1 John 1:1-2 – Eyewitness to the Word of Life

John begins this letter with an allusion to the Gospel of John, “that which was from the beginning” (1 John 1:1a). If this letter was to be read in a congregation, then these first lines establish the authority of the author. In Paul’s letters, he usually begins with his name, perhaps a title (apostle, servant of Jesus). This letter is anonymous, but this paragraph would have been clear to the original audience: the author is an eyewitness to Jesus, the one who has apostolic authority to make the demands found in the letter.

The first words connect First John to the Gospel of John. John 1:1 started with the phrase “in the beginning,” this letter has nearly the same words (the relative pronoun is added, “that which”). The author’s authority is related to the fact he wrote the Gospel of John, and the opening paragraph has other allusions to the Gospel. To a certain extent, this is like an author of a book putting his other books on the cover of a new book in order to demonstrate his authority on the subject.

There is a problem in the first line of the letter, the Greek has a neuter relative pronoun (“that which”) but the author seems to be referring to Jesus, the Word of Life (“word” is a masculine noun in Greek).  One option is John is referring to the Gospel (which is neuter in Greek), but he does not explicitly use the word in the letter. Jobes suggest this is a generic use of the pronoun, referring to Jesus and the well-known the story of the Gospels (1, 2, 3 John, 44).

The beginning of what? In John’s Gospel, the reference is to creation. The Word was present at creation because the Word is God. That may be what John has in mind here as well, but later he will use the phrase “from the beginning” to refer to the beginning of the Gospel, or the beginning of the reader’s relationship with Christ (the beginning of their Christian life).

John’s claim is he is an eyewitness of Jesus’s life and teaching. John’s pronouns are all first person plural. This is either an “editorial we” or he represents a community of eyewitnesses. Richard Bauckham calls this the “we of authoritative testimony” (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 369-83). John claims to have seen with his eyes (ὃ ἑωράκαμεν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν) and perceived (ἐθεασάμεθα). Are these two different things? The first refers to literal seeing something, this is John’s claim to be an eyewitness. The second verb can have the same sense, but is sometimes used for perception. You can see something with your eyes and not really understand what it is (“what am I looking at?”)

In John’s Gospel there are many examples of someone seeing one of Jesus’s signs but not really understanding what the sign meant. In John 6 Jesus feeds the crowds and the people seem to understand the “bread of life” on a physical level, manna in the wilderness. Jobes draws an analogy to John 20, Thomas sees and believes, but those who do not see yet believe are blessed (John 20:29; 1, 2, 3 John, 47). Another example might be the Beloved Disciple arriving to the empty tomb before Peter and believing. Peter needs to enter the tomb and see the grave clothes before he believes (John 20:3-10).

John’s claim in these first few verses is to have physically witnessed the revelation of the Word of Life and actually understood (accurately) what the Word of Life revealed about himself in the incarnation. As Jobes says, “the gospel consists not only of the historical facts about Jesus, but the divine interpretation of the meaning of this life, death, and resurrection.” (1, 2, 3 John, 51).

That John should open his letter is the claim of having seen Jesus underscores the importance of being an eyewitness in the ancient world. In a Jewish context, testimony was established by two or three witnesses. This is an important theme in the Book of Acts. Jesus tells his disciples they are going to receive the Holy Spirit so they can be witnesses of all that they have seen (Acts 1:7-8). Likewise, the Gospel of John ends with the testimony of the disciple who wrote down the contents of the book; he bears witness (from μαρτυρέω) these things are true. John may be the last living eyewitness to the life and teaching of Jesus. It is possible to think of the author “pulling rank” and saying something like, “you have to trust me on this because I am the last of the original eyewitnesses.”

Since John is responding to teachers who are teaching a different theology about Jesus, John is claiming to have a superior source of knowledge and understanding of who Jesus was because he was there. He saw and understood everything from the beginning. The opponents either reject this claim, or believe their teaching to be superior to John’s because they have received it through a spiritual gift or perhaps human reasoning.

This appeal to authority might annoy the modern reader, especially those in America. As a general rule we do not appreciate someone appealing to their own authority as a definitive source. We are naturally suspicious when someone claims “this is true because I said it is.” But the ancient world was less suspicious of personal testimony, so John’s claim to be a real witness of Jesus has weight, especially in contrast to the claims of his opponents.

6 thoughts on “1 John 1:1-2 – Eyewitness to the Word of Life

  1. After all, John was the one who rested his head on Jesus chest. What a sweet position of rememberance to be in. Good post on John’s authority. Thank you for sharing.

    Like

  2. So what does this post tell us about the fact that none of the gospel authors wanted to clearly identify themselves? Tells me that they were not eyewitnesses.

    Like

  3. Although my point did not concern the Gospels, I suppose it could be applied to them. However, only John’s Gospel claims to be an eyewitness, although John 21:24 could be construed as only referring to that final chapter (there are other indications the writer of the fourth gospel was an eyewitness). This interest in eye-witness testimony is part of the Johannine literature in general.

    Luke specifically says he is not an eyewitness: Luke 1:2 refers to things handed down from the eyewitnesses. Matthew does not directly claim to be an eyewitness (nor is in really implied anywhere), and in the traditional view of Mark, he was not an eyewitness (assuming the naked boy in 14:51-52 is not the author).

    Like

  4. It is true, in our modern time, we have a hard time believing those who claimed to have authority with the Bible. It makes sense as mentioned on the blog, in ancient world, it was less suspicious of personal testimony. Now in days, a lot of people have claimed authority and has abused it by using the Bible to support their own selfish and harmful plan for themselves. That gives people suspicious and have the right to be suspicious. In general, Jobes makes a statement of this gospel, “presents the reasons why someone should believe in Jesus as the messiah and the Son of God (407).” I think people should rely more on the Holy Spirit to guide him or her towards the Truth of Jesus, and to discern, to test every spirit, to make sure you are not being led astray or deceive. For the part that said about having two or more witnesses to establish truth, this method could be used for public miracles, or perhaps new revelation, but overall, 1 John with 2 John are concerned about False teachers and teachings. Again, goes back to the promise Jesus said about the Holy Spirit being our guide and truth towards change.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.