Letters of John

This article, for the first time, analyzes one of Augustine’s sermons in order to find out to what extent he was acquainted with Mani and his teachings. Once again it turns out that the former Manichaean auditor was very well acquainted with Manichaean belief and practice. One piece of data in sermo 182, namely that Manichaeans could make polemical use of the expression Libera nos a malo in the Lord’s prayer, even seems to be unique.

By means of careful historical work and exegesis, Streett argues that the secession mentioned in 1 John did not have to do with a later complex Christological issue such as docetism, Cerinthianism, or a devaluation of the historical life/death of Jesus, but rather concerned the foundational belief in the Messiahship of Jesus, a tenet the secessionists had renounced in order to return to the Jewish synagogue. He critiques the common maximalistic mirror-reading approach to the letter as misguided, and contends that the letter is primarily pastoral, meant to comfort and reassure the community rather than to argue against the secessionists. Streett’s main contributions are his detailed examination of the ancient historical evidence (especially the Patristic evidence)  for the Johannine opponents, and his in-depth and innovative exegesis of the key opponent passages (1 Jn 2:18–27; 4:1–6; 5:6–12; 2 Jn 4–11).

[The Struggle for an Integral Christological Faith in the First Letter of John and the History of the Johannine Community]

The terminology of faith (pistis, pisteuo) in 1 John refers in one way or another to the problem of an orthodox Christology. 1 John appears to be a polemical writing, which aims at countering the ethical and Christological claims of the secessionist who at some point left the Johannine community. The present work leaves aside the attempts of previous exegetes to identify the secessionist with various ancient heterodox groups known from extra-biblical sources (e.g. Ebionites, Docetists, Gnostics etc.). Instead, the reading of the Johannine letters reveals that three main Christological claims – namely that Jesus is God, Jesus is Christ, and Jesus has come in the flesh – might be approached from pneumatological and anthropological angles. The secessionist believed that the role of Jesus was limited to announcing the outpouring of the Spirit, and that believers, having received the Spirit, possessed a status not much different from that of Jesus himself.

In this article, I seek to argue against the backdrop of Greco-Roman virtue ethics that for John a virtuous life of allegiance to Jesus, guided by the Spirit, leads to and expresses the ultimate moral good of participation in the divine life. Since some Johannine characters display aspects of this virtuous life, an agent-focused approach such as virtue ethics will prove useful. Without claiming that John intentionally draws on Greco-Roman virtue ethics, I use it heuristically to explore Johannine ethics. I will first explain Greco-Roman virtue ethics and show how it is a useful framework for understanding Johannine ethics. Next, I will explore the two components of Johannine virtue ethics—virtuous behavior and virtuous thinking. After that, I will show that John models virtue ethics to his audience primarily through the personal example of Jesus but also through other characters. Finally, I will suggest that the Spirit-indwelled community of faith promotes virtue ethics for its members.

Hans-Ulrich Weidemann, Das Kommen im Fleisch und die Wegnahme der Sünde. Christologie und Hamartologie in den Johannesbriefen, in: J. Frey / U. Poplutz (Eds.), Erzählung und Briefe im johanneischen Kreis (WUNT II/420), Tübingen 2016, 183–226.

Interpreters of the New Testament often assume that the portrait of Jesus as high priest is a definitive and unique characteristic of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Other interpreters, however, find traces of this priestly Christology in other writings in the New Testament. This article assesses the degree to which 1 John " gestures " to the priestly function of Jesus by portraying him as the definitive means of dealing with human sinfulness and as the one who intercedes in a priestly manner on behalf of humanity. In this article, I consider the manner in which 1 John presents the person and work of Jesus as God's way of dealing with human sinfulness. To be more specific, I attempt to evaluate the degree to which the portrait of Jesus in 1 John ascribes to him some sort of priestly function or describes his work in priestly terms. I take as my point of departure an earlier article by Harold Attridge. In this article, Attridge assesses the legitimacy of the identification of Jesus' prayer in John 17 as a " high priestly prayer. " Attridge grounds his discussion in the recognition that contention about the priesthood was " in the air " among Jews and Christians in the first century CE. 2 This allows him to appreciate the ways that John 17 " gestures " toward the priestly function of Jesus:

Previous studies argue that the Elder composed the letter to recommend Demetrius to Gaius, and that Third John therefore falls into the “letter of recommendation” genre. After assessing the differences between common letters of recommendation and Third John, this study examines the rhetoric of Third John
in an attempt to show that it is not a letter of recommendation, but rather an epideictic rhetorical attempt to restore the Elder’s honor (discredited by Diotrephes) in Gaius’ eyes and persuade him to detach himself from Diotrephes’ reprehensible behavior by extending hospitality to the Elder’s envoys.