11 For this is the message you have heard from the beginning: we should love one

another,

12 unlike Cain who belonged to the evil one and slaughtered his brother. Why did

he slaughter him? Because his own works were evil, and those of his brother

righteous.

13 Do not be amazed, [then,] brothers, if the world hates you.

14 We know that we have passed from death to life because we love our brothers.

Whoever does not love remains in death.

15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer

has eternal life remaining in him.

16 The way we came to know love was that he laid down his life for us; so we ought

to lay down our lives for our brothers.

17 If someone who has worldly goods sees a brother in need and refuses him

compassion, how can the love of God remain in him?

New American Bible translation

INTRODUCTION

This dynamic pericope of 1 John 3:11-17 is a concentration of Christian theology in its most dualistic form. Good and evil, love and hate, compassion and murder, life and death are all points of consideration in this brief passage. The early church had to answer all of these issues and 1 John expresses it succinctly and forcefully. However, the question arises regarding just exactly who are “our brothers” for whom we should be willing to give of our material goods and lay down our lives. The vast majority of scholars believe that this term has only one meaning-that of Christian brothers. I contend that the term adelphos (brothers) was a term that was not only meant to include “brothers and sisters” but was used to include all of humanity. I base my argument on the teaching of Jesus as expressed in other portions of the New Testament, on the missionary nature of the newly forming religion of Christianity, and on the Epistle of 1 John, which purports that “God is love” in verse 4:16. The pericope itself provides the answer in its universal, theological proclamations in dualistic format. This teaching goes beyond the scope of the early Christian community and has wider implications, not only for the early church, but for the modern church as well. The methods that will be considered here are a structural analysis of the pericope as it relates to the Epistle as a whole, an examination of the translation of the word adelphos, as well as logical analysis of the dualistic assertions in the theology of the Epistle.

BACKGROUND OF JOHANNINE CORPUS

The background of the Johannine corpus in which this Epistle was written must be explored in order to gain an understanding of this pericope, as it was understood to early Christians. The Johannine corpus includes the Gospel of John, the First, Second and Third Epistles of John, and Revelation.[1] It is considered part of the so-called “Catholic Epistles, a term utilized by Eusebius by the fourth century. It is considered ‘catholic’ or universal because it is not addressed to a particular community, but may have been meant to circulate to all or some of the Christian communities. Originally 1, 2 and 3 John did not have titles ascribed to the earliest known manuscripts, but acquired these designations as early as the end of the second century.[2]

There are two main theories regarding authorship of this Epistle, the first maintaining that the Gospel of John and the three Epistles are all from one author, as their titles imply and early tradition maintains. The second theory contends that there was a separate author for the Gospel and 1 John, with the 1 John author also penning the other two Epistles. 1 John focuses on many theological issues that are found in the Gospel of John, and some scholars believe that it is a further explication of Gospel theological concepts. Others believe that it is independent of the Gospel and may have even been written prior to it due its lack of emphasis on christology.[3] 1 John does not name a specific author or recipient, but writes tenderly to his “children” in his community and therefore appears to be a leader in the church. In 2 and 3 John, the author specifically calls himself “the Presbyter” and a majority of scholars believe that this is the same author for all three of the Epistles. According to Schnackenberg, the author is “of Jewish birth, with Aramaic as his mother tongue, who has acquired flawless Koine Greek but has otherwise retained a Semetic feel for the language.” [4] There is a minority who believe that the author of the Gospel and the Epistles is John the Apostle, who was a disciple of Jesus, and that John the Presbyter is the same individual. Those who argue against this assertion maintain that John would have to have had an exceedingly long life span if he knew Jesus and wrote these documents between 90 and 100 CE. The majority of scholarly opinion believes the author of 1 John and the two other Epistles is different from the Gospel author although from the same Johannine school of thought. The majority also claims that the Gospel was written first in 90 CE with the Epistles being written in100 CE. 1 John cannot be dated any later than mid-second century because it is cited by early church fathers by this time.[5]

The structure of 1 John is difficult to tease out, and some scholars find that it is an impossible task. However, attempts have been made to analyze the structure, with John Thomas proposing a particularly convincing paradigm with 1 John consisting of a chiastic structure that would facilitate memorization for the early community. He sees this particular pericope as the most important commandment for the Johannine community, that of love. His structural model is as follows with the bold highlight of 3:11-18 being mine:

A –1:1-4- Prologue-Eternal Life

B – 1:5-2:2 –making Him a Liar (Walking)

C – 2:3-17 –New Commandment

D – 2:18-27- Antichrists

E – 2:28-3:10- Confidence-Do Not Sin

F – 3:11-18 Love One Another

E’ – 4:19-24 –Confidence Keep the Commands

D’ – 4:1-6 –Antichrists

C’ – 4:7-5:5 –God’s Love and Ours

B’ - 5:6-16 – Making Him a Liar (Testimony)

A – 5:13-21 – Conclusion-Eternal Life

It is apparent in Thomas’ diagram of 1 John that 3:11-18 is the center of the structure, indicating its importance theologically. He simplifies the many redundancies that occur throughout the Epistle by presenting a forward movement of the verse until the climax of 3:11-18 with a gradual decrease to the conclusion. It is evident from this paradigm that eternal life is focus of this Epistle, with love as the means to attain it.

Brown offers a simpler, two division model of the Epistle, the first maintaining that God is light and we must walk in the light (1:5-3:10) and the second focusing on the love of God (3:11-5:15).[6] Judith Lieu and others offer a theory of a spiral paradigm with eternal life placed at the center of the spiral.[7] Regardless of the model utilized, it is clear that being in the light of God and loving others as they relate to eternal life are the themes that the author sought to emphasize. Their repetition in this Epistle accentuates their importance in the teaching. Both of these themes are central to the Johannine message of eternal life, and how it can be obtained. These two concepts are the essence of the teaching of this author, who needed to restate it for this group of early Christians. The reiteration of this teaching appears to be related to a schism that was occurring in the community. It is known only through this author’s antithetical remarks.

Another consideration in the structure of this Epistle is whether or not this can be considered an epistle at all. It lacks the typical hallmarks of a letter compared with other New Testament letters and other letters of this same period and is “the least letterlike in format”[8] of all the letters in the New Testament. It has no greeting or blessing; it does not identify an author or a recipient, and has no final farewell. It has been called an exhortation, a homily, a religious tractate, a circular epistle and a commentary by various scholars.[9] It appears that it did circulate as was the custom of other New Testament epistles, and may have been intentionally vague as to its recipients for just that reason. Compared with the two other Johannine Epistles, it has theological concepts as opposed to the more specific ecclesiastical concerns of the other two. This confirms the idea of “catholic” epistle which emphasizes its universal theology. It does not have a recipient, because it was meant for the Christian community at large.

The location of the Johannine community is tied to that of the author of the Gospel of John. It appears as if there was persecution by Jewish factions against the Johannine community, and a diaspora of sorts was occurring for this community. It is postulated that the Gospel and the Epistles were composed in Ephesus in Asia Minor, Antioch in Syria or Alexandria in Egypt.[10] Ephesus appears to be the most likely candidate, according to the majority of scholars. The main point in the choice of location is that it was not written in Palestine. This was a community that was growing outside of the Palestinian Christian church, and therefore was more inclusive of Gentiles and had a wider, more encompassing audience.

The audience is called “children” by the author alluding to familiarity and a fatherly relationship. The need to reinforce these primary teachings would insinuate a tendency to disregard these teachings, either by former members or by current members of the community. Was this occurring on a large scale, enough to prompt the author to write a letter to halt such dissidence? It is difficult to ascertain this, but it can be recognized that there was a problem occurring and the author needed to address this in no uncertain terms. The severe analogy of a murderer in 1 John 3:15 (used to portray those who hate their brother) underscores the depth of problem.

THE OPPONENTS IN 1 JOHN

The Epistle addresses an apparent schism that seems to have been occurring in the community, but we have only the author’s polemics to help guide us in reconstructing the identity of these opponents. They are named as “liars”, “antichrists” and “false prophets” and appear to be a group of individuals who were not following the teaching of the community. They are “those who refuse that Jesus Christ came in the flesh” in 1 John 4:1-6, pointing to a tendency of these opponents to be either docetic or gnostic in their beliefs. They are explicitly referred to as separating from the community in 1 John 2:19 where it states that “they went out from us.” There are no known writings that offer a

rebuttal from these opponents, so all that can be known of them is through the author’s antithetical statements. John Painter identifies two distinct groups in the Johannine community: “those who had been through the struggle with the synagogue and those who had entered the community after the breach with Judaism and consequently did not understand the Gospel of John tradition in the context of the struggle with Judaism.” [11] This second group consisted of Gentile believers and seem to have been influenced by the syncretism of the multiple cultures and religions that existed in the first century Middle East. Painter believes that gnosticism and/or docetism influenced these opponents, and the lack of adherence to the teachings of the Gospel of John led to the schism and the author’s need to write this Epistle. Undoubtedly the Epistle was directed at specific concerns that were faced by the particular community, but the Christian community in general was also having similar struggles. 1 John could be applied to other communities as well as the Johannine community.

DISCUSSION OF THE TERM ADELPHOS

We now approach the main concern of this essay, that being the meaning of the term “brothers” as it is situated in this pericope and applied to early Christians and to modernity. We can see how this pericope fits into the broader Epistle as an address to all Christians who are facing struggles in the growth of their new religion. This particular pericope narrows the focus on the individual. The designation “brothers” is central in the verses we are considering. Just who are these “brothers” that the author is addressing? The term adelphos is a common one throughout the New Testament. It is a noun in the masculine plural, which can be translated as brothers or brothers and sisters. Older, English translations will often use the term brethren. Our first consideration is of the gender inclusiveness of this statement. Since the author writes to members of the community as teknia, or children, it is clear that he writes not just to his “sons” in the community, but to all of his “children” which would include daughters as well. If we accept this as the intention of our author, then it is necessary to keep this inclusive language when we consider the term adelphos. That being the accepted connotation by scholars, it is then necessary to understand who is meant by this term. It is essential to look at the context of this term, as it appears in the pericope to discover just who are these “brothers and sisters.”

MEANING OF “IN THE BEGINNING”, VERSE 11

Verse 11 reminds the reader that “this is the message you have heard from the beginning: we should love one another.” From the beginning has a variety of possible interpretations including the beginning of the establishment of the community, the beginning of a member’s entrance into the community or it could have a broader significance. “The beginning” resonates with the Genesis 1:1 verse of “In the beginning.” If this were a Jewish Christian author, he surely would know Hebrew scripture and would be adding an element of Jewish tradition with an historical dimension to the pericope. Brown believes that the author is speaking here as a “Johannine tradition-bearer and associating himself with those who had heard Jesus

during his ministry and is now is recalling this tradition to the community.”[12] He includes the story of Cain, so he is familiar with Old Testament scripture. Another interpretation of this could be from the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, the beginning of the new covenant established by Jesus. Recall Jesus’ response to the scribe’s question in which he asks what is the greatest commandment in Mark 12:28-34, the first being the love of God, with the second being “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Is it this beginning of the new commandment of love espoused by Jesus that is meant by the author? It is crucial to remember that these early Christians were hearing and reading stories about Jesus and that this was important in the formation of their community. This Epistle was not written in isolation from the story of Jesus but is an explication of it.

The opening of the Gospel of John is also another contender for this reference. “In the beginning was the word” in John 1:1 would be a logical connection to this pericope, especially if the author of the Gospel and the author of 1 John are one in the same. If the theory of different authors from the same Johannine school is accepted, this would still be a logical choice. “The word” gives direct inference to Jesus as the incarnation of God. If this community had heard from the beginning from the tradition of Jesus about loving one another, this Epistle would be a restatement of John’s Gospel, as some scholars believe it to be.

THE STORY OF CAIN, VERSE 12

The next verse takes us to the Old Testament illustration of Cain from Genesis 4. This is the only reference to Cain in the Epistles. It is a story that was familiar to Jewish audiences, as well as Christian audiences of this period, and illustrates the dualism of good and evil. Cain “belonged to the evil one” and murders his brother. Keep in mind

that the verse previous to this horrendous image had instructed the audience to love one another. Cain killed his brother because of Abel’s righteous works and because Cain was evil. The imagery in this verse should not be underestimated. There are few crimes more heinous than the murder of a sibling, a relationship that should be full of love and loyalty, in contemporary society as well as in the ancient world. Are the opponents of the community analogous to Cain in this reference?[13]. Cain hated his own brother to the point of murdering him. The author believes that the world at large hates some or all members of the community the way that Cain hated Abel, because of his righteousness, implying that the community is righteous and hated because of it. Regardless of the outcome of Cain’s evil action, Cain and Abel were brothers, they were family. So too is this community involved in the world, even if they are viewed negatively by the world. This should not amaze the community. They have seen this type of reaction in scripture, in the life and death of Jesus. This may be an image of the opponents of the community, or the secular world. Cain is no longer able to be in the presence of the Lord, and becomes “ a restless wanderer on the earth” (Genesis 4:13). His hateful action separates him from God. It is love that keeps one in the presence of the Lord. Is this love restricted to the Christian brother and sister? Cain is the ideological antithesis of Abel. The image provides a dualistic portrait of good and evil.

BROTHERS, VERSES 13-17

In verse 13 the author uses the term adelphos, as an address to the recipients of the letter and warns them not to be amazed if the world hates them. After framing the concept of good and evil in the Cain story, the situation is reversed. Cain is the implied, hated “evil” one in the previous verse. Now the believer is the one hated by the world. Cain is doomed to be exiled from the presence of God due to his evil act. The believer has passed from death to life because “we love our brothers.” Verse 14 states that the audience has indeed passed from death to life because they love “our brother.” We have just been told that Cain murdered Abel because of his (Abel’s) righteousness in the previous verse. We are now told that the audience members have passed from death to life, from one extreme to another, because of this love. This is a theological discourse on a spiritual death and spiritual life, one involving eternal life. It is a theme throughout this pericope. The second sentence in Verse 14 eliminates the use of “brothers” and states “whoever does not love remains in death.” The author does not say Christians who do not love, but the inclusive “whoever.” This is a proclamation of love as a way to eternal life. It definitively indicates a broad, theological conceptualization, not a narrow, community focused one. If one hates, he is no better than a murderer in Verse 15, like Cain who is not allowed in the presence of God because of his hate. The author is discussing here broad, dualistic themes of good and evil. It is inconsistent to think that he is now looking only at Christian brothers and sisters rather than the world as a whole.

A reference to Jesus arises in the next verse saying that Jesus laid down his life “for us” so that we should lay down our lives for “ our brothers.” The “for us” is a key phrase. Certainly an early first century Christian community not residing in Palestine had not personally known Jesus. The “us” described here would mean the people that Jesus intended to save for all time. It would mean an anonymous group whose identity would be discovered in a future time from that of the time of Jesus. Did Jesus lay down his life for all so that a soteriology would be established for all, or only for this specific community? The author would unquestionably believe that Jesus did indeed lay down his life for Christians, but would he also consider the converts that were joining the community on an ongoing basis? There would have to be a consideration of these individuals since this was a missionary church that was spreading the “gospel” of Jesus.

Verse 17 now approaches the ethical consideration of sharing material wealth.

The love of God does not remain in a person who does not share with one who has material need in the same way that one who hates does not have eternal life. Hate and lack of compassion exclude one from God’s presence, and hence excludes from eternal life. They are equally negative to the author and negate the possibility of eternal life. The word splackna is translated as compassion or shutting off one’s heart towards the one in need. This term originally meant “shuts his inner parts (or bowels or entrails) to him.” [14] The ancient world used the expression of bowels or innards as the seat of compassion or the soul. Our idiomatic expression comparable to this would be “from the heart.” The implication of the entrails or bowels adds force to this verse. It brings to mind our modern expression of “gut-wrenching.” It is an inner, physical feeling that is felt throughout the body. The author of the Epistle has been using remarkably strong imagery throughout this whole pericope, so it comes as no surprise to have this evocative expression at this juncture in the verse. The next line is explicit. The love of God cannot abide in such a person. But who is this “brother”? For most scholars, it is undoubtedly a Christian brother. Brown’s argument for this exclusive definition of this term is

illustrative of the majority opinion on this matter and will be utilized here as representative of the majority. Brown argues that the term is used for “spiritual relatives” and states that it was used commonly by Greek fraternities as well as by Jews. He cites the synoptic Gospel of Mark 31:35 when Jesus says that his true “mother and brothers are those who do the will of God or hear the word of God”[15] as indicative of what Jesus meant by the term “brothers.” Brown disagrees with Rudolph Bultmann’s assertion that brother is equivalent to “neighbor” as found in Matthew 19:19 and many other places in the New Testament.[16] He argues that these are seperate concepts with which the author of the Epistle would have not agreed. The Johannine community would have thought of itself as “Jesus’ own,” although Brown does allow that converts would have a place in the community, but only after they became “children of God.”[17] Brown also does not think of this Epistle as “catholic” or universal in its genre, stating that grouping the Epistle in the “Catholic Epistles” “is not of particular importance for the interpretation of 1, 2, and 3 John.”[18] Brown does not address another consideration of the term “brother” in his argument. One could take a literal view and accept these “brothers” as biological siblings of the author. I use this reduction of the language to a literal scope to emphasize the possibility of narrowing the meaning to the point of incongruity. There is just as much reason to consider this literal translation as there is to limit it to Christians. This was not the intention of the author.

The logic of Brown and others in this matter is flawed. There are several points which one can consider to refute the position that “brother” means only Christians in this Epistle. If one is open to the possibility of including others in one’s community, there must be redeeming qualities in them that would allow them to be able to join. The attraction of the Christian community at large, and the Johannine community specifically, was their inclusiveness and the love that was noted by those in contact with the community. According to Acts, “God has granted life-giving repentance to the Gentiles too” (Acts 11:18). Gradually, most Christian communities outside of Palestine were predominantly Gentile in membership[19] Gentiles were invited to join and were therefore crucial to the life and growth of the community. The recipients of this Epistle were not in Palestine and were converts to this new religion. This presupposes an acceptance of new members into the community. Brown’s argument regarding the statement by Jesus of who is his mother and brothers, those who “do the will of the Father” are those who are mother and brother. Jesus does not say Jews or his immediate followers, but those who do the will of the Father. In Johannine terms, this would mean those who follow the preeminent commandment of “love”, and this does not necessarily mean community members. There were those in the community, the schismatics, who were not loving, and therefore were not going to attain eternal life. Jesus’ famous discourse in Matthew 25:40 summarize what it means to do God’s will: “Whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.” The use of “brothers” here indicates the lowliest. In terms of the first century Middle East, this would mean those who were not in good standing with the community, those who are in prison or so poor that they were without clothing and food. Not only did Jesus include non-Jews and /or non-Christians, but the most marginalized of society as well. It is unreasonable to utilize only some of the Gospel passages to make an argument while ignoring others as Brown does.

The inclusiveness of Jesus’ teaching was essential to the growth of membership of the early Christian community and without this inclusiveness, this religious movement would not have survived. It would have been another variation of messianic Judaism that would not have flourished successfully. What was different about Jesus was his deep love for all humanity to the point of including those who were on the fringe of society. This is what was unique about the Christian movement as well, and this is what affected the individual to claim this religion for his or her own.

The story of Cain is not placed randomly in this pericope. It depicts a family of humanity that is imperfect and dualistic. Cain, representative of the evil of which humanity is capable, is still the brother of Abel. He is no longer “in the presence of God” because of his evil actions, but he is still part of the human community, he is still a brother. The Johannine community in this Epistle was interested in communicating how eternal life could be achieved in this lifetime. The way to accomplish this is through love. This love is so extreme that it would be possible to lay down one’s life for another in order that love would be served. It is in direct contrast and opposition to murder, as illustrated by Cain who “belonged to the evil one.” It would be difficult to imagine that the author would mean anything less than all of humanity when he clearly is talking about universal theological tenets. Viewing this usage of the term “ brothers” in any less than a universal of a manner diminishes the message of Christianity. This is true of the earliest beginnings of this religion as well as today, and perhaps even more so for the earliest church. There had to have been a dynamic teaching that resonated so clearly that early Christians were willing to die for it.

Additionally, this message is reinforced later in 1 John in 4:16 “God is love.” The author defines what is most important about God. If God equals love, it is impossible to imagine that the author would narrow the definition of “brothers” to mean only Christian brothers. The nature of the theology in this Epistle strongly presupposes universal tenets in the author’s teaching. To move from a ubiquitous concept such as “God is love” to a restricted concept of “brothers” would not follow the logic that this author has utilized throughout the Epistle.

CONCLUSION

My conclusion is this: the author of 1 John was interested in refuting some sort of schism that was occurring in his community. He wanted to reinforce central teachings of Christianity that would remind his audience what their community was about. The audience is unspecified in this Epistle, so it addresses Christians in general as a “catholic” epistle. It was meant to remain universal in its message, and the author was dialoging with all those interested in this religion. His dualistic approach to many topics, including love and hate, precludes an address to only Christian “brothers.” He does not write to only those who call themselves believers in the gospel of Christ, but to those who are truly living the values espoused by Jesus. The incorporation of Gentiles was crucial to the survival of this budding religion. “Brothers and sisters” would mean anyone who was doing God’s will, i.e. loving. It is what Jesus spoke of when he named those as brothers and mother as those who did the will of the Father, and it had to also mean anyone inclusively who did the loving, compassionate act. Much of the teaching in the gospels reflects this. If it is interpreted, as most scholars are want to do, as Christian brothers and sisters only, then it does not make sense as a theological treatise. The image of Cain gives it a universal appeal with an analogy of biological brothers, one of whom does not love and therefore is not in the presence of God, the other of whom is righteous and loving. This comparison of brothers is directly linked to the brotherhood and sisterhood of humanity, and should be read in this manner in this pericope. One cannot remove the whole of Jesus’ ministry as depicted in the Gospels when considering John’s First Epistle. The reason for the popularity and growth of this religion was not due a restricted "brotherhood,” as Brown would claim. The wider scope of the Jesus movement must be considered when attempting to satisfy this definition. To do otherwise is a disservice to the author of John and to the teachings of Jesus.

CONTEMPORARY CONSIDERATIONS AND AREAS FOR FUTURE STUDY

Our modern, Western sensibilities would readily concur with my interpretation of this pericope. The area of liberation theology has yet to make this pericope its own, but further study in this area is demanded.[20] Contemporary humanity with its accessibility to worldwide communication can and does see a “brotherhood and sisterhood” of humanity. Cultural differences are minimal compared to what binds us as human beings. The message of love and compassion as a means to understand the transcendence of God is increasingly apparent in the modern Christian community. Liberation theology in particular espouses the love of the poor as a way to achieve an understanding of God as exemplified by the life of Jesus. An area of further study would be to include this pericope in the understanding of liberation theology, a pericope that has not been thoroughly researched by liberation scholars.