Bubba1 wrote:In 1 John 2:14 we see the inclusion of the Father and then we see a contrast between the Father and the τον απ αρχης. It would seem to me, based upon this verse, that the Christ was in view in the previous text. I cannot think of any logical reason for this inclusion other than to establish who the τον απ αρχης was.
I agree, and this is essentially the argument that Marshall makes, especially since the contrasts between "fathers" and "young people" in vv. 12-14 seems tied to the use of "the one who was from the beginning" and "the Father." What's the rhetorical function of this contrast between fathers and young people and the use of "the one who was from the beginning" and "the Father"? Does this imply a relationship, too, between God the Father and Jesus the Son, but clarifying that this son was "from the beginning"? I think so, but concede that there is room to see parallels here between "the Father" and "the one who was from the beginning," not contrasts. I have never seen this particular issue examined from a rhetorical analysis point of view, but I haven't looked very hard.
Moreover, "the one who was from the beginning" comes on the heels of "your sins have been forgiven because of his name" in v. 12. In that verse, "his name" almost certainly refers to Jesus Christ. Note the last reference was to Jesus in 2:8 and before that in 2:6; also the mention of sins being forgiven suggests Jesus’ work on the cross. It seems only natural that in v. 13, the author of this epistle would still have Jesus in mind when referring to "the one who was from the beginning."
As to "the beginning," I think the context is most consistent with the idea of this referring to "the beginning of time," not the beginning of the gospel (unlike Phil 4:15), or of "the beginning of the Christian era" (contra
de la Potterie, Wendt, Windisch and others). Unlike 1 John 2:7, which refers to an "old commandment which you have had from the beginning," and clearly refers to a commandment from Jesus* and must refer to the beginning of the Christian era, the section from 2:12-14 seems to refer more to broader events outside the existence of history. Furthermore, if one accepts that the author of the First Epistle of John is the same person as the author of the Gospel of John, then it becomes more apparent that in 2:12-14 he is probably talking about the beginning of all time.
But there IS ambiguity here--both in the person referred to (God the Father vs. Jesus) and in what is meant by "the beginning" (either the beginning of the Christian era/movement or the beginning of all time). Greek grammar won't help clarify the ambiguity, either. What difference does this make? I'd say that the only difference it might make is that it renders it unwise to use 1 John 1:12-14 as proof of the relationship between the first and second persons of the trinity when developing a doctrine of Christology. I think the most one can say is that 1 John 2:12-14 is consistent with, but not proof of, the classical doctrine of the trinity. I don't think you can use 1 John 2:12-14 to argue against the classical formulation of the trinity.
In other words, don't base your whole Christology or theology on this passage. Personally, though, I think "the one who was from the beginning" refers to Jesus as second person of the trinity and "the beginning" means "the beginning of time." I acknowledge, though, that those who disagree are not necessarily wrong in their exegesis.
*This old commandment received from the beginning of Christianity as a movement may very well refer to that stated in John 13:34-35: "I give you a new commandment – to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples – if you have love for one another." I think the explicit statements about Christians loving and hating each other in 1 John 2:9-10 are best understood in light of John 13:34-35.