1-3 John and James: Comparison and Contrast.

ASSIGNMENT TITLE PAGE

"STUDENT NAME (in full): "John Denvir Mayne "
"ACT NUMBER: "200916727 "
"UNIT CODE AND TITLE (in "NT626: The General Epistles. "
"full): " "
"LECTURER: "Charles De Jongh "
"DUE DATE: "30/10/2013 "
"SUBMISSION DATE: "6/11/2013 "
" "
"The following essay, of which I have kept a copy, is entirely my own "
"work. All sources of ideas and quotations are duly acknowledged in "
"references. "
"SIGNATURE OF STUDENT: "John Mayne "(enter name for "
" " "electronic "
" " "submissions) "
"ASSIGNMENT TITLE (detailed): "
"1-3 John and James Assignment: Compare and Contrast "
" "
"ASSIGNMENT OUTLINE (if outlined): "
"INTRODUCTION "
"COMPARISONS AND CONTRASTS "
"CONCLUSION "
" "
" "
" "
" "
" "
" "
" "
" "
" "
"WORD COUNT: "1902 "words (excluding abstract and list of "
" " "references) "
" " " " " " " "
"MARK AWARDED: " "PERCENTAGE: " "% "GRADE: " "
" " "
"LECTURER: " "

ABSTRACT

It is true that our "New Testament would be infinitely poorer without the
variety of emphases supplied by the general letters" (Metzger 1983, 247).
James and 1-3 John comprise a significant proportion of these such letters,
and have proven very useful to the church throughout her lifetime.
Replete with practical exhortation and spiritual insight, the texts share
much in common on the issue of the ethics springing forth from our
relationship with Jesus. Yet they also possess some differences on this
same front. In gleaning from each, we shall encounter John's fondness for
Christological foundation, contrasting with James' bias towards
compassionate living as demonstrative of Christian conviction. Yet we
shall also discover they are often trying to communicate the same message,
in the same spirit.





















1. INTRODUCTION

James' epistle has been dubbed the "most exclusively practical and ethical
book in the New Testament" (Maston 2000, 25), whilst the Johannine
equivalents have been said to "stress the practical, visible and concrete
manifestation of one's commitments in everyday life" (Thompson 1992, 23).
With each corpus emphasizing the outworking of our claimed relationship
with God, there are many similarities between them, yet also many
contrasts. Through engaging with their exhortations side-by-side, the
church can hopefully be better equipped to respond to Gandhi's stinging
rebuke of modern Christian witness: "I like your Christ, I do not like your
Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

2. COMPARISONS AND CONTRASTS

The ethical injunctions of 1-3 John and James arise due to slightly
different historical contexts and composition purposes. It can be
important to start by grappling with these adequately. The Johannine
epistles are "occasioned by the need to defend sound doctrine and morality
against false teachers" (Verhey 1984, 144). John refers to "enlightened"
(1 John 2:9) ones who were "fuelled by non-traditional insights gleaned
from the Spirit" (Burge 2004, 587) and denied the incarnation of Christ.
The antinomianism and perfectionism arising from either Docetist,
Cerinthian or Gnostic influence (Thompson 1992, 16-18) are thus countered
by exhortations to recall, love and obey Christ (1 John 1:8; 3:16; 23;
5:1). John's audience was that of a formerly unified community being torn
"apart from within" (Burge 2004, 585) via "deceivers" (2 John 7) actively
promoting this heresy. Such "false prophets" (1 John 4:1) esteemed Jesus'
divinity above his humanity, a virulent orthodoxy producing a corrupt
orthopraxy, as it claimed "that it was possible to have fellowship with God
regardless of one's behaviour" (Akin 2001, 29). As such, the Johannine
epistles have been described as the "earliest systematic reply to the major
challenge presented to Christian ethics" (White 1979, 198).

James was writing to early Christians struggling with "the endemic and
widespread problem of hypocrisy" (McCartney 2009, 36) during an early stage
of church development. Spiritual and social conflict abounds, as a
persecuted community (James 1:2-5) sought to avoid compromise with the
world, especially in terms of wealth attitudes (James 1:9-11; 2:14-17;
4:15; 5:1-6). The "twelve tribes scattered among the nations" (James 1:1)
may point toward solely Jewish recipients, or involve Gentile converts also
(cf. Acts 15:13-21). One cannot say with certitude, though the letter does
contain an undeniably strong Jewish-Christian flavour. Many situations are
described vividly, such as the man dressed in fine clothes with gold rings
(James 2:2), suggesting that James "is addressing real problems" (McCartney
2009, 37). Both 1-3 John and James are addressed to formative communities
of faith, albeit each dealing with different controversies.

However whilst the social and historical backdrop of each letter is
important, the "problems are ultimately more general and more basic than
the immediate situation" (Moo 2000, 25). Contrasting 1-3 John and James
with the Gospels, it is unsurprising that the Johannine epistles mirror the
ethical proclamations of John's Gospel, while James is identified with the
Gospel of Matthew (James 5:12; cf. Matt 5:34-37), weaving "Jesus' teaching
into the very fabric of his own instruction" and reflecting on them "almost
unconsciously" (Moo 2000, 7). Both authors are communicating to audiences
struggling more with licentiousness than legalism, though this to a more
subtle degree among James' audience.

A cursory glance of 1-3 John and James draws to attention the sparse
mention of 'Christ' in James' epistle (Jas 1:1; 2:1). The Spirit is absent
also, and 'sin' mentioned only three times (James 1:15; 5:16; 20), unlike 1
John (1 John 1:8-9; 2:1, 10; 3:4; 4:2; 4:13). James' epistle does not
appear to be "Christocentric in the manner that so many New Testament
compositions (writings) are" (Johnson 2000, 159). Whilst both writers are
speaking to a Christian audience, John's epistles, in dealing with a
specific Christological controversy, seek more to remind us of the nature
and characteristics of God from first principles, such that what they have
"heard from the beginning remains" in them (1 John 2:24). To "know" God is
intrinsically related to keeping his commandments (cf. 1 John 3:22, 24;
5:2, 3). From this foundation of orthodoxy, believers are instructed to
live accordingly. John is convinced that spiritual failure results from
theological deception. As a result 1-3 John develops a clear doctrine of
God, Christ, sin, Holy Spirit, salvation and eschatology (Akin 2001, 32-
35).

James seems to assume that his readers are already acquainted with a
Christocentric biblical theology, it being "more of a presupposition than a
major emphasis in his letter" (Blomberg and Kamell 2008, 261). He then
operates in the reverse direction to 1-3 John, reminding us that our faith,
expressed in multiple contexts, "according to the precepts… acknowledged"
(McCartney 2009, 40), is what ultimately vindicates the depth of our
relationship with God. He appears not so much a theologian, compared to
John, but a pedagogue. However Blomberg and Kamell (2008, 260) advise us
not to dismiss James as being theologically shallow, and if we define
theology more broadly as "teaching grounded in an understanding of God"
(Moo 1985, 27) rather than a system of beliefs derived from Christology,
then James is thoroughly theological. 1-3 John employs deductive
reasoning, though not as meticulously as Paul in Romans (cf. Rom 1-11; 12-
16), whilst James' approach is more at the inductive end of the spectrum.
James' plethora of ethical challenges are often interspersed with reminders
of the spiritual truths undergirding them (James 1:19-20; 4:1-6; 5:7-12).
It may be argued that sound doctrine and morality are just as indivisible
to James as to John, only that John is motivated to communicate this more
explicitly, due in part to contextual considerations.

A central ethical focus for John is that of love being "the primal will of
God, the original and fundamental commandment" (Verhey 1984, 146). It is
"perfected" (1 John 2:5; 4:12, 17) in Christ and the church, and
demonstration thereof is a sound way to test the veracity of spiritual
authenticity (1 John 4:1-6). Love and truth are fiercely interwoven, and
one cannot embrace one without the other (2 John 6). Our ability to love
depends on God's love in us. James too shares this concern for the "royal
law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbour as yourself"" (James 2:8),
though it is invoked here within the context of a rebuke towards
favouritism. Elsewhere James extols the "perfect law that gives freedom"
(James 1:25) after an exhortation to not merely listen to the word, but to
do what it says (James 1:22). James does not interpret the law as the 163
Torah commandments, but neither as the single commandment of love. He
reaffirms the concepts inherent in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7).
While John reveals the "new command," James helps enunciate why indeed it
is really an "old command" (1 John 2:7-8).

James and 1-3 John work in tandem. For what is the reason for love? John
gives a resounding answer (cf. 1 John 4:7-8). In light of this, how then
shall we now live? John is not silent on this question (1 John 3:16;
4:21), but it is James that provides more of a measured, specific response,
rather than the minimalistic proclamations of 1 John (less so 2-3 John).
John provides more of a skeleton structure for our love relationship with
Christ, particularly in terms of proper theological understanding, whilst
James instils flesh, blood and sinew upon it by extoling us to use our
surplus to help the needy (James 1:27), advocate for the impoverished
believer (James 2:14-17), pray for the sick (James 5:13-16), display
unselfish attitudes toward others (James 3:13-18) and refuse to slander or
show partiality (James 4:11-12; 2:1-4). John does reference partiality and
materialism (1 John 3:17), but it is James who expands upon these further,
in lieu of his ". For John, a strong explicit ethical theme is the
imitation of Jesus (John 2:6; 3:2-7; 4:17), which is the same implicitly
for James.

John is concerned with divine truth and love conquering falsehood, evil and
"the world" (1 John 2:15). Similarly, James seems principally determined
for righteous behaviour, motivated by the love commands, to demonstrate our
claimed relationship with God (James 2:24; cf. 1:12). He is "not
belittling faith" but "insisting that it be a real faith" (Maston 1967,
263), perhaps correcting an imbalance that had afflicted the diaspora.
John picks up on a similar sentiment (1 John 3:18-19), that "those who have
been born of God, who have experienced his love, will love others in
practical ways" (Kruse 2000, 34). God's love (John 4:17-12, 16, 19), truth
(John 1:8; 10; 2:20: 4:1-2: 5:20) and purity (John 1:5, 7; 3:2-3) are
central themes for John, but it is James who summons the ethic of the minor
prophets, the Lord "full of compassion and mercy" (James 4:11). James
shares John's concern for apostasy (James 5:19-20), and his heart to bring
back to the faith those who had strayed.

James and John both urge those in relationship with God to cease
compromising with the world (James 4:4-5; cf. 1 John 2:15-17; 5:19). One
cannot align themselves with the system that opposes God, whether in the
guise of false teachers speaking "from the viewpoint of the world" (1 John
4:5), or adhering to false wisdom that is "earthly, unspiritual, of the
devil" (James 3:15-16). Each author defines evil in terms of their own
context. For John it majors on an aversion to brotherly love, truth and
doctrine, whereas for James it is more envy (James 3:16), poor speech
(James 3:1-12), partiality and rich oppressors (James 5:1-6). However it
is their combined portrait of evil, including those emphases unique to each
text, which provide us with a broader picture of the perils of
discipleship. The necessity of confession is a further area of mutual
import (James 4:15-16; cf. 1 John 1:9), though James' motivations seems
less eschatological in comparison. The same can be said of the gospel, for
in weaving the propositional Christology and doctrines of 1-3 John,
together with the Jesus ethics contained in James, a holistic three-
dimensional vision emerges.

On a pastoral note, and in being mindful of the risk of oversimplification,
1-3 John and James communicate a similar vision for discipleship, only that
1-3 John (1 John in particular) might be more appropriate for a new
Christian, or one who lacks assurance of salvation (cf. 1 John 5:6-15).
James however is suited to those who grasp sound doctrine, yet struggle to
fathom what a lifestyle of radical discipleship that bears witness to such
a creed might look like. Building on these further, modern conservative
evangelicals could do well to engage more with James' epistle, whilst
liberal, 'social gospel' adherents, may be appropriately sharpened through
understanding the "testimony of God, which he has given about his Son" (1
John 5:10-11), the overwhelming impetus for the ethical exhortations found
in 1-3 John.

3. CONCLUSION

John's epistles highlight the importance of the death of Jesus and the
deeds of man, whilst for James it is the deeds of man that attest the
reality of God. This is partly due to varying purposes of composition.
The two themes are intrinsically intertwined, though 1-3 John is more
inductive in its practical exhortation, James being more deductive. Like
two wings of an aeroplane, they juxtapose to help shine light on the
fullness of the gospel and Christian living. The modern ekklesia would be
wise to engage with their message.






























LIST OF REFERENCES

Akin, Daniel L. 2001. 1,2, 3 John, Vol. 38. The New American Commentary
Series.
Nashville: B&H.

Blomberg, Craig L. and Mariam J. Kamell. 2008. James. Exegetical
Commentary on the
New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 254-263.

Burge, G. M. 2004. "John, Letters of," in the IVP Dictionary of the New
Testament, edited
by Daniel G. Reid, 583-594. Downers Grove: IVP.

Kruse, Colin G. 2000. The Letters of John, the Pillar New Testament
Commentary Series.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.


McCartney, Dan G. 2009. James, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New
Testament
Series. Grand Rapids: Baker.


Maston, T. B. 1967. Biblical Ethics. London: Word.

Maston, T. B. 2000. "Ethical Dimensions of James," in Southwestern Journal
of Theology,
XLIII no. 1: 25-42.

Metzger, Bruce M. 1983. The New Testament: Its Background, Growth and
Context.
Nashville: Abingdon.

Moo, Douglas J. 1985. James, Tyndale New Testament Commentary Series.
Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans.

Verhey, Allen. 1984. The Great Reversal: Ethics and the New Testament.
Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.

White, R. E. O. 1979. Biblical Ethics: The Changing Continuity of Christian
Ethics Vol. 1.
Exeter: Paternoster.