and 212-14 Aside from its complex grammatical and syntactical issues 11-4 is universally
recognised by writers and commentators as a single part which introduces the main
topic(s) of Johnrsquos first letter Similarly the lexical cohesion and repetition of 212-14 prove
beyond any doubt that John was able skilfully and carefully to construct literary units
We shall now proceed through the text of 1 John identifying major sections and
particular units using the methodology outlined above derived from cohesive features of
the text before drawing conclusions about an overall structure of the book
sect11-4
1 John 11-4 forms an introduction to the whole book49 The main clause (3c) is introduced
by an initial relative clause which is subsequently modified by three parallel relative
clauses (1b c d) in turn modified by a prepositional phrase (1f) and a parenthetical
48 See Brown Epistles 118 49 Smalley 1 2 3 John 4 15
19
comment (2a-f)50 3a starts with a resumptive relative clause before introducing the main
indicative verb (ἀπαγγέλλομεν)51 11a-3c form one complex colon and are therefore
syntactically cohesive
There are a number of additional cohesive features within these verses There is
inclusio of the verbs ἀκούψ and ὀπάψ in 1c3b and 1d3a respectively Similarly so the use
of υανεπόψ at the beginning and end of the parenthetic v2 (a and f) Also 1st person plural
verbs are used repeatedly throughout and are juxtaposed with 2nd person pronominal
references to the recipients This combination of 1st and 2nd person reference introduces the
two primary lsquocharactersrsquo in the letter Lastly the feminine noun ζψή is introduced
immediately prior to the parenthesis of v2 (1f) and is referred to in all four cola within the
parenthesis ndash twice by repetition of the noun (forming another inclusio) and twice by
ellipsis of the direct object of the transitive verbs ὀπάψ and μαπστπέψ
The complexities of the grammar52 and the textual issues53 make no difference to the
structure or cohesion of the passage
sect15-211
After an initial introduction 1 Johnrsquos first section starts at 15 and continues through to
211 This section is made up of three units
50 Judith M Lieu I II amp III John A Commentary (NTL Louisville Westminster John Knox 2008) 37 51 Culy A Handbook 7 52 Stott Letters 62 53 Bruce M Metzger A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed Stuttgart Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft 2002) 639
20
15-22
Unanimously agreed unit boundaries such as those of 11-4 do more than simply
demonstrate Johnrsquos literary abilities They also provide certain markers from which other
literary units can be determined If the introduction ends at 14 then 15 must begin a new
section Similarly if a new unit begins at 212 then the previous unit must end at 211 It
will be argued below that the verses in between (ie 15-211) form one large section
comprised of three units (15-22 23-7 28-11)
Callow has already done much of the work on 15-211 and it is unnecessary to repeat
all of his findings54 Rather a few complementary observations will be made
15-10 are tied together by their use of 3rd class conditional sentences 16a 7a 8a 9a
and 10a all introduce a protasis with ἐὰν55 Vv6 8 and 10 make negative assertions while
54 John Callow ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament Approaches and
Results (ed Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed JSNTSupp Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1999) esp 402-
4 55 See Culy A Handbook xvii-xx on the nature of these conditionals as mitigated exhortations
21
vv7 and 9 are positive forming an alternating pattern Repetition of words and phrases
such as κοινψνία πεπιπασέψ and ldquoκαθαπίζει ἡμᾶρ ἀπὸ πάςηρ ἁμαπσίαρrdquo also tie these verses
together
The relation of 21-2 to 15-10 is debated Some see 21 as a parenthesis and v2
returning to the preceding thought as a sixth conditional clause adding a final positive
element56 Others understand both of these verses to be a parenthesis given that the
conditional clause is of a different nature to the preceding ones57 Given the shift from 1st
person verbs in the preceding conditionals to the 3rd person σὶρ in 21d it seems that the
latter is preferable In which case 21-2 form a parenthetical comment in between 110 and
23
23-6
56 Marshall Epistles 115-16 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 396-97 57 Stott Letters 84
22
23-6 are held together by the inclusio of ἐν σούσῳ γινώςκομεν in 23a and 5c58 These two
independent clauses are both elaborated on in 23b-5b and 6a-d respectively The
introduction and repetition of the ideas of keeping (σηπέψ) commands (ἐνσολή) tie vv3-5
together
23-6 at first glance seems distinct from 15-10 However the repetition of ὁ λέγψν
followed by both a negative (v4) and a positive (v6) claim has strong links back to the
conditional clauses of 15-10 Similarly although the vocabulary has changed from
κοινψνία to γινώςκψ the concept of relationship to God is still present Further still 15
and 23 can both be understood as introducing their individual units Each verse makes a
stark claim which is then elucidated and illustrated both positively and negatively A final
cohesive feature is that if 21-2 are a parenthesis as suggested above then there is
referential cohesion between 15 through to 2659 Θεόρ is introduced in 15 and thereafter
only referred to with pronominal references60
Given the cohesive features and the links with 15-10 it is therefore legitimate to
conclude that ldquothis section is in several aspects parallel tohellipthe preceding sectionrdquo61 23-6
constitute a new unit That the unit begins with καὶ need not raise concern Although this
is somewhat unexpected at boundary features the presence of καὶ alone does not carry
enough weight to rule out a unit boundary (cf 15)62 Paragraphs initiated with καὶ seem to
be a feature of 1 John63
58 The prepositional clause ἐν σούσῳ is also repeated in 4e and 5b however these occurrences are
anaphoric with a personal antecedent in 4a and 5a respectively The phrases in 3a and 5c are cataphoric and
refer to abstract concepts rather than specific individuals See Culy A Handbook 25 59 There is also a lone pronominal reference to God in 8b 60 The sole exception being the genitive phrase of 25b ἡ ἀγάπη σοῦ θεοῦ 61 C Haas M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for
Translators London United Bible Societies 1972) 43 62 Levinsohn Discourse Features 275 Kermit Titrud ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament
and an Application to 2 Peterrdquo in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed
David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 240-70 63 See 15 220 28 33 13 19 514
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
16
John Christopher Thomas
Thomas admirably sets out to focus ldquoattention on the structure of 1 John as revealed by
the text itself and seeks as far as possible to allow the text to reveal its shape on its own
termsrdquo42 The outcome of Thomas work is to suggest a chiastic structure to the book as a
whole Thomas makes clear that he is well aware of the dangers and criticisms that such
proposals have faced in the past Nevertheless he suggests that 1 John divides into 11
sections 10 of which are parallel one being central The overall chiastic structure is shown
above Thomas understands each parallel section to vaguely share a common theme or
topic eg making God a liar antichrists confidence with the central section being entitled
ldquoLove one anotherrdquo43
There are a number of problems with Thomasrsquo extended chiasm Firstly Thomas claims
that the central section of the book (section F 311-18) is focussed on loving one another
Not only does this begin a new unit with an ὅσι clause (see the treatment of Brownrsquos work
above and the discussion on 225 below for the syntactical problems associated with such a
division) but it also fails to take note that the ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλοτρ occurs more frequently
outside of this section than inside44 Similarly so with sections E and E` (228-310 and 319-
24) which are entitled ldquoConfidencerdquo The noun παππηςία occurs four times in 1 John but
only two occurrences are with these units45
42 John Christopher Thomas ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo NT 40 no 4 (1998) 371 43 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 373 44 This ἵνα clause occurs at 311 but also at 323 47 and 12 45 See 228 321 417 and 514
17
Secondly although Thomas seeks not to overstretch the links between the parallel
sections of his chiasm46 his claim that ldquothe use of similar catch wordsphraseswhich
parallel one anotherrdquo indicate that he expects his parallel sections to have to a greater or
lesser degree similar words and phrases If such is the case it is very strange that the
primary and central theme of 15-22 (ie light and darkness which occurs 13 times in those
verses) does not reappear in its parallel section (56-12) While it is true that Thomasrsquo
criteria allows that not every detail of every section will be parallel a parallelism where the
primary these are not paralleled is perculiar
A further problem with sections B and B` is Thomasrsquo comment ldquoA final point of
contact is that both passages begin with similar statements ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo in
15 and ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo in 56rdquo47 In both English and Greek it is difficult to
see how these two phrases can be correlated
Καὶ ἔςσιν αὕση ἡ ἀγγελία Οὗσόρ ἐςσιν ὁ ἐλθὼν
ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo
Although both have ἔςσιν and a demonstrative pronoun the similarity ends there The
word orders are different as is the gender of the pronoun One begins with a coordinating
conjunction the other with asyndeton One has as its subject a feminine abstract noun the
other an articular participle
Thus even with Thomasrsquo relatively loose criteria of what constitutes an extended
chiasm it is clear that 1 John as a whole refuses to be organised so neatly
46 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 372 47 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 379
18
An Analysis of Discourse Features in 1 John
Inherent Structure
Despite the widely varying theories for structure in 1 John most writers recognise that
structure is not absolutely alien to the author48 There are some portions of the book which
are unanimously agreed upon as distinct parts The two most obvious examples are 11-4
and 212-14 Aside from its complex grammatical and syntactical issues 11-4 is universally
recognised by writers and commentators as a single part which introduces the main
topic(s) of Johnrsquos first letter Similarly the lexical cohesion and repetition of 212-14 prove
beyond any doubt that John was able skilfully and carefully to construct literary units
We shall now proceed through the text of 1 John identifying major sections and
particular units using the methodology outlined above derived from cohesive features of
the text before drawing conclusions about an overall structure of the book
sect11-4
1 John 11-4 forms an introduction to the whole book49 The main clause (3c) is introduced
by an initial relative clause which is subsequently modified by three parallel relative
clauses (1b c d) in turn modified by a prepositional phrase (1f) and a parenthetical
48 See Brown Epistles 118 49 Smalley 1 2 3 John 4 15
19
comment (2a-f)50 3a starts with a resumptive relative clause before introducing the main
indicative verb (ἀπαγγέλλομεν)51 11a-3c form one complex colon and are therefore
syntactically cohesive
There are a number of additional cohesive features within these verses There is
inclusio of the verbs ἀκούψ and ὀπάψ in 1c3b and 1d3a respectively Similarly so the use
of υανεπόψ at the beginning and end of the parenthetic v2 (a and f) Also 1st person plural
verbs are used repeatedly throughout and are juxtaposed with 2nd person pronominal
references to the recipients This combination of 1st and 2nd person reference introduces the
two primary lsquocharactersrsquo in the letter Lastly the feminine noun ζψή is introduced
immediately prior to the parenthesis of v2 (1f) and is referred to in all four cola within the
parenthesis ndash twice by repetition of the noun (forming another inclusio) and twice by
ellipsis of the direct object of the transitive verbs ὀπάψ and μαπστπέψ
The complexities of the grammar52 and the textual issues53 make no difference to the
structure or cohesion of the passage
sect15-211
After an initial introduction 1 Johnrsquos first section starts at 15 and continues through to
211 This section is made up of three units
50 Judith M Lieu I II amp III John A Commentary (NTL Louisville Westminster John Knox 2008) 37 51 Culy A Handbook 7 52 Stott Letters 62 53 Bruce M Metzger A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed Stuttgart Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft 2002) 639
20
15-22
Unanimously agreed unit boundaries such as those of 11-4 do more than simply
demonstrate Johnrsquos literary abilities They also provide certain markers from which other
literary units can be determined If the introduction ends at 14 then 15 must begin a new
section Similarly if a new unit begins at 212 then the previous unit must end at 211 It
will be argued below that the verses in between (ie 15-211) form one large section
comprised of three units (15-22 23-7 28-11)
Callow has already done much of the work on 15-211 and it is unnecessary to repeat
all of his findings54 Rather a few complementary observations will be made
15-10 are tied together by their use of 3rd class conditional sentences 16a 7a 8a 9a
and 10a all introduce a protasis with ἐὰν55 Vv6 8 and 10 make negative assertions while
54 John Callow ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament Approaches and
Results (ed Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed JSNTSupp Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1999) esp 402-
4 55 See Culy A Handbook xvii-xx on the nature of these conditionals as mitigated exhortations
21
vv7 and 9 are positive forming an alternating pattern Repetition of words and phrases
such as κοινψνία πεπιπασέψ and ldquoκαθαπίζει ἡμᾶρ ἀπὸ πάςηρ ἁμαπσίαρrdquo also tie these verses
together
The relation of 21-2 to 15-10 is debated Some see 21 as a parenthesis and v2
returning to the preceding thought as a sixth conditional clause adding a final positive
element56 Others understand both of these verses to be a parenthesis given that the
conditional clause is of a different nature to the preceding ones57 Given the shift from 1st
person verbs in the preceding conditionals to the 3rd person σὶρ in 21d it seems that the
latter is preferable In which case 21-2 form a parenthetical comment in between 110 and
23
23-6
56 Marshall Epistles 115-16 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 396-97 57 Stott Letters 84
22
23-6 are held together by the inclusio of ἐν σούσῳ γινώςκομεν in 23a and 5c58 These two
independent clauses are both elaborated on in 23b-5b and 6a-d respectively The
introduction and repetition of the ideas of keeping (σηπέψ) commands (ἐνσολή) tie vv3-5
together
23-6 at first glance seems distinct from 15-10 However the repetition of ὁ λέγψν
followed by both a negative (v4) and a positive (v6) claim has strong links back to the
conditional clauses of 15-10 Similarly although the vocabulary has changed from
κοινψνία to γινώςκψ the concept of relationship to God is still present Further still 15
and 23 can both be understood as introducing their individual units Each verse makes a
stark claim which is then elucidated and illustrated both positively and negatively A final
cohesive feature is that if 21-2 are a parenthesis as suggested above then there is
referential cohesion between 15 through to 2659 Θεόρ is introduced in 15 and thereafter
only referred to with pronominal references60
Given the cohesive features and the links with 15-10 it is therefore legitimate to
conclude that ldquothis section is in several aspects parallel tohellipthe preceding sectionrdquo61 23-6
constitute a new unit That the unit begins with καὶ need not raise concern Although this
is somewhat unexpected at boundary features the presence of καὶ alone does not carry
enough weight to rule out a unit boundary (cf 15)62 Paragraphs initiated with καὶ seem to
be a feature of 1 John63
58 The prepositional clause ἐν σούσῳ is also repeated in 4e and 5b however these occurrences are
anaphoric with a personal antecedent in 4a and 5a respectively The phrases in 3a and 5c are cataphoric and
refer to abstract concepts rather than specific individuals See Culy A Handbook 25 59 There is also a lone pronominal reference to God in 8b 60 The sole exception being the genitive phrase of 25b ἡ ἀγάπη σοῦ θεοῦ 61 C Haas M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for
Translators London United Bible Societies 1972) 43 62 Levinsohn Discourse Features 275 Kermit Titrud ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament
and an Application to 2 Peterrdquo in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed
David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 240-70 63 See 15 220 28 33 13 19 514
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
17
Secondly although Thomas seeks not to overstretch the links between the parallel
sections of his chiasm46 his claim that ldquothe use of similar catch wordsphraseswhich
parallel one anotherrdquo indicate that he expects his parallel sections to have to a greater or
lesser degree similar words and phrases If such is the case it is very strange that the
primary and central theme of 15-22 (ie light and darkness which occurs 13 times in those
verses) does not reappear in its parallel section (56-12) While it is true that Thomasrsquo
criteria allows that not every detail of every section will be parallel a parallelism where the
primary these are not paralleled is perculiar
A further problem with sections B and B` is Thomasrsquo comment ldquoA final point of
contact is that both passages begin with similar statements ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo in
15 and ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo in 56rdquo47 In both English and Greek it is difficult to
see how these two phrases can be correlated
Καὶ ἔςσιν αὕση ἡ ἀγγελία Οὗσόρ ἐςσιν ὁ ἐλθὼν
ldquoAnd this is the messagerdquo ldquoThis is the one who comesrdquo
Although both have ἔςσιν and a demonstrative pronoun the similarity ends there The
word orders are different as is the gender of the pronoun One begins with a coordinating
conjunction the other with asyndeton One has as its subject a feminine abstract noun the
other an articular participle
Thus even with Thomasrsquo relatively loose criteria of what constitutes an extended
chiasm it is clear that 1 John as a whole refuses to be organised so neatly
46 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 372 47 Thomas ldquoLiterary Structurerdquo 379
18
An Analysis of Discourse Features in 1 John
Inherent Structure
Despite the widely varying theories for structure in 1 John most writers recognise that
structure is not absolutely alien to the author48 There are some portions of the book which
are unanimously agreed upon as distinct parts The two most obvious examples are 11-4
and 212-14 Aside from its complex grammatical and syntactical issues 11-4 is universally
recognised by writers and commentators as a single part which introduces the main
topic(s) of Johnrsquos first letter Similarly the lexical cohesion and repetition of 212-14 prove
beyond any doubt that John was able skilfully and carefully to construct literary units
We shall now proceed through the text of 1 John identifying major sections and
particular units using the methodology outlined above derived from cohesive features of
the text before drawing conclusions about an overall structure of the book
sect11-4
1 John 11-4 forms an introduction to the whole book49 The main clause (3c) is introduced
by an initial relative clause which is subsequently modified by three parallel relative
clauses (1b c d) in turn modified by a prepositional phrase (1f) and a parenthetical
48 See Brown Epistles 118 49 Smalley 1 2 3 John 4 15
19
comment (2a-f)50 3a starts with a resumptive relative clause before introducing the main
indicative verb (ἀπαγγέλλομεν)51 11a-3c form one complex colon and are therefore
syntactically cohesive
There are a number of additional cohesive features within these verses There is
inclusio of the verbs ἀκούψ and ὀπάψ in 1c3b and 1d3a respectively Similarly so the use
of υανεπόψ at the beginning and end of the parenthetic v2 (a and f) Also 1st person plural
verbs are used repeatedly throughout and are juxtaposed with 2nd person pronominal
references to the recipients This combination of 1st and 2nd person reference introduces the
two primary lsquocharactersrsquo in the letter Lastly the feminine noun ζψή is introduced
immediately prior to the parenthesis of v2 (1f) and is referred to in all four cola within the
parenthesis ndash twice by repetition of the noun (forming another inclusio) and twice by
ellipsis of the direct object of the transitive verbs ὀπάψ and μαπστπέψ
The complexities of the grammar52 and the textual issues53 make no difference to the
structure or cohesion of the passage
sect15-211
After an initial introduction 1 Johnrsquos first section starts at 15 and continues through to
211 This section is made up of three units
50 Judith M Lieu I II amp III John A Commentary (NTL Louisville Westminster John Knox 2008) 37 51 Culy A Handbook 7 52 Stott Letters 62 53 Bruce M Metzger A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed Stuttgart Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft 2002) 639
20
15-22
Unanimously agreed unit boundaries such as those of 11-4 do more than simply
demonstrate Johnrsquos literary abilities They also provide certain markers from which other
literary units can be determined If the introduction ends at 14 then 15 must begin a new
section Similarly if a new unit begins at 212 then the previous unit must end at 211 It
will be argued below that the verses in between (ie 15-211) form one large section
comprised of three units (15-22 23-7 28-11)
Callow has already done much of the work on 15-211 and it is unnecessary to repeat
all of his findings54 Rather a few complementary observations will be made
15-10 are tied together by their use of 3rd class conditional sentences 16a 7a 8a 9a
and 10a all introduce a protasis with ἐὰν55 Vv6 8 and 10 make negative assertions while
54 John Callow ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament Approaches and
Results (ed Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed JSNTSupp Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1999) esp 402-
4 55 See Culy A Handbook xvii-xx on the nature of these conditionals as mitigated exhortations
21
vv7 and 9 are positive forming an alternating pattern Repetition of words and phrases
such as κοινψνία πεπιπασέψ and ldquoκαθαπίζει ἡμᾶρ ἀπὸ πάςηρ ἁμαπσίαρrdquo also tie these verses
together
The relation of 21-2 to 15-10 is debated Some see 21 as a parenthesis and v2
returning to the preceding thought as a sixth conditional clause adding a final positive
element56 Others understand both of these verses to be a parenthesis given that the
conditional clause is of a different nature to the preceding ones57 Given the shift from 1st
person verbs in the preceding conditionals to the 3rd person σὶρ in 21d it seems that the
latter is preferable In which case 21-2 form a parenthetical comment in between 110 and
23
23-6
56 Marshall Epistles 115-16 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 396-97 57 Stott Letters 84
22
23-6 are held together by the inclusio of ἐν σούσῳ γινώςκομεν in 23a and 5c58 These two
independent clauses are both elaborated on in 23b-5b and 6a-d respectively The
introduction and repetition of the ideas of keeping (σηπέψ) commands (ἐνσολή) tie vv3-5
together
23-6 at first glance seems distinct from 15-10 However the repetition of ὁ λέγψν
followed by both a negative (v4) and a positive (v6) claim has strong links back to the
conditional clauses of 15-10 Similarly although the vocabulary has changed from
κοινψνία to γινώςκψ the concept of relationship to God is still present Further still 15
and 23 can both be understood as introducing their individual units Each verse makes a
stark claim which is then elucidated and illustrated both positively and negatively A final
cohesive feature is that if 21-2 are a parenthesis as suggested above then there is
referential cohesion between 15 through to 2659 Θεόρ is introduced in 15 and thereafter
only referred to with pronominal references60
Given the cohesive features and the links with 15-10 it is therefore legitimate to
conclude that ldquothis section is in several aspects parallel tohellipthe preceding sectionrdquo61 23-6
constitute a new unit That the unit begins with καὶ need not raise concern Although this
is somewhat unexpected at boundary features the presence of καὶ alone does not carry
enough weight to rule out a unit boundary (cf 15)62 Paragraphs initiated with καὶ seem to
be a feature of 1 John63
58 The prepositional clause ἐν σούσῳ is also repeated in 4e and 5b however these occurrences are
anaphoric with a personal antecedent in 4a and 5a respectively The phrases in 3a and 5c are cataphoric and
refer to abstract concepts rather than specific individuals See Culy A Handbook 25 59 There is also a lone pronominal reference to God in 8b 60 The sole exception being the genitive phrase of 25b ἡ ἀγάπη σοῦ θεοῦ 61 C Haas M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for
Translators London United Bible Societies 1972) 43 62 Levinsohn Discourse Features 275 Kermit Titrud ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament
and an Application to 2 Peterrdquo in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed
David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 240-70 63 See 15 220 28 33 13 19 514
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
18
An Analysis of Discourse Features in 1 John
Inherent Structure
Despite the widely varying theories for structure in 1 John most writers recognise that
structure is not absolutely alien to the author48 There are some portions of the book which
are unanimously agreed upon as distinct parts The two most obvious examples are 11-4
and 212-14 Aside from its complex grammatical and syntactical issues 11-4 is universally
recognised by writers and commentators as a single part which introduces the main
topic(s) of Johnrsquos first letter Similarly the lexical cohesion and repetition of 212-14 prove
beyond any doubt that John was able skilfully and carefully to construct literary units
We shall now proceed through the text of 1 John identifying major sections and
particular units using the methodology outlined above derived from cohesive features of
the text before drawing conclusions about an overall structure of the book
sect11-4
1 John 11-4 forms an introduction to the whole book49 The main clause (3c) is introduced
by an initial relative clause which is subsequently modified by three parallel relative
clauses (1b c d) in turn modified by a prepositional phrase (1f) and a parenthetical
48 See Brown Epistles 118 49 Smalley 1 2 3 John 4 15
19
comment (2a-f)50 3a starts with a resumptive relative clause before introducing the main
indicative verb (ἀπαγγέλλομεν)51 11a-3c form one complex colon and are therefore
syntactically cohesive
There are a number of additional cohesive features within these verses There is
inclusio of the verbs ἀκούψ and ὀπάψ in 1c3b and 1d3a respectively Similarly so the use
of υανεπόψ at the beginning and end of the parenthetic v2 (a and f) Also 1st person plural
verbs are used repeatedly throughout and are juxtaposed with 2nd person pronominal
references to the recipients This combination of 1st and 2nd person reference introduces the
two primary lsquocharactersrsquo in the letter Lastly the feminine noun ζψή is introduced
immediately prior to the parenthesis of v2 (1f) and is referred to in all four cola within the
parenthesis ndash twice by repetition of the noun (forming another inclusio) and twice by
ellipsis of the direct object of the transitive verbs ὀπάψ and μαπστπέψ
The complexities of the grammar52 and the textual issues53 make no difference to the
structure or cohesion of the passage
sect15-211
After an initial introduction 1 Johnrsquos first section starts at 15 and continues through to
211 This section is made up of three units
50 Judith M Lieu I II amp III John A Commentary (NTL Louisville Westminster John Knox 2008) 37 51 Culy A Handbook 7 52 Stott Letters 62 53 Bruce M Metzger A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed Stuttgart Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft 2002) 639
20
15-22
Unanimously agreed unit boundaries such as those of 11-4 do more than simply
demonstrate Johnrsquos literary abilities They also provide certain markers from which other
literary units can be determined If the introduction ends at 14 then 15 must begin a new
section Similarly if a new unit begins at 212 then the previous unit must end at 211 It
will be argued below that the verses in between (ie 15-211) form one large section
comprised of three units (15-22 23-7 28-11)
Callow has already done much of the work on 15-211 and it is unnecessary to repeat
all of his findings54 Rather a few complementary observations will be made
15-10 are tied together by their use of 3rd class conditional sentences 16a 7a 8a 9a
and 10a all introduce a protasis with ἐὰν55 Vv6 8 and 10 make negative assertions while
54 John Callow ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament Approaches and
Results (ed Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed JSNTSupp Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1999) esp 402-
4 55 See Culy A Handbook xvii-xx on the nature of these conditionals as mitigated exhortations
21
vv7 and 9 are positive forming an alternating pattern Repetition of words and phrases
such as κοινψνία πεπιπασέψ and ldquoκαθαπίζει ἡμᾶρ ἀπὸ πάςηρ ἁμαπσίαρrdquo also tie these verses
together
The relation of 21-2 to 15-10 is debated Some see 21 as a parenthesis and v2
returning to the preceding thought as a sixth conditional clause adding a final positive
element56 Others understand both of these verses to be a parenthesis given that the
conditional clause is of a different nature to the preceding ones57 Given the shift from 1st
person verbs in the preceding conditionals to the 3rd person σὶρ in 21d it seems that the
latter is preferable In which case 21-2 form a parenthetical comment in between 110 and
23
23-6
56 Marshall Epistles 115-16 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 396-97 57 Stott Letters 84
22
23-6 are held together by the inclusio of ἐν σούσῳ γινώςκομεν in 23a and 5c58 These two
independent clauses are both elaborated on in 23b-5b and 6a-d respectively The
introduction and repetition of the ideas of keeping (σηπέψ) commands (ἐνσολή) tie vv3-5
together
23-6 at first glance seems distinct from 15-10 However the repetition of ὁ λέγψν
followed by both a negative (v4) and a positive (v6) claim has strong links back to the
conditional clauses of 15-10 Similarly although the vocabulary has changed from
κοινψνία to γινώςκψ the concept of relationship to God is still present Further still 15
and 23 can both be understood as introducing their individual units Each verse makes a
stark claim which is then elucidated and illustrated both positively and negatively A final
cohesive feature is that if 21-2 are a parenthesis as suggested above then there is
referential cohesion between 15 through to 2659 Θεόρ is introduced in 15 and thereafter
only referred to with pronominal references60
Given the cohesive features and the links with 15-10 it is therefore legitimate to
conclude that ldquothis section is in several aspects parallel tohellipthe preceding sectionrdquo61 23-6
constitute a new unit That the unit begins with καὶ need not raise concern Although this
is somewhat unexpected at boundary features the presence of καὶ alone does not carry
enough weight to rule out a unit boundary (cf 15)62 Paragraphs initiated with καὶ seem to
be a feature of 1 John63
58 The prepositional clause ἐν σούσῳ is also repeated in 4e and 5b however these occurrences are
anaphoric with a personal antecedent in 4a and 5a respectively The phrases in 3a and 5c are cataphoric and
refer to abstract concepts rather than specific individuals See Culy A Handbook 25 59 There is also a lone pronominal reference to God in 8b 60 The sole exception being the genitive phrase of 25b ἡ ἀγάπη σοῦ θεοῦ 61 C Haas M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for
Translators London United Bible Societies 1972) 43 62 Levinsohn Discourse Features 275 Kermit Titrud ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament
and an Application to 2 Peterrdquo in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed
David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 240-70 63 See 15 220 28 33 13 19 514
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
19
comment (2a-f)50 3a starts with a resumptive relative clause before introducing the main
indicative verb (ἀπαγγέλλομεν)51 11a-3c form one complex colon and are therefore
syntactically cohesive
There are a number of additional cohesive features within these verses There is
inclusio of the verbs ἀκούψ and ὀπάψ in 1c3b and 1d3a respectively Similarly so the use
of υανεπόψ at the beginning and end of the parenthetic v2 (a and f) Also 1st person plural
verbs are used repeatedly throughout and are juxtaposed with 2nd person pronominal
references to the recipients This combination of 1st and 2nd person reference introduces the
two primary lsquocharactersrsquo in the letter Lastly the feminine noun ζψή is introduced
immediately prior to the parenthesis of v2 (1f) and is referred to in all four cola within the
parenthesis ndash twice by repetition of the noun (forming another inclusio) and twice by
ellipsis of the direct object of the transitive verbs ὀπάψ and μαπστπέψ
The complexities of the grammar52 and the textual issues53 make no difference to the
structure or cohesion of the passage
sect15-211
After an initial introduction 1 Johnrsquos first section starts at 15 and continues through to
211 This section is made up of three units
50 Judith M Lieu I II amp III John A Commentary (NTL Louisville Westminster John Knox 2008) 37 51 Culy A Handbook 7 52 Stott Letters 62 53 Bruce M Metzger A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd ed Stuttgart Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft 2002) 639
20
15-22
Unanimously agreed unit boundaries such as those of 11-4 do more than simply
demonstrate Johnrsquos literary abilities They also provide certain markers from which other
literary units can be determined If the introduction ends at 14 then 15 must begin a new
section Similarly if a new unit begins at 212 then the previous unit must end at 211 It
will be argued below that the verses in between (ie 15-211) form one large section
comprised of three units (15-22 23-7 28-11)
Callow has already done much of the work on 15-211 and it is unnecessary to repeat
all of his findings54 Rather a few complementary observations will be made
15-10 are tied together by their use of 3rd class conditional sentences 16a 7a 8a 9a
and 10a all introduce a protasis with ἐὰν55 Vv6 8 and 10 make negative assertions while
54 John Callow ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament Approaches and
Results (ed Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed JSNTSupp Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1999) esp 402-
4 55 See Culy A Handbook xvii-xx on the nature of these conditionals as mitigated exhortations
21
vv7 and 9 are positive forming an alternating pattern Repetition of words and phrases
such as κοινψνία πεπιπασέψ and ldquoκαθαπίζει ἡμᾶρ ἀπὸ πάςηρ ἁμαπσίαρrdquo also tie these verses
together
The relation of 21-2 to 15-10 is debated Some see 21 as a parenthesis and v2
returning to the preceding thought as a sixth conditional clause adding a final positive
element56 Others understand both of these verses to be a parenthesis given that the
conditional clause is of a different nature to the preceding ones57 Given the shift from 1st
person verbs in the preceding conditionals to the 3rd person σὶρ in 21d it seems that the
latter is preferable In which case 21-2 form a parenthetical comment in between 110 and
23
23-6
56 Marshall Epistles 115-16 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 396-97 57 Stott Letters 84
22
23-6 are held together by the inclusio of ἐν σούσῳ γινώςκομεν in 23a and 5c58 These two
independent clauses are both elaborated on in 23b-5b and 6a-d respectively The
introduction and repetition of the ideas of keeping (σηπέψ) commands (ἐνσολή) tie vv3-5
together
23-6 at first glance seems distinct from 15-10 However the repetition of ὁ λέγψν
followed by both a negative (v4) and a positive (v6) claim has strong links back to the
conditional clauses of 15-10 Similarly although the vocabulary has changed from
κοινψνία to γινώςκψ the concept of relationship to God is still present Further still 15
and 23 can both be understood as introducing their individual units Each verse makes a
stark claim which is then elucidated and illustrated both positively and negatively A final
cohesive feature is that if 21-2 are a parenthesis as suggested above then there is
referential cohesion between 15 through to 2659 Θεόρ is introduced in 15 and thereafter
only referred to with pronominal references60
Given the cohesive features and the links with 15-10 it is therefore legitimate to
conclude that ldquothis section is in several aspects parallel tohellipthe preceding sectionrdquo61 23-6
constitute a new unit That the unit begins with καὶ need not raise concern Although this
is somewhat unexpected at boundary features the presence of καὶ alone does not carry
enough weight to rule out a unit boundary (cf 15)62 Paragraphs initiated with καὶ seem to
be a feature of 1 John63
58 The prepositional clause ἐν σούσῳ is also repeated in 4e and 5b however these occurrences are
anaphoric with a personal antecedent in 4a and 5a respectively The phrases in 3a and 5c are cataphoric and
refer to abstract concepts rather than specific individuals See Culy A Handbook 25 59 There is also a lone pronominal reference to God in 8b 60 The sole exception being the genitive phrase of 25b ἡ ἀγάπη σοῦ θεοῦ 61 C Haas M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for
Translators London United Bible Societies 1972) 43 62 Levinsohn Discourse Features 275 Kermit Titrud ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament
and an Application to 2 Peterrdquo in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed
David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 240-70 63 See 15 220 28 33 13 19 514
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
20
15-22
Unanimously agreed unit boundaries such as those of 11-4 do more than simply
demonstrate Johnrsquos literary abilities They also provide certain markers from which other
literary units can be determined If the introduction ends at 14 then 15 must begin a new
section Similarly if a new unit begins at 212 then the previous unit must end at 211 It
will be argued below that the verses in between (ie 15-211) form one large section
comprised of three units (15-22 23-7 28-11)
Callow has already done much of the work on 15-211 and it is unnecessary to repeat
all of his findings54 Rather a few complementary observations will be made
15-10 are tied together by their use of 3rd class conditional sentences 16a 7a 8a 9a
and 10a all introduce a protasis with ἐὰν55 Vv6 8 and 10 make negative assertions while
54 John Callow ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament Approaches and
Results (ed Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed JSNTSupp Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press 1999) esp 402-
4 55 See Culy A Handbook xvii-xx on the nature of these conditionals as mitigated exhortations
21
vv7 and 9 are positive forming an alternating pattern Repetition of words and phrases
such as κοινψνία πεπιπασέψ and ldquoκαθαπίζει ἡμᾶρ ἀπὸ πάςηρ ἁμαπσίαρrdquo also tie these verses
together
The relation of 21-2 to 15-10 is debated Some see 21 as a parenthesis and v2
returning to the preceding thought as a sixth conditional clause adding a final positive
element56 Others understand both of these verses to be a parenthesis given that the
conditional clause is of a different nature to the preceding ones57 Given the shift from 1st
person verbs in the preceding conditionals to the 3rd person σὶρ in 21d it seems that the
latter is preferable In which case 21-2 form a parenthetical comment in between 110 and
23
23-6
56 Marshall Epistles 115-16 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 396-97 57 Stott Letters 84
22
23-6 are held together by the inclusio of ἐν σούσῳ γινώςκομεν in 23a and 5c58 These two
independent clauses are both elaborated on in 23b-5b and 6a-d respectively The
introduction and repetition of the ideas of keeping (σηπέψ) commands (ἐνσολή) tie vv3-5
together
23-6 at first glance seems distinct from 15-10 However the repetition of ὁ λέγψν
followed by both a negative (v4) and a positive (v6) claim has strong links back to the
conditional clauses of 15-10 Similarly although the vocabulary has changed from
κοινψνία to γινώςκψ the concept of relationship to God is still present Further still 15
and 23 can both be understood as introducing their individual units Each verse makes a
stark claim which is then elucidated and illustrated both positively and negatively A final
cohesive feature is that if 21-2 are a parenthesis as suggested above then there is
referential cohesion between 15 through to 2659 Θεόρ is introduced in 15 and thereafter
only referred to with pronominal references60
Given the cohesive features and the links with 15-10 it is therefore legitimate to
conclude that ldquothis section is in several aspects parallel tohellipthe preceding sectionrdquo61 23-6
constitute a new unit That the unit begins with καὶ need not raise concern Although this
is somewhat unexpected at boundary features the presence of καὶ alone does not carry
enough weight to rule out a unit boundary (cf 15)62 Paragraphs initiated with καὶ seem to
be a feature of 1 John63
58 The prepositional clause ἐν σούσῳ is also repeated in 4e and 5b however these occurrences are
anaphoric with a personal antecedent in 4a and 5a respectively The phrases in 3a and 5c are cataphoric and
refer to abstract concepts rather than specific individuals See Culy A Handbook 25 59 There is also a lone pronominal reference to God in 8b 60 The sole exception being the genitive phrase of 25b ἡ ἀγάπη σοῦ θεοῦ 61 C Haas M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for
Translators London United Bible Societies 1972) 43 62 Levinsohn Discourse Features 275 Kermit Titrud ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament
and an Application to 2 Peterrdquo in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed
David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 240-70 63 See 15 220 28 33 13 19 514
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
21
vv7 and 9 are positive forming an alternating pattern Repetition of words and phrases
such as κοινψνία πεπιπασέψ and ldquoκαθαπίζει ἡμᾶρ ἀπὸ πάςηρ ἁμαπσίαρrdquo also tie these verses
together
The relation of 21-2 to 15-10 is debated Some see 21 as a parenthesis and v2
returning to the preceding thought as a sixth conditional clause adding a final positive
element56 Others understand both of these verses to be a parenthesis given that the
conditional clause is of a different nature to the preceding ones57 Given the shift from 1st
person verbs in the preceding conditionals to the 3rd person σὶρ in 21d it seems that the
latter is preferable In which case 21-2 form a parenthetical comment in between 110 and
23
23-6
56 Marshall Epistles 115-16 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 396-97 57 Stott Letters 84
22
23-6 are held together by the inclusio of ἐν σούσῳ γινώςκομεν in 23a and 5c58 These two
independent clauses are both elaborated on in 23b-5b and 6a-d respectively The
introduction and repetition of the ideas of keeping (σηπέψ) commands (ἐνσολή) tie vv3-5
together
23-6 at first glance seems distinct from 15-10 However the repetition of ὁ λέγψν
followed by both a negative (v4) and a positive (v6) claim has strong links back to the
conditional clauses of 15-10 Similarly although the vocabulary has changed from
κοινψνία to γινώςκψ the concept of relationship to God is still present Further still 15
and 23 can both be understood as introducing their individual units Each verse makes a
stark claim which is then elucidated and illustrated both positively and negatively A final
cohesive feature is that if 21-2 are a parenthesis as suggested above then there is
referential cohesion between 15 through to 2659 Θεόρ is introduced in 15 and thereafter
only referred to with pronominal references60
Given the cohesive features and the links with 15-10 it is therefore legitimate to
conclude that ldquothis section is in several aspects parallel tohellipthe preceding sectionrdquo61 23-6
constitute a new unit That the unit begins with καὶ need not raise concern Although this
is somewhat unexpected at boundary features the presence of καὶ alone does not carry
enough weight to rule out a unit boundary (cf 15)62 Paragraphs initiated with καὶ seem to
be a feature of 1 John63
58 The prepositional clause ἐν σούσῳ is also repeated in 4e and 5b however these occurrences are
anaphoric with a personal antecedent in 4a and 5a respectively The phrases in 3a and 5c are cataphoric and
refer to abstract concepts rather than specific individuals See Culy A Handbook 25 59 There is also a lone pronominal reference to God in 8b 60 The sole exception being the genitive phrase of 25b ἡ ἀγάπη σοῦ θεοῦ 61 C Haas M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for
Translators London United Bible Societies 1972) 43 62 Levinsohn Discourse Features 275 Kermit Titrud ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament
and an Application to 2 Peterrdquo in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed
David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 240-70 63 See 15 220 28 33 13 19 514
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
22
23-6 are held together by the inclusio of ἐν σούσῳ γινώςκομεν in 23a and 5c58 These two
independent clauses are both elaborated on in 23b-5b and 6a-d respectively The
introduction and repetition of the ideas of keeping (σηπέψ) commands (ἐνσολή) tie vv3-5
together
23-6 at first glance seems distinct from 15-10 However the repetition of ὁ λέγψν
followed by both a negative (v4) and a positive (v6) claim has strong links back to the
conditional clauses of 15-10 Similarly although the vocabulary has changed from
κοινψνία to γινώςκψ the concept of relationship to God is still present Further still 15
and 23 can both be understood as introducing their individual units Each verse makes a
stark claim which is then elucidated and illustrated both positively and negatively A final
cohesive feature is that if 21-2 are a parenthesis as suggested above then there is
referential cohesion between 15 through to 2659 Θεόρ is introduced in 15 and thereafter
only referred to with pronominal references60
Given the cohesive features and the links with 15-10 it is therefore legitimate to
conclude that ldquothis section is in several aspects parallel tohellipthe preceding sectionrdquo61 23-6
constitute a new unit That the unit begins with καὶ need not raise concern Although this
is somewhat unexpected at boundary features the presence of καὶ alone does not carry
enough weight to rule out a unit boundary (cf 15)62 Paragraphs initiated with καὶ seem to
be a feature of 1 John63
58 The prepositional clause ἐν σούσῳ is also repeated in 4e and 5b however these occurrences are
anaphoric with a personal antecedent in 4a and 5a respectively The phrases in 3a and 5c are cataphoric and
refer to abstract concepts rather than specific individuals See Culy A Handbook 25 59 There is also a lone pronominal reference to God in 8b 60 The sole exception being the genitive phrase of 25b ἡ ἀγάπη σοῦ θεοῦ 61 C Haas M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John (Helps for
Translators London United Bible Societies 1972) 43 62 Levinsohn Discourse Features 275 Kermit Titrud ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament
and an Application to 2 Peterrdquo in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse Analysis (ed
David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992) 240-70 63 See 15 220 28 33 13 19 514
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
23
27-11
27-11 form a third unit within the section of 15-211 In the same way that 15 and 23
made stark claims which were then followed up with illustration so too do 29-11 illustrate
the claim made in 27-8 27a-8b form a long introduction to the claim that is made in 8cd
The primary significance of this is the recurrence of lightdark vocabulary which was used
in 15-7 but not since The lightdark motif does not occur again in the rest of the book
after 211f64
The claim (that darkness is passing and the true light shining) is elaborated on with
three cola ndash two negative (vv9 and 11) and one positive (v10) Each is introduced by an
articular participle (cf 24 6) which functions similarly to the protasis of the conditional
clauses in 16-10 The participle clauses are the subject of verbal clauses each of which
contain the lightdark motif and are in effect parallel to the apodoses of 16-10
64 Callow ldquo1 John 1rdquo 402-3
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
24
Summary of sect15-211
15 to211 is comprised of three units with a two-verse parenthesis between units 1 and 2
Each unit begins with a stark statement which is then elaborated and illustrated by
alternating positive and negative examples
15-211
15-10
15 God is light
16 - Claim fellowship but walk in darkness
17 + Walk in light
18 - Deny sin
19 + Confess sin
110 - Deny sin
23-6
23 Knowing God means keeping his commands
24 - Claim knowledge but donrsquot keep commands
26 + Claim knowledge walk as he walked
27-11
27-8 Darkness passing away true light shining
29 - Claim light but hate brother
210 + Love brother
211 - Hate bother
sect212-324
This large portion of text following on from 211 will be dealt with in two parts Firstly a
number of distinct units will be identified before turning to see how the units fit together
into 1 section made up of 8 units
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
25
212-14
212-14 demonstrate strong unity based on their rigorous and exact parallelism These
verses form a distinct unit made up of a twice repeated three-fold formula The verb γπάυψ
occurs six times each time followed by the 2nd person plural personal pronoun a vocative
and an ὃσι clause There is a switch between the tense-form of γπάυψ between 13cd and
14ab which divides this unit into two sub-units65
Whether the ὃσι clauses are nominal (explaining what the author writes ldquothatrdquo) or
causal (explaining why the author writes ldquobecauserdquo) is discussed by most commentators
In contrast to Marshall and Smalley Brown demonstrates that there are subtle implications
beyond translation for each choice66 Similarly the reasons for Johnrsquos choice of vocatives
(σεκνία πασέπερ νεανίςκοι παιδία) is not an easily decided issue Are these vocatives
meant to refer to groups within the community If so are the groups determined by
chronological age or spiritual maturity67 However neither of these concerns affect the
structure of the passage
65 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277 66 Brown Epistles 301 Marshall Epistles 136-37 Smalley 1 2 3 John 71 67 See Gary M Burge Letters of John (The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan 1996)
111
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
26
215-17
215-17 start a new unit ndash they are not linked either lexically or syntactically to the
preceding verses nor to those that follow Rather they contain two distinct cola (v15 and
vv16-17) and two word clusters ἀγαπ root (times3 in v15) and κόςμορ (times6 in vv15-17) The
purpose of these verses is to contrast God and the world love of each is mutually exclusive
ndash one is permanent while the other fleeting68
Many writers deal with 212-14 and 15-17 together69 However there is no indication
within the text that these two units are linked They are separated by asyndeton share no
lexical ties and differ greatly in structure and topic and should therefore be treated as
separate units
68 Kruse Letters 94-97
69 Robert W Yarbrough 1-3 John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand Rapids Baker 2008) 112f Smalley 1 2 3 John 64f Marshall Epistles 134f Kruse Letters 87f
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
27
218-19
218-19 form a third consecutive independent unit The two verses are tied together by a
connection between ἀνσίφπιςσοροι and those who have separated themselves from the
Johannine community70 V18 after its initial vocative demonstrates a clear chiastic A B B`
A` structure ἐςφάσε ὥπα ἐςσίν (18b) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσορ (18d) ⫽ ἀνσίφπιςσοι (18e) ⫽ ἐςφάσε ὥπα
ἐςσίν (18g)
V19 introduced by asyndeton is characterised by the preposition ἐξ and compounds
thereof and by the juxtaposition of lsquous-themrsquo language (which in 19a-d follows the pattern
us-them them-us us-them them-us)
Vv18-19 distinguish the three primary parties in 1 John This lsquous-themrsquo divisive
motif is in contrast to the unity formed by the verbs ἀκούψ and γινώςκψ in 18 c and f both
modifying the same γίνομαι By using 2nd plural for one and 1st plural for the other the
author forges a connection between himself and his readers and then goes on to
distinguish the Separatists as a third distinct group which is not the same as either ldquousrdquo or
ldquoyourdquo It is this interplay between the three groups which links vv18-19 together Prior to
218-19 the separatists have not been explicitly identified There are hints that there are
some acting in a heterodox manner (eg 16 8 and 10) but this is not made explicit until
70 Commentators differ over the historical background of the Johannine corpus precisely who is
writing to whom and about whom are debated It is beyond the scope of this essay to attempt to resolve these
issue Nevertheless most agree that there are three primary parties in 1 John the author (possibly the apostle
John) the orthodox believers (often referred to as lsquothe Johannine communityrsquo) and the heterodox teachers
(termed lsquoseparatistsrsquo or lsquosecessionistsrsquo) This vocabulary is used throughout the paper to distinguish these
parties without intending to make a firm stance regarding the specific historical context
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
28
now In the following units this party comes more into focus while the authorrsquos primary
goal seems still to be to exhort the Johannine community to right belief and behaviour
220-27
220-27 form the next (and comparatively large) unit It is distinguished from its
surrounding context by a double inclusio of φπίςμα (20a and 27b f) and ἔγπαχα ὑμιν (21a
26) Within those outer markers there are a number of word clusters οἴδασε (20b 21b c)
ἀπνέομαι (22b e 23a) and μένψ (24b c f also 27c and j) Also present are the contrastive
concepts of truth lies and deception
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
29
The text inside the inclusio breaks into two groups of three cola (ie vv22-23 and
vv24-25) The first group is characterized by oblique third person references to those who
either confess or deny (emphasized by the antonyms ἀπνέομαι and ὁμολογέψ) either the
Father or the Son71 Each of the three cola are introduced with asyndeton
The second group of cola (vv24-25) also introduced by asyndeton shifts to refer
repeatedly to the readers with second person pronouns and verb endings what they heard
and what they should do The first two cola introduced by ὑμεῑρ and καὶ ὑμεῑρ are arranged
chiastically ὃ ἠκούςασε ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ (24a) ⫽ ἐν ὑμῖν μενέσψ (24b) ⫽ hellip ἐν ὑμῖν μείνῃ (24c) ⫽ ὃ
ἀπ᾽ ἀπφῆρ ἠκούςασε (24d)
The third colon within this second group v25 proves to be a slight anomaly It is
coordinately conjoined to 24a-d and e-f by καί Yet v25 boasts the only two uses of words
from the ἐπαγγ root in 1 John72 and their situation in this context is difficult to explain
with certainty although the preceding future tense-form of μένψ may be significant73 Also
possibly significant is the use of the feminine near demonstrative pronoun αὕση The form
occurs 9 times in 1 John74 each time with a conjunction (usually καί (times6) but also γάπ (times1)
and ὅσι (times2)) ἐςσίν and a definite agreeing singular noun Masculine (times5) and neuter (times21)
forms of the demonstrative do not follow such a strict pattern
V26 closes the γπάυψ inclusio V27 is a complex verse and brings this unit to a close
The double use of φπῖςμα and μένψ and the continuation of 2nd person references tie it
tightly to the preceding verses The οἶδα word cluster of vv20-21 is replaced with the
correlated word group διδάςκψ (27e f i)
Precisely where this unit ends is debated Culy Smalley and Yarbrough divide
between 229 and 3175 Lieu and Law between vv28 and 29 (v29 starts the 2nd major cycle for
Law)76 and most others between vv27 and 2877 Both UBS4 and NA27 agree with the
majority78 and given the abovementioned features most notably the φπῖςμα inclusio a
break should be taken between vv27 and 28 It is also possible that complexity of the 27d-j
71 See LampN domains 33275 and 277 72 Indeed the only occurrences in the entire Johannine corpus 73 Yarbrough 1-3 John 160-61 See Table IV row 1 for data on future indicative verbs 74 15 225 311 23 and a concentration of occurrences in chapter 5 vv3 4 9 11 14 75 Culy A Handbook 62 Yarbrough 1-3 John 173 Smalley 1 2 3 John 139 76 Law Tests 11 Lieu Commentary 116 77 Brown Epistles 417-18 Bruce The Epistles of John 31 Burge Letters 143 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 65
Marshall Epistles 164-65 Stott Letters 120 78 The UBS discourse segmentation apparatus shows other versions vary
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
30
the final exhortation to μένεσε and the bracketing of ἀληθέρ and χεῦδορ in between
διδάςκψ verbs serve as a closing climax to the unit
228-32
Despite the section break at 227 the next unit (228-32) is tied to the preceding verses by a
tail-head link of the verb μένψ79 Yet these verses are separated off by the inclusio of ἐὰν
υανεπψθῇ in 228b and 32f and by the repetition verbs of lsquoknowingrsquo (229a c 31d e 32e)80
These verses introduce for the first time the concepts of familial relationship with
God81 Γεννάψ occurs first in 229d and thereafter in 392 47 513 4 182 Similarly 31b sees
the first use of the phrase (σὰ) σέκνα (σοῦ) θεοῦ (cf 32 10 52) Another primary theme of
these verses is the future This theme is highlight by the mention of Christrsquos appearing
and also by the triple use of indicative future verbs within one verse ἐςόμεθα (2d g) and
ὀχόμεθα (2h)
79 This tail-head link gives the μένψ cluster three occurrences spread over two verses cf 224 80 See LampN 281 and 287 81 Cf Smalley 1 2 3 John 134
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
31
33-12
33 is linked to the preceding verses by the demonstrative of 33a which refers back to the
hope of being like Christ and seeing him when he returns82 Nevertheless vv3-12
demonstrate considerable internal structure which suggests that they should be seen as a
distinct unit83 These verses break into two halves (vv3-6 and 8-10) with v7 acting as a
central pivot84 Each of the two halves parallel one other with four corresponding cola The
82 Culy A Handbook 70 83 Given this close connection with 228-32 the term sub-unit may be more appropriate 84 This is technically an inclusio with large parallel units at each end rather than simply a word or
phrase as expected
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
32
first (3ab and 7bc) hold up Jesus as the believersrsquo example to follow (seen in the repeated
phrase καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ hellip ἐςσιν) The second cola in each half (4 and 8ab) highlight the
nature and severity of sin (linking sin with ldquolawlessnessrdquo and the work of the devil)85 5ac
and 8cd both present the purpose of Christrsquos coming as to destroy sin (ie the work of the
devil) Both cola use υανεπόψ with an ἵνα purpose clause Finally v6 and v9 parallel one
another by outlining the believers responsibility not to sin (based on sinrsquos severity and
Christrsquos mission to abolish it)86
In between these two parallel units stands v7 which is best understood as the
authorsrsquo reason for repeating the same ideas twice He is eager that his readers have a right
view of sin its severity and its relation to both Christ and the believer Thus he emphasises
that they should not be deceived Possibly some heterodox Christians were trying to
lsquocorrectrsquo the readersrsquo present understanding of sin
The entries in BDF and BDAG are used by many to claim that the ὅσι starting v11 is
equivalent to γάπ and is only loosely connected to what has gone before87 Although there
may be evidence for such a usage two important factors need to be noted
Firstly neither BDF nor BDAG cite this verse as an example of such a loose
connection Rather 314 is cited which does not seem to be a suitable example as both ὅσι
clauses in this verses can be accounted for without appealing to an unusual sense of ὅσι
The first ὅσι clause (314b) introduces a nominal clause acting as the object of ὄιδασε while
the second ὅσι introduces a cause clause giving the cause of such knowledge88
Secondly there are no comparable uses of ὅσι in 1 John Rather it seems that the
author uses ὅσι to introduce either causal or contentnominal clauses and prefers καί for
forging loose connections between units89 Furthermore it is questionable whether 311 is
intended to mirror 15 when there is not an identical clause structure90
85 For other NT connections between ἀνομία and the devil see Matt 723 1341 2328 2412 2 Cor 64 2
Thess 23 7 86 The absolute terms in which verses 6 9 and 10 call believers to a life free from sin have been widely
debated See Marshall Epistles 178-84 for a responsible treatment of the various options 87 Brown Epistles 440 Marshall Epistles 188-89 esp n1 F Blass and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the
New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (trans Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press
1961) 238 Walter Bauer et al A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(3rd ed London Chicago University Press 2000) 732 88 Culy A Handbook 84 89 See comments above regarding Brownrsquos proposal for further discussion 90 See comment on 225
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
33
Therefore vv10 and 11 form a conclusion to vv3-9 V10 summarises the preceding
verses by way of a two-part contrast (sons of God and sons of the devil) Vv11-12 further
qualify this contract by emphasising that love of one another is fundamental to Christian
teaching and pointing to Cain as an negative example Vv10-12 are tied together by
repetition of ἀγαπάψ references to other Christians (ἀδελυόρ ἀλλήλψν) and use of δικ
roots at the beginning and end (10b and 12e) 11b boasts the final occurrence of the
prepositional phrase ἀπrsquo ἀπφῆρ (cf 11 27 13 14 242 38)
3 7bc
καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ ἁγνόρ ἐςσιν καθὼρ ἐκεῖνορ δίκαιόρ ἐςσιν
4 8ab
Πᾶρ ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν καὶ σὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ
ὁ ποιῶν σὴν ἁμαπσίαν ἐκ σοῦ διαβόλοτ ἐςσίν
5 8cd
ἐκεῖνορ ἐυανεπώθη ἵνα σὰρ ἁμαπσίαρ ἄπῃ
ἐυανεπώθη ὁ τἱὸρ σοῦ θεοῦ ἵνα λύςῃ σὰ ἔπγα σοῦ διαβόλοτ
6 9
πᾶρ ὁ ἐν αὐσῷ μένψν οὐφ ἁμαπσάνει
Πᾶρ ὁ γεγεννημένορ ἐκ σοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαπσίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
7a Τεκνία μηδεὶρ πλανάσψ ὑμᾶρ
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
34
313-20
The mention of Cain and his treatment of his brother in the immediately preceding verses
gives rise to the exhortation of 31391 Abel was hated by Cain and subsequently murdered
because of his righteous deeds ndash Johnrsquos readers should expect a similar fate This
connection of thought then leads the author to introduce an ἀνθπψποσόνορ cluster (as
synonymous with the ideas of death hating and not loving) in 15a and c
The two occurrences of ὅιδα in 14a and 15b tie the first part of this unit together in
which the readers are urged to love one another Two parallel negative examples are given
each introduced by an articular nominative singular participle (14d and 15a)92 μὴ ἀγαπῶν
and μιςῶν are used as synonyms The general theme of these verses is death and is
emphasised by repetition θανάσοτθανάσῳἀνθπψποκσόνορἀνθπψποκσόνορ
91 Lieu Commentary 146 92 For similar constructions see 24 6 9 10 23 29 33 4 6 7 8 24 46 7 16 21 512 52 10 12 And for
occurrences with a negated participle see 3102 48 510 12
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
35
A second verb of knowing (γινώςκςψ) is used in 16a to introduce a second part of
the unit Here in contrast a positive example is given in Christrsquos sacrifice As Christ gave
up his χτφή (16ab) so too believers should imitate him (16cd)
Vv17 and 18 provide two closing challenges to the readers the relationship between
love of God and of their brothers (v17)93 and love as a practical reality not merely a verbal
notion (note the semantically connected λόγῳ and γλώςςῃ in 18 c and d)94 V18 only has
one hortatory subjunctive (18b) but is emphatically implied in clauses c and d
It is possible that vv19-20 are to be connected with the following section given the
initial καί95 However there is stronger evidence that these verses should be seen as part of
the conclusion to this unit Firstly given the unusual future verb96 the ἐν σούσῳ phrase
acts like a result clause of the preceding subjunctives Secondly the inclusio of γινώςκψ
(19a and 20c) And thirdly the tail-head link with v21a using καπδία and κασαγινώκςψ
321-24
In addition to the reasons given above for linking 19-20 with 13-18 another feature of 21-24
support this conclusion Within these verses God is introduced with the noun θεόρ in 21b
93 The vocabulary (βιόρ and κοςμόρ) is reminiscent of 215-17 94 LampN 33F 95 Metzger Textual Commentary 642-43 Also note 23 begins with a similar phrase and 15 220 28 33
13 all begin units with καί There is also a possible parallel with v24 which closes the next unit although the
verb there is present rather than future 96 Cf 224 343 192 5162
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
36
Thereafter the noun is not used and God is only referred to by pronouns (22b c d 23a b
24a b) and a two verb endings (24d f)
The cola of this unit are tightly jointed together by the use of conjunctions After the
initial vocative a 3rd class conditional clause is asyndetically introduced (21ab) This is then
immediately followed by a second conditional clause introduced by καί Following these
two parallel conditionals are three parallel cola each introduced with καί
These verses see the reappearance (cf 23-8) of the vocabulary of keeping (22b 24a)
commandments (22c 23a d 24a) The double use of σηπέψ acts as an inclusio between 22b-d
and 24ab This then splits this units into 3 sections v21 vv22-24d and 24c-f
24e has 1 Johnrsquos first occurrence of πνεῦμα which forms a tail-head link with the
next section (41-6)97
Summary of sect212-324
This large section of 1 John is made up of 8 individual units Most of the units are easily
identifiable others can be delimited by the preceding and following units Precisely how
these eight units tie together is unclear Nevertheless there are a number of distinct
features Firstly the majority of occurrences of μένψ are between 215 and 32498 Secondly
as mentioned above 324 introduces a new participant into 1 John the πνεῦμα who is
absent beforehand but recurring thereafter Conversely the noun θεόρ only occurs times12 in
this section but times28 in 41-521 References to ἀνσίφπιςσορ mainly occur within this
section99 whereas mention of ζψη occurs mainly outside100
97 Other occurrences 412 22 3 62 13 562 8 98 Within this section μένψ occurs at 214 17 29 243 272 28 36 9 14 15 17 242 Outside this section
μένψ occurs only in 26 and one cluster in 412-16 99 2182 22 (also 43) 100 11 22 5112 122 13 16 20 Only 225 and 314 15 within this section
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
37
sect41-6
41-6 enjoy an unusual harmony amongst Johannine scholars as it is almost universally
agreed upon that these verses form one complete part101 The verses form one section
which is made up of two halves (vv1-3 and vv4-6) The section is held together by the
repetition of πνεῦμα102 κόςμορ and repeated references to the Antichrist (χετδοππουήσηρ
(1e) ἀνσίφπιςσορ (3d) αὐσόρ (4b) and probably πλάνη (6e)) There is also an inclusio
focussing on the two types of πνεῦμα where the noun is used in two immediate parallel
clauses 41bc introduce the reader to the idea that there is more than one type of spirit and
so not all spirits are to be uncritically believed103 The section and inclusio ends in 46de
101 Brown Epistles 501-02 Johnson 1 2 and 3 John 93 Marshall Epistles 203 Smalley 1 2 3 John 216 Cf
Yarbrough 1-3 John 219-30 102 Πνεῦμα occurs 12 times in 1 John times7 in these verses elsewhere 324 413 and a cluster at 562 8 103 Commentators and translators disagree about how πνεῦμα and πιςσεύψ are to be translated in this
passage The issue is beyond the scope of this essay and so simple glosses are used without any attempt to
address or settle the matter
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
38
where the two spirits are explicitly named as σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ ἀληθείαρ and σὸ πνεῦμα σῆρ
πλάνηρ The test of a true spirit is tied to its relationship with Christ (vv2-3)104
A further feature which ties these verses together is the stark contrast to the
previous unit (which closed the preceding section) whereby reference to Θεόρ is by the
noun exclusively with no pronominal references (cf above on 321-24)
The two parts which make up this section are distinguished and divided by a
number of factors Firstly each has a vocative at the start (ἀγαπησοί in 41 and σεκνία in
46) Secondly despite the inclusio there is no reference to πνεῦμα in vv4-5 whereas 2nd
person references are frequent in vv4-5 but rare in vv1-3 Thirdly verbs based on ἐπφόμαι
occur three times in the first part but not once in the second Such verbs are only used in 1
John to refer to the secessionists105 In contrast the word κοςμόρ only appears twice in vv1-
4 but four times in vv4-6
sect47-54a
The next major section of 1 John begins at 47 and continues through to 54a This large unit
is made up of 3 units and is held together by a number of cohesive factors which span from
beginning to end
47-11
104 It is note worthy that here the writer uses μή ὁμολογεῖ instead of ἀπνέομια This is undoubtedly for
the purpose of parallelism but it is significant that ἀπνέομια is only used in 222 and 23 105 218 41 2 3 56 is the only exception but here the verb appears as an articular nominative
participle as with λέγψ in 24 6 9
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
39
The first unit of this section is separated by strong structural cohesion 47-11 from a
chiastic A B B` A` pattern Each AA` section is introduced by the vocative Ἀγαπησοί (7a and
11a) while the BB` sections start with ἐν σούσῳ (9a and 10a) Sections A and A` mirror
each other with their repeated charge to love one another (ἀλλήλψν 7a and 11c) The BB`
sections parallel each other by highlighting Godrsquos demonstrative act of love Both cola use
Jesusrsquo death as the ultimate example of love and use the verb ἀποςσέλλψ to describe the
event
412-16
The start of this unit is determined by asyndeton introducing a stark new concept and also
by the end of the previous chiastic structure These verses are characterised by a number of
cohesive and parallel features Firstly the idea of ldquoGod being in x and x being in Godrdquo is
repeated three times (13bc 15cd and 16fg)
Secondly vv14 and 16 also seem to parallel one another Both verses begin with καὶ
ἡμεῖρ and are followed by two καὶ conjoined verbs (either perfect or present in tense-form)
the first of which in each case is a verb of either sensory perception or mental activity
(θεάομαι and γινώςκψ)106 and the second an active verb related to the writerrsquos response to
106 Note also the repetition of θεάομαι in 12a and 14a
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
40
their perception (μαπστπέψ and πιςσεύψ) Following both pairs of parallel verbs there is a
single object (a nominal clause in 14c and a noun in 16c) which ambiguously could be the
object of either the writerrsquos perception or his response or more likely both
These two parallelisms give this unit an A B A` B` A`` structure which is confirmed
by the position of the verb μένψ in these verses Μένψ occurs in each of the A sections
(13b 15c and as a cluster in 16e f and g) but not in the B sections (vv14 or 16)
13bc A ὅσι ἐν αὐσῷ μένομεν καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν ἡμῖν
14ab B καὶ ἡμεῖρ σεθεάμεθα καὶ μαπστποῦμεν
15cd A` ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει καὶ αὐσὸρ () ἐν σῷ θεῷ
16ab B` καὶ ἡμεῖρ ἐγνώκαμεν καὶ πεπιςσεύκαμεν
16fg A`` ἐν σῷ θεῷ μένει καὶ ὁ θεὸρ ἐν αὐσῷ μένει
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
41
417-54a
417-54a are marked off by the repetition of ἐν σούσῳ phrases at the beginning and end
(417a and 52a) similarly so with κοςμόρ (417d and 54a) Within this inclusio are a number
of cola which demonstrate their own word clusters Firstly v18 has the only four
occurrences of words from the υοβ root Similarly 51 has three occurrences of γεννάψ
and 52 has three occurrences of ἐνσολή A fourth word cluster spans vv17 and 18 ndash the use
of σελειόψ (17a 18b d)
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
42
There are three possibilities for the location of the end of the unit (and section)
Firstly some take 545107 This case is argued on the change of theme from 54 onwards as
the vocabulary of love falls away and the focus shifts onto Christology In favour of a break
here is the presence of δέ in postpositive position at the start of 55 Although the
conjunction is textually disputed it is supported by a number of manuscripts If the
conjunction is original then it suggests that a new section starts at 55 which is in some way
distinct from the preceding material108 An alternative is to break at 556 This view is not
held by any major commentators but is a possibility as demonstrated by the text of UBS4
Asyndeton at the start of 56 as well as the more definite change in focus onto the person of
Christ could be cited as reasons for a break here A final option is a break between 54a and
b Brown holds this position and argues that the change in topic actually occurs halfway
through verse 4
Although all three options are valid Brownrsquos position is the most satisfactory for a
number of reasons Firstly 54a is syntactically joined to 53 by its initial ὅσι and 53 is the
last verse to contain any ἀγαπ roots Secondly a break between 54a and b forges two
strong tail-head links (δικ roots (54a b2 5a) and κοςμόρ (54a b c)) Finally linking 54b-5
with the following section makes a better connection with 56 which begins with οὗσόρ
Summary of sect47-54a
The most notable cohesive feature is the lexical ties provided by the repetition of ἀγαπ
roots which occur times32 in this section (19 verses) and only times14 in the rest of the book109
Other than the vocative ἀγαπησόρ in 41 ἀγαπ roots do not occur in the immediately
preceding section and they cease entirely after this section Similarly although the proper
noun θεόρ is common throughout 1 John it occurs with considerable density in these
verses (times27)
The two verses immediately before and after this section both collocate πνεῦμα
ἀλήθεια (46d and 56e) possibly suggesting a deliberate absence of πνεῦμα language in this
section
107 Smalley 1 2 3 John xxxiv 273 Marshall Epistles 26 230 Burge Letters 45 200 108 Levinsohn Discourse Features 85-90 Although it should be noted that Levinsohnrsquos work is focussed
on the Gospels and narrative genre and not 1 John specifically It does not seem that conjunctions perform
exactly the same roles in 1 John as elsewhere (eg καί is used to start units and sections) 109 This count excludes the vocative ἀγαπησοί
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
43
sect54b-12
56-12 is delimited as a unit primarily by its unique vocabulary These six verses contain the
only 10 occurrences of words from the μαπστπ root in 1 John They also boast the only
occurrences of ὔδψπ and the majority of uses of αἵμα110 Similarly the ἀγαπ vocabulary so
concentrated in the preceding section has now disappeared regardless of whether the unit
break is at 54 or 5 (see above)
As mentioned above this unit beings with two tail-head links νικ and κοςμόρ and
the introduction of πιςσ roots (which are picked up again in v10) The demonstrative
οὐσόρ beginning v6 is clarified both by its antecedent in 5c and by the appositional Ἰηςοῦρ
Χπιςσόρ As Χπιςσόρ is introduced early in the unit so is θεόρ (5c) but both are absent from
the middle section of the unit (6d-8d) where the focus is on the tree testimonies to Jesus
spirit water and blood Χπιςσόρ and θεόρ reappear in the second half of the unit (vv9-12) as
110 The only other occurrence being 17
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
44
the testimony is emphatically and climactically announced in 11a The precise logical of the
authorrsquos argument in 6d to 11a is difficult to follow Smalley helpfully summarises the
options111
The additional text added to vv78 in some versions is most likely unoriginal and is
there excluded112 If the material was deemed to be original it would not greatly alter the
structure of these verses but would expand the ὅσι clause of 7a with additional
prepositional phrases
In addition to the μαπστπ roots mentioned above vv10-12 contain two other
clusters πιςσεύψ (10a b and c) and ζψή (11b c 12a b) One again there is a tail-head link to
the next section (see ζψή in 513c)
111 Smalley 1 2 3 John 280-91 112 Metzger Textual Commentary 647-49
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
45
sect513-21
The final section of 1 John is commonly regarded as beginning at 513 While this division is
a distinct possibility it is also possible that v13 is more closely connected with what
precedes and v14 begins the conclusion113 If v14 started a new unit then the two final
sections of 1 John would have very similar introductions114 However the tail head link and
113 See 319 and 54 for other verses which could either end one unit or start another 114 Cf treatment of 225
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
46
the observation that v13a is the first appearance of γπαυψ since 226 (and the final
appearance of the book) suggests that v13 introduces the closing section115
As with a number of other units this final section boasts some unique vocabulary
Other than 322 514 and 15 contain the only αισ roots These are coupled with the double
use of ἀκούψ (14d 15b) 16a-18b contain a large cluster of ἁμαπσ roots and the only other
occurrences of θανασόρ (cf 3142)
This final section has six occurrences of οἶδα (more than any other unit) There are
three parallel οἶδα clauses (vv18 19 and 20) which draw this unit to a close and seem to
bring together a number of themes from this and other units the relation between those
born of God (γεννάψ) and sin (ἁμαπσάνψ) (cf ch3) the connection of the devil (πονηπόρ)
with the world (κοςμόρ) (cf ch2) and the giving of understanding (cf 220ff)
1 John finishes with the two enigmatic independent clauses The first is reminiscent
of 56 due to its initial οὑσόρ referring to Christ The second is widely debated and its
connection to what precedes is not clear Φτλάςςψ and εἴδψλον are unique terms in 1
John
115 Longacre ldquo1 Johnrdquo 277
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
47
Conclusions
From the analysis presented above a number of conclusions can be drawn Firstly 1 John
asserts its own boundaries and divisions It has been possible through careful attention to
the text and its discourse features to determine at which points the author intended a unit
to begin or end
Secondly the temptation to insist that 1 John breaks into parts that a 21st century writer
finds acceptable should be resisted Allowing 1 John to divide itself means that some of the
results of such an analysis as this are unsatisfactory This is the nature of dealing with
ancient texts from a culture alien to our own Scholars writers and commentators who
treat 1 John need (and ought) not to divide 1 John based on what they perceive to be the
primary divisions of the letter
Thirdly the text of 1 John divide itself into 7 sections and 18 units 114 are an introduction
to the letter as a whole 15-211 form one section comprised of three units (15-22 23-6
27-11) Each of these units makes a stark theological claim which is then elucidated with
both positive and negative practical scenarios The lack of lightdarkness motif after 211
and the dramatic change of style at 212 indicates that 211 marks the end of a major
section 212 starts a new unit which continues to 324 containing the majority of the book
(8 units) 41-6 is separated off as a unit by its treatment of πνεῦμα 47-54a are a section
(three units) characterised by ἀγαπ roots Finally 513-21 form a conclusion to the book
with closing encouragements and exhortations
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
48
11-4
15-211
15-10 21-2 23-6 27-11
212-324
212-14 215-17 218-19 220-27 228-32 33-12 313-20 321-24
41-6
47-54a 47-11 412-16 417-54a
54b-12
513-21
Fourthly to form this structure the author uses a variety of literary techniques and
discourse features to subtly divide his text He makes repeated use of chiasm inclusio
parallelism lexical repetition word-clusters and tail-head links to indicate to his readers
where he is starting or ending unit Such discourse features are often disguised by English
translations
Finally there is more work to be done in 1 John Having determined where section and unit
boundaries lie there is a need to study the content of each to determine its theme There
has not been space in this paper to tackle this issue adequately In this connection there
are still numerous discourse features which although mentioned here have not been
exhaustively dealt with For instance why does the γπάυψ permanently switch its case
between 213 and 14 Why is θεὸρ sometimes referred to with a noun and sometimes with a
pronoun There are also undoubtedly factors what have eluded observation in this essay
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
49
Bibliography
Bauer Walter Frederick William Danker William T Arndt and F Wilbur Gingrich A Greek-
English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature 3d ed London
Chicago University Press 2000
Blass F and A Debrunner A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature Translated by Robert W Funk London Chicago University Press 1961
Blomberg Craig ldquoThe Structure of 2 Corinthians 1-7rdquo Criswell Theological Review 4 no 1
(1998) 3-20
Brooke A E The Johannine Epistles International Critical Commentary Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1912
Brown Raymond E The Epistles of John Vol 30 Anchor Bible London Doubleday 1982
Bruce F F The Epistles of John Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1992
Burdick Donald W The Epistles of John Chicago Moody Press 1970
Burge Gary M Letters of John The NIV Application Commentary Grand Rapids Zondervan
1996
Callow John ldquoWhere Does 1 John 1 Endrdquo Pages 391-406 in Discourse Analysis and the New
Testament Approaches and Results Edited by Stanley E Porter and Jeffrey T Reed
Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Sheffield Sheffield
Academic Press 1999
Coombes Malcolm ldquoA Different Approach to the Structure of 1 Johnrdquo No pages Cited 19
March 2010 Online
httpwwwacueduau__dataassetspdf_file0008197648Coombes_Structure_1
Johnpdf
Cotterell Peter and Max Turner Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation Downers Grove IVP
1998
Culy Martin M I II III John A Handbook on the Greek Text Waco Baylor 2004
Erickson Richard J A Beginners Guide to New Testament Exegesis Taking the Fear Out of Critical
Method Downers Grove IVP 2005
Guthrie George The Structure of Hebrews a text-linguistic analysis Brill 1994
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
50
Haas C M De Jonge and J L Swellengrebel A Translators Handbook on the Letters of John
Helps for Translators London United Bible Societies 1972
Hansford Keir L ldquoThe Underlying Poetic Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Journal of Translation and
Textlinguistics 5 no 2 (1992) 126-174
Haring Theodor ldquoGedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johannesbriefsrdquo Pages
171-200 in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker gewidmet Edited by Adolf
von Harnack Freiburg Mohr 1892
Harris III W Hall 1 23 John - Comfort and Counsel for the Church in Crisis Dallas Biblical
Studies 2003
Harvey John D Listening to the Text Oral Patterning in Pauls Letters ETS Studies Leicester
IVP 1998
Johnson Thomas F 1 2 and 3 John New International Biblical Commentary Carlisle
Paternoster 1995
Kruse Colin G The Letters of John The Pillar New Testament Commentary Leicester
Apollos 2000
Law Robert The Tests of Life A Study of the First Epistle of St John 2nd ed Edinburgh T amp T
Clark 1909
Levinsohn Stephen H Discourse Features of New Testament Greek 2nd ed Dallas SIL
International 2000
Lieu Judith M I II amp III John A Commentary The New Testament Library Louisville
Westminster John Knox 2008
Longacre Robert ldquoTowards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the
Greek Textrdquo Pages 271-86 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on
Discourse Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H
Levinsohn Nashville Broadman 1992
Louw Johannes P and Eugene A Nida eds Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on
Semantic Domains 2 vols 2d ed New York United Bible Societies 1989
Marshall I Howard The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New
Testament Grand Rapids Eerdmans 1978
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008
51
Metzger Bruce M A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 2d ed Stuttgart
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2002
Sherman Grace E and John C Tuggy A Semantic and Structural Analysis of the Johannine
Epistles Dallas SIL International 1994
Smalley Stephen S 1 2 3 John Word Biblical Commentary Nashville Thomas Nelson 1984
Stott John The Letters of John 2d ed Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Leicester IVP
1990
Thomas John Christopher ldquoThe Literary Structure of 1 Johnrdquo Novum Testamentum 40 no 4
(1998) 369-381
Titrud Kermit ldquoThe Function of και in the Greek New Testament and an Application to 2
Peterrdquo Pages 240-70 in Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation Essays on Discourse
Analysis Edited by David Alan Black Katherine Barnwell and Stephen H Levinsohn
Nashville Broadman 1992
Yarbrough Robert W 1-3 John Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Grand
Rapids Baker 2008