Page 65 - General Epistles (James through Jude) Textbook

surfaces in many early documents written by different authors. For example, “Clement of Rome
describes God’s elect . . . as being ‘perfected in love’ (1 Clem 49:5; 50:3. A.D. 96; cf. 1 John 2:5; 4:12, 17-
18), the Didache (A.D. 90 to 120) has something similar (10:5, 6; cf. 1 John 2:17), the Epistle of Barnabas
(c. 130) speaks of Jesus as ‘the Son of God come in the flesh’ (5:9-11; 12:10; cf. 1 John 4:2; 2 John 7.”
136
Why would they make reference to John’s writing in their writings? Early Christian writers like
“Tertullian (A.D. 145-220), Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 153-217), and Origen (A.D. 185-254)” assign (or
137
designate) John as the author of the epistle. Based on Papias’ passage (cited in Eusebius H.E iii.39.4):
“And if anyone chanced to come who had actually been a follower of the elders, I would inquire as to
the discourses of the elders, what Andrew of what Peter said, or what Philip, or what Thomas or James,
or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples; and the things which Aristion and John the
elder, disciples of the Lord, say.” Notice that for John, the elder, Papias used a verb “say” in a present
138
tense but for others in the past tense most likely indicating that they were dead. So, early on, reliable
people (those close to the time when John existed), Papias, among others, were honoring (or revering)
the writings of apostle (or elder) John. On John’s writing, Grant Osborne’s observation deserves a fair
hearing.

In any event, whichever John wrote these epistles, he must have been an eyewitness of Jesus. We know,
for certain, that John the son of Zebedee was an eyewitness. As for another John, called John the
elder—he would have probably been one of Jesus’ 72 disciples (Luke 10:1) in order to claim
“eyewitness” status. (This would also apply to Aristion.) But then, given the identical style between the
epistles and the Gospel, this other “John” would also be the author of the fourth Gospel, and that can’t
be so, for we know that the disciple who wrote the fourth Gospel was among the inner circle of the
Twelve (see the discussion above). Once again, the facts presented in the fourth Gospel and the
similarities of the first, second, and third epistles of John to the fourth Gospel press us to conclude that
the author of the epistles and the author of the Gospel must be one and the same: John the apostle, the
son of Zebedee. The earliest identification of John the apostle as the author of 1 John comes from the
late second century, when both Irenaeus (Heresies 3.15.5, 8) and the Muratorian Fragment identified 1
John as his work.139

Zane C. Hodges also notes;

The epistle has been traditionally ascribed to John the Apostle. The author’s name, however, does
not occur in the letter. Yet it is plain from the tone of the letter as a whole that the writer possessed
spiritual authority. Moreover, he placed himself among the eyewitnesses to the incarnate life of the
Lord Jesus (1:1–2). Early Christian writers including Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian
cited the epistle as John’s. There is thus no good reason for denying the traditional belief that the
letter is of apostolic authorship.140

In a different commentary, Zane C. Hodges’ summary on the author is worth noting. Ancient tradition
assigns these epistles to John the son of Zebedee, one of the twelve apostles. Although efforts have
been made to evade the implication that an eyewitness wrote 1:1–4, these efforts are faulty. The
statement of 4:6 (“We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us.
By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error”) would be pompous, to say the least, if it was
not penned by an apostle.141

Provenance (Place of Writing).
From the internal evidence (coming from 1 John and the rest of the books of the Bible), it is not clear
concerning the origin of the epistle because it does not make its own claim on that.

64