Atonement And Ethics In 1 John PDF Download

Among biblical theologians who oppose violence, some seek a corresponding hermeneutic of non-violence grounded in the NT. Some refer to it more positively as a "peacemaking hermeneutic". I prefer this term for that reason. These interpreters, of varying theoretical standpoints, often use texts from 1 John as an "epistemology of love", to borrow René Girard's phrase, and of non-violence, relying particularly on the pejorative use by 1 John of the Cain and Abel story to condemn hatred. The problem about such uses, not fully faced in peacemaking theology, is that 1 John was written at a time of hot theological dispute. The author writes against what he sees as destructive and dangerous tendencies, which he identifies as a defective, seemingly docetic Christology and moral indifference, identified with opponents who have recently left his community. His rhetoric is strong, using strong terms of condemnation such as "antichrists". It may appear difficult to read 1 John, even through modern eyes far removed from the conflict, as a tract centred on love and peace. This study nevertheless argues that a peacemaking hermeneutic of 1 John is in harmony with its key ideas. In short, this study contends that a peace-oriented reading of 1 John is viable, in view of the "weapons" John deploys against his opponents - not hatred and combat, although he is deeply opposed to their theological ideas, but a "new commandment" which is yet an old one, of mutual love and avoidance of hatred, which leads ultimately to murder. On the surface, the castigation used against the author's opponents looks like hatred, but the overarching love he enjoins his community to practise as the antidote to the opponents' sectarian divisions is the dominant theme of the epistle. The point of view of this study is that because 1 John was written in a milieu in which his audience, if not comprised of converted Jews, were thoroughly familiar with the OT, echoes of it, beyond the explicit reference to Cain, are ever-present in 1 John. It therefore examines central themes in 1 John, represented by five key words, by looking at their background and use in the OT, in both the Hebrew and LXX versions, the intertestamental pseudepigrapha and the Qumran literature, in order to cast light on their use in 1 John. By so doing, this study argues that these central themes presuppose a God whose engagement with the world is not assuagement of divine anger, nor ferocious defence of truth at the expense of love, but rather peace and avoidance of hatred, which leads to violence and death. First John, in its use of the OT ideas underlying the five key words identified in this study, exposes the key connection drawn by the author between God's love in the gift of Jesus and the love he enjoins in his community as central to their understanding of God's own nature and purpose for the world. A peacemaking hermeneutic of 1 John is not only feasible, but integral to reading the epistle. When work on this study was complete, and submission was imminent, Toan Do's admirable 2014 study, Re-thinking the Death of Jesus, came to hand. Do examines 1 John's use of ?? and ?? in 2:1-2 and 4:7-10, as does this study. This necessitated extensive alterations, with much interaction with Do. This study largely agrees with Do's conclusions. But it finds more definite assistance in LXX use of ?? than Do has, and it largely confines itself to the use of this term, rather than its cognates. Unlike Do, this study refrains, apart from commenting in passing on Do's work in this regard, from exegesis of ?? in 1 John by reference to its cognates in non-Johannine NT texts, because its scope is confined to the question whether peacemaking theologians' use of 1 John is validated by exegesis of certain key themes represented by particular words, against their background in the LXX and in certain intertestamental literature and first century Jewish writings which might reasonably have been available to the author of 1 John. Also, unlike Do, this study does not deal with 2 and 3 John, because its scope does not include common authorship of 1, 2 and 3 John, and is confined to examining whether use of 1 John in peacemaking theology is viable.