This article proposes a structure and argument for 1 John based on the locations of both the verb γράϕω and the vocative forms. It argues that 1 John has two parts: an extended introduction that orientates the reader to the themes of sin and love (1.1–2.11), and a body in which the historical situation is addressed (2.15–5.21). It divides 1 John into units based on vocabulary associated with each theme and then appeals to literary devices to verify each unit. The relationship between each unit is investigated in order to ascertain the structure.

It is often claimed that 1 John contains no references to Jesus' resurrection. However, for this claim to hold, a possible allusion to the resurrection in the opening verse of 1 John needs to be denied. There are three reasons given to discard this allusion. First, under the influence of the historical reconstructions that dominate the interpretation of 1 John, the opening verses of 1 John are often understood to affirm the incarnation and not the resurrection. Second, the allusion to the resurrection is rejected because of the similarity between the prologues of the Gospel of John and 1 John. Since John 1:1-18 affirms the incarnation, so too must 1 John 1:1-4. Third, the allusion to the resurrection is dismissed due to the apparent lack of other references to the resurrection in 1 John.The thesis proposes that 1 John affirms the resurrection of the incarnate Christ in the context of an intra-Jewish disagreement over Jesus' identity. The thesis presents a reading of 1 John that flows from understanding the opening verses of the book to be affirming the resurrection of the incarnate Christ. It argues that the resurrection is explicitly mentioned on three other occasions (4:2; 5:6-7, 20). Further, it also suggests that these resurrection affirmations are made in the historical context of an intra-Jewish disagreement over the identity of Jesus as the Christ, a disagreement in which the vital proof is Jesus' resurrection.The first part of the thesis outlines and reviews the reading methods used in previous research on 1 John before sketching out its adopted reading method.

The first letter of John is commonly understood to contain no reference to Jesus's resurrection. Matthew D. Jensen argues that, far from this being absent from the theology of 1 John, the opening verses contain a key reference to the resurrection which undergirds the rest of the text and is bolstered by other explicit references to the resurrection. The book goes on to suggest that the author and the readers of this epistle understand themselves to be the authentic Israel from which faithless Jews had apostatized when they denied that Jesus was 'the Christ' and left the community. Jensen's interpretation calls for a new understanding of the historical context in which 1 John was written, particularly the question of Jesus' identity from the perspective of his fellow Jews. An innovative and provocative study, of interest to scholars and advanced students of New Testament studies, Johannine theology and Jewish history.

No abstract

No abstract