list for suggestions.4 Bible Handbooks. The information found in a Bible handbook will be similar to what is found in many study Bibles, only it will lack the biblical text.
5 Bible Commentaries. These resources offer more detailed exegetical explanations and interpretation of the actual text. They range from one-volume to multiple volumes. For the New Testament, I would recommend purchase of The People’s New Testament Commentary written by Fred Craddock and Eugene Boring. In purchasing commentaries, it is best to stay away from sets such as Matthew Henry or Jameson, Fawcett, and Brown. These were written several centuries ago and lack the kinds of historical and linguistic information you will need for deeper study. They can have some devotional value, but they can be found online.
When it comes to comparing passages, you will find your study Bible, concordance, and any Bible with reference notes to be very useful. Remember, however, that even the cross-references are just someone’s opinion of how one passage is related to another. You don’t have to agree. Look at the passages yourself, and ask not just whether they are related, but how they are related.
Remember to keep an open mind and a receptive heart while studying the Bible. Study prayerfully. Meditate on what you read. Try to place yourself in the audience of people who might have first heard this book read to them aloud in a small house church.
1 Energion Publications offers a pamphlet with an outline of this study process and a list of resources. It is titled I Want to Study the Bible, and can be found on the site https://participatorystudyseries.com or on https://energiondirect.com. It is available in ebook formats as well as print.
Session 1
Introductory
Matters—
The Word of Life
Vision:
Participants will have the opportunity to address introductory matters, such as authorship, date, structure, and themes of the letters. They will also have the opportunity, to gain a sense of the core purpose of 1 John, by looking at the first four verses of the letter, and comparing this prologue with that of John 1:1-18.
Reading: 1 John 1:1-4; John 1:1-18
Please read the passage for the day in at least two different translations, a more formal translation, such as the NRSV, CEB, RSV, or NIV, and then read it again in a freer version or paraphrase such as The Message, Phillip’s, or The New Living Translation. As you read pay attention to images that warrant further exploration. If you have access to the internet, Bible Gateway allows you to read the passage in parallel form.
Lesson:
Authorship and Context:
It is usually appropriate to begin an introductory lesson by looking at questions of authorship, context, and destination. When a piece of literature is supposed to be a letter, we look to the opening lines for some hint as to the identity of the author, as well as the identity of the recipient. We would also try to identify the context out of which the document emerged. The three letters attributed to a person named John pose difficulties in this regard. First, regarding the genre, while 2 and 3 John have the markings of a letter, the same cannot be said for 1 John. The first “letter” does not identify the author or context. Instead, it opens with a prologue (1 John 1:1-4), much like the Gospel of John. Therefore, while we will speak of this document as a letter, we do so cautiously.
Both 2 and 3 John will have their own chapters, at which time we will look more closely at the questions of authorship, date, genre, and context of those letters. I will note here, however, that these two “letters” do not offer much information as to the identity of the author, the recipient, or the date of its composing. The only identifier we find in the letters is the word “Elder” (Gk. Presbuteros). Regarding the date of their composition, the only letter with early attestation is 1 John. Questions continued to be raised about the authenticity of both 2 and 3 John as late as the fourth century.
Tradition has long linked these letters to the author of the Gospel of John, and the similarities in vocabulary and style are noticeable. There are differences as well. Whether they have the same author, there are sufficient similarities among the documents to assume that they form what some scholars have termed a “Johannine canon.” That is, even if they do not share the same author, there are enough similarities to suggest that the Gospel and the Letters emerged out of the same community. As we progress through the letters, we will want to be alert to themes and ideas that are found both in the Gospel and the letters.
Despite the lack of either internal or external evidence for determining authorship, tradition has attributed the authorship of the Gospel and Letters to the Apostle John. The author of 2 and 3 John simply identifies himself as the presbuteros or elder, while 1 John remains a completely anonymous book. However, for the purposes of our study, we will refer to the author as John. This does not mean that I am taking a position on the identity of the author, it’s simply easier to use this designation for the author.
Since we lack any identifying authorial marks in the letter, we can take note of its use by the early church. The earliest attestation of 1 John is found in Polycarp’s “Letters to the Philippians,” which offers echoes of what we read in 1 John. That evidence dates to around 135 CE. Eusebius records the words of Papias, who was active in the early second century, referring to the “former letter of John and that of Peter.” What is intriguing, is if this is truly from Papias, it would precede any known reference to the Gospel of John. The next evidence comes around 180, when we find Irenaeus quoting from both 1 and 2 John in Against Heresies. In using these letters, Irenaeus attributes them to the son of Zebedee, the disciple of Jesus, and author of the Gospel. Thus, by the third century 1 John was considered an authoritative text. As for the letters, their status remained uncertain at best for some time. The first reference to 3 John does not appear until the mid-third century, and the scriptural status of both 2 and 3 were still being questioned in the fourth century.2
When it comes to the authorship of 1 John, questions center on its relationship to the Gospel. There are some signs that it could have been written prior to the Gospel, since the letter is less polished than the gospel and the theology seems to be more primitive than the Gospel. On the other hand, there are also signs of dependence on the Gospel by the letter writer. There is no definitive proof either way, but most scholars believe that the Gospel is prior to the letter. One possibility is that the letters depended on an earlier version of the Gospel, rather than the finished product. That would explain the letter’s more primitive theology, as well as the signs of the letter’s dependence on the Gospel. With that in mind, most scholars date the letter to around 100 CE, while the Gospel would have been written around 90 CE.
Not only is the authorship and date of composition uncertain, the same is true for the location of the receiving community. The connection with Polycarp, the earliest attestation, suggests that the letter emerged in Asia Minor or modern Turkey, though some scholars have suggested Palestine or Syria as a point of origin. Ultimately none of this can be verified.
There is a hint to the nature of the authorship with the word “we,” and the reference to having seen and touched the Word of Life. That claim suggests a direct connection to Jesus, which would make sense if the author was the Apostle John. An alternative answer, and one that makes better sense of approximate date and possible context, is that the author(s) are the bearers of a tradition that has direct lineage to the Apostles and thus to Jesus. As Raymond Brown suggests, these would be companions of the Beloved Disciple who figures prominently in the Gospel of John. There have been objections to this idea, but it makes sense of the context, and for our purposes we will adopt this view.3For our purposes, we will speak of the author as being John the Elder (even if not the
