“What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our {own} eyes, what we have beheld and our {own} hands have grasped, concerning the word of life – and life was manifest, and we have seen (notice the connection to the beginning) and we are testifying and are proclaiming to you the eternal life which was with the father and was manifest to us – what we have seen and heard we are proclaiming also to you, so that you might have fellowship with us.”
The writer is saying that he isn’t passing on his own message. He is passing on the message that is the same message that has been with Christians since the beginning {of their gospel}. It has nothing to do with “from the beginning of the world.” I think pre-existence is being read into this where it isn’t implied. It is implied, rather, in the phrase ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἐφανερώθη ἡμῖν. It is the “life” that was with the Father and made manifest. It doesn’t say anything directly about Jesus being there and then being made manifest. It is the message that is in mind here, the thing that John is trying to convey to his audience. Context really rules here. Jesus may be included in the life that was made manifest to the disciples, but that’s not the totality of what he’s conveying.
The entire message about life and about how to attain life, John says, was hidden with God but has been made known to the disciples “from the beginning” and only later was it given to those to whom John is writing.
That’s how I take the passage anyway (reading as an outsider).
Wuest? I don’t think I’ve ever come across a more complete set of eisegetical nonsense in all my reading. Wuest believed a lot of things that didn’t come from Greek grammar but rather from his own fancies. He’s definitely not the best person to pull off your shelf if you’re looking for an unbiased treatment of the meaning and implications of the grammar and syntax of the GNT.
Thanks for the heads up on Weust. Unfortunately my Kittel’s doesn’t offer a very detailed treatment of eimi. It seems to have more on the LXX than the New Testament ideas. Of course Exodus 3:14 seems to be the origin of this idea. Marshall doesn’t offer much on eimi either.
Who would you recommend for a good treatment of eimi?
You seem to suggest that the context must be considered here which I agree with fully. I believe that clear understanding of word usage helps one in the development of context.
After reviewing 413 verses using this form of eimi I see that the use of en can be understood from a point in time and doesn’t necessarily have to be an eternal concept.
Matthew 7:27 καὶ κατέβη ἡ βροχὴ καὶ ἦλθον οἱ ποταμοὶ καὶ ἔπνευσαν οἱ ἄνεμοι καὶ προσέκοψαν τῇ οἰκίᾳ ἐκείνῃ, καὶ ἔπεσεν καὶ ἦν ἡ πτῶσις αὐτῆς μεγάλη.
The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it fell–and great was its fall."
Matthew 8:30 ἦν δὲ μακρὰν ἀπ’ αὐτῶν ἀγέλη χοίρων πολλῶν βοσκομένη.
Now there was a herd of many pigs feeding far away from them.
That makes good sense. Thank you. I do think that verse 2 has a stronger reference to Jesus than you are saying but that doesn’t take away from the rest of your reasoning.
I don’t think I understand what you mean. Are you looking for an ancient document that says 1John is written against Gnostics?
The heresies of gnosticism are varied but mostly they stem from their dualistic views.
-The “Old Testament God” created the material, imperfect world. The “New Testament God” is superior and completely divine (more divine than the OT God?)
-The commandments don’t belong to the “new” gospel but are part of the imperfect OT. 1Jn 2:7 speaks against that. No new commandment but the same age old commandment.
-Commandments in general were part of the unnecessary old testament writings. Jesus did not give commandments but the apostles added them to Jesus’ teachings. The first verses speak against this already. The apostle speaks what he has heard and seen etc. He didn’t make it up.
-A special knowledge was necessary for salvation and commandments are not part of this. Not just everybody had this knowledge but only the most spiritual people. 1Jn 2:3-5 speaks wonderfully against this.
-Only these most elite, most spiritual people are sanctified. 1Jn 3:7 clearly opposes this.
There are other similar heresies that are refuted.
Clearly John also opposes other heretics; those who claim that Christ was not divine and human for instance.
I’m not sure if this is an answer to your question.
I don’t think I understand what you mean. Are you looking for an ancient document that says 1John is written against Gnostics?
It seems as if most commentators and scholars believe that Johns Epistle was written in response to the gnostic threat in the Church. We may find it helpful in our attempt to grasp the meaning of this letter if we had a basic understanding of the gnostic community.
Since my last post, I have discovered that the Gospel according to Judas was filled with this gnostic idea.I am contemplating picking up a copy. In the meantime I will do some research and post it here if it fits the profile of this letter.
I guess there was little interest in the possibility of a gnostic problem.
MAybe we should take a look at “περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς”. In light of the idea that the text deals more with the things about Christ how are we to understand “concerning the word of life”?
I have a copy of the Gospel of Judas and I have done some research on gnosticism:
the main idea of gnsoticism according to Bart D. Ehrman is that salvation is through some “secret knowledge” and not thorugh Christ or by works. Such secret knowledge is namely that of “our origins”, “how we ended up here” and “how we can get to heaven”, so to speak.
for Christians, salvation is through Christ=the Word of Life/the living Word
for gnostic christians, “secret knowledege” comes from “Christ, who reveals such knowledge to those chosen by him”
so having said all this, I guess I could say that the expression used by John “the word of life” refers to Christ and it could be formulated similarly to what a gnostic would say (message, word, and so on), but I think that as you read on, the meaning of the word of life is not that of a gnostic, but of Christ himself.
I guess that the fact that John may use some language similarly to the gnostic writers is what has brought some to say that this gospel/the writer of the gospel is a gnostic.
picking up a previous topic which is that of the meaning of “from the beginning” (v.1), I’d like to say that it is interesting to see that a similar expression is used in 2:7,13,14,24; 3: 8,11; 2Jn 5,6…some of which may not be referring to pre-existence (see Jason’s comments), but the christian community
having said all this, I guess I could say that the expression used by John “the word of life” refers to Christ and it could be formulated similarly to what a gnostic would say (message, word, and so on), but I think that as you read on, the meaning of the word of life is not that of a gnostic, but of Christ himself.
I guess that the fact that John may use some language similarly to the gnostic writers is what has brought some to say that this gospel/the writer of the gospel is a gnostic.
As I study 1 John, I am inclined towards the idea that this wasn’t a letter or a sermon but it was more likely an address. In other words I believe that the writer was addressing a specific group. I believe that the reason for this address was because this group of people(Christians) were being attacked by a gnostic group or groups. Since the gnostic idea was that Jesus wasn’t real seems to make sense here. We see three relative clauses in this introduction which could be understood as a refutation of that gnostic idea.
it does make sense to think that gnosticism is in the background of the whole discourse in the letter…do you think that perhaps there were even members of the christian community who were adopting so¡uch teachings? is there any evidence??
it does make sense to think that gnosticism is in the background of the whole discourse in the letter…do you think that perhaps there were even members of the Christian community who were adopting such teachings? is there any evidence??
Excellent Question. I haven’t run into that in any of my studies of 1 John but I am sure that we might stumble upon it as we move forward..
Just a quick question on a different idea. In verse 3 we see that the writer reversed the order of the events from verse 1.
Verse 1 we see “what we have heard and what we have seen”
Verse 3 we see “what we have seen and what we have heard”
Probably a trivial question. Just wonder why he might have done that and if it had any possible significance.
