The work and publications of Jan du Rand on the corpus Johanneum are exceptional. Over his long academic career, he has made an invaluable contribution to the critical analysis and scholarly understanding of the discipline of the New Testament. He published numerous studies, but it is in particular for his discourse analysis of the Greek text of 1 John that I want to acknowledge him. This discourse analysis, published in Neotestamentica (Du Rand 1979:1–42), is an excellent analysis of the dialectic thoughts, semantic networks and rhetoric of the author of 1 John (hereafter ‘the Elder’). Therefore, it is my privilege and pleasure in this essay to give something back to Jan du Rand for what he has given to the contemporary readers of 1 John. I have chosen the particular pericope of 1 John 2:28–3:10 on Johannine eschatology due to because of Du Rand's love of and interest in eschatological texts.¹

This essay begins with a brief analysis of the relatedness of the three eschatological texts in 1 John. This constitutes the environment or context within which the spirituality² of the eschatology of 1 John is embedded. I shall then present a typical Du Randian discourse analysis of the indicated text (1 Jn 2:28–3:10), from which I shall point out some³ mechanisms that will help to determine the effects used both intentionally and unintentionally by the Elder in his rhetoric to evoke some spiritualities embedded in this eschatological text.

Three clear eschatological texts (2:28; 3:2–3; 4:17) occur in 1 John, of which two (2:28; 3:2–3) appear in the same pericope. This heightens the awareness of the community that lived in this eschatological era. The present eschatological era (3:5, 8)⁴ will end with the occurrence of the future eschatological event known as the parousia (2:28) or Day of Judgment (4:17), also referred to as revelation (2:28; 3:2). This event will introduce a new ‘future or final eschatological’ era (cf. Dunn 2003:295). The eschatological interpretation of this future event in these texts reflects the close relationship that exists between these three verses (2:28, 3:2f. and 4:17). It helps the reader to understand the Elder's rhetoric regarding this eschatological event. The close relationship between these three verses is indicated by similar expressions, as is evident in the following comparison (cf. Van der Merwe 2006:1055):

From the above analysis, it is evident that verses 2:28 and 4:17 form a parallelism, which is established by the phrases σχῶμεν παρρησίαν [may have confidence] and παρρησίαν ἔχωμεν [equally: may have confidence]. This parallelism is further supported by the two semantically related references that refer to the future appearance of Jesus, ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ [at his coming] and ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς κρίσεως [on the Day of Judgment]. The parallelism further helps to relate the coming of Christ (τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ) to the Day of Judgment (τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς κρίσεως). In addition, the phrases σχῶμεν παρρησίαν and παρρησίαν ἔχωμεν constitute a chiasm to emphasise the conduct expected from believers before the coming of Christ. It refers to the ‘confidence’ that these early Christians could have had regarding the parousia [coming].

From this loaded comparison, the following can be deduced: The Elder uses the verb ‘revelation’ (φανερωθῇ, 2:28; 3:2)⁵ as a compound word to depict this revelational event as the parousia of Jesus (παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ, 2:28) and the Day of Judgment (τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς κρίσεως, 4:17).⁶ Whereas parousia refers to the future eschatological event as such, the Day of Judgment refers to the nature (purpose) of this event (Van der Merwe 2006:1055).

It is imperative to take cognisance of the fact that, in these three eschatological texts, the Elder also exhorts readers to ‘prepare themselves’ for the parousia and the Day of Judgment. If they have ‘prepared themselves’, then on that Day of Judgment, they may have confidence and will not be put to shame before him (i.e. Jesus, 2:28; cf. 4:16f.). They will then also become like him for they will see him as he is (3:2). These texts contain two exhortations, namely to ‘abide in him’ (μένετε ἐν αὐτῷ, 2:28; cf. also 3:6, 9) and to ‘purify yourselves just as He is pure’ (ἁγνίζει ἑαυτόν, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος ἁγνός ἐστιν, 3:3). It also contains a statement, ‘Love has been perfected among us … just as He is’ (Ἐν τούτῳ τετελείωται ἡ ἀγάπη μεθʼἡμῶν … καθὼς ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν, 4:17; cf. 3:10). All three of these texts relate to Jesus, who is the Son of God⁷ and the personification of ‘divine life’ (1:2). On the Day of Judgment, faith in Jesus through whom God became incarnate and the example of his earthly life to which believers have to conform (καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησεν, 2:6) will be the measures according to which people will be judged. For the Elder, in this present eschatological time, imitating Christ is possible only as κοινωνία ([fellowship], 1:3, 6, 7) amongst believers and corporately with God within the household of God⁸ (Van der Merwe 2006:1054–1057).

The eschatological climate in this pericope constitutes the environment for the spirituality of the readers. The Elder endeavours to evoke certain spiritualities in the readers in order to mobilise them to act correctly. The task of contemporary exegetes comprises investigation of these texts for stylistic as well as embedded mechanisms that the Elder knowingly or unknowingly used and by means of which spiritualities are evoked in the reader. These spiritualities form part of the rhetoric of the text to motivate the reader to adhere to the exhortations (or statements) in the text.

Waaijman (2002:742) asserts that readers shape the depiction of sacred texts in their imagination. They do this in order to participate effectively in the texts. For Iser (1978:131), ‘(t)his involvement, or entanglement, is what places us in the “presentness” of the text and what makes the text into a presence for us’. In other words, readers are drawn into the world of the texts, and the texts are drawn into the world of the readers. Even copying these texts during the Middle Ages meant much more to the people than merely producing the texts fully or accurately: ‘It was a way of appropriating a text’ (Waaijman 2002:744). This, involvement in texts, signifies that the serious or contemplative reading of biblical texts produces various kinds of spiritualities, both of the text and the divine.¹⁰ These various spiritualities critically depends on the content the text communicated about the divine and also on who is reading the text.

This essay will focus on only three of the effects that Waaijman (2002:744) discusses and through which spiritualities embedded in texts are constituted: (1) the dynamic interaction between text and reader in the reading process, (2) the imaginative composition of images and (3) the dialectic of pretension and retention.¹¹ A fourth effect is taken from Iser (1978:131), namely (4) entanglement in a text. Contemplative reading ushers in these effects. These effects help us to make sense of the texts and to determine some of the lived experiences evoked when the early Christians read these texts. These effects are, in what follows, applied to 1 John 2:28–3:10.

In order to make any sense of these effects proposed by Waaijman and Iser, it is necessary to begin with a discourse analysis of 1 John 2:28–3:10 in which these effects will be investigated.¹² Such a discourse analysis will have four functions: (1) It will help us to identify the different semantic networks (semantically related words or phrases or concepts) that enhance better understanding and dynamic interaction between text and reader. (2) It will help us to determine the argument and rhetoric of the author. (3) It will assist us in constructing the bigger picture by means of semantic networks that created coherent mind maps. (4) It will also help us to relate what has already been read with what is still to be read.

Although this discourse analysis looks slightly different from that performed by Du Rand in 1979, there is also quite an extensive resemblance between them. Numerous semantic networks occur in this discourse, but not all of these networks can be indicated in this brief analysis, therefore only some of them are referred to in the discussion.

The reading of a written text comprises a continuous dialogical negotiation for meaning between the text and the reader. Such a negotiation evokes different ‘lived experiences’. According to Iser (1978:107), a text is a ‘structured prefigurement’. The way in which texts are received and interpreted depends both on who the reader is and on the kind of text (genre) that he or she is reading. Reading certainly does not comprise a one-way process but an active interaction and negotiation between text and reader (cf. Iser 1978:107). According to Waaijman (2002:748), readers become actively involved when they understand and imagine the meaning of the text and when they reflect on the entire text. The reading of texts constitutes in readers ‘lived experiences’ of the characters, their identities¹³ and their conduct in the texts. Such reading events innovate and create events and experiences when (reading) the text enlightens readers and allows them to bring their own skills and competencies into play (cf. Iser 1978:108). The rhetoric of the Elder, as embedded in the text, will then influence the ‘lived experiences’ of the readers and persuade them to act in particular ways.

From the above selected text and discourse analysis (2:28–3:10), we can distinguish the following formal and informal strategies embedded in the text to generate particular ‘lived experiences’ and conduct within an eschatological environment. Waaijman (2002:750) refers to the following three formal strategies, here applied to 1 John:

The following informal strategies are also used in the selected text. These strategies generate dynamic interactions between the reader and the text and complement the formal strategies (also cf. Van der Merwe 2015:5–6):

1. Semantic networks: The semantic networks constructed in the discourse analysis of the pericope (2:28–3:10) guide the imagination of the readers and strengthen their expectation of the parousia. They also imperatively emphasise an introspective analysis of the reader's present conduct. These networks not only point out the coherence of everything referred to in the text but also involves the reader with the rhetoric embedded in the text as well as with the Elder's arguments. The linguistic construction of paragraph 2:28–3:3 as well as the developing argument of the Elder express a close eschatological parallelism between the present (νῦν, 2:28; 3:2) and the future (ἐὰν φανερωθῇ, 3:2; Du Plessis 1978:70ff.). The identity and character of the reader are critically important for the future (2:28; Du Rand 1979:12). The content of the second paragraph extends the identity and character of the reader by comparing the children of the devil (3:4–8) to the children of God (3:9–10).

The following semantic networks refer to the repetitions and semantic relationships of the various words or concepts or themes and to the rhetoric of the Elder. Its aims is not only to constitute coherence in the pericope but also to propose a certain related identity for the readers and to uphold the conduct that they should follow – which again evokes various spiritualities in the readers.

The first semantic network, indicated in the discourse analysis (Figure 1) as ‘a’, comprises three family-related references (τεκνία/ἀγαπητοί, 2:28; 3:2, 7). The Elder uses these references to indicate the intimate relationship that exists between him and the readers in the Johannine community in order to identify them as part of the household of God. The second network (‘b’) refers to both the revelation (φανερ?_ω) or parousia of Jesus (2:28; 3:2; 4:17, which are semantically related and refer to this revelation as the ‘Day of Judgment’) and the incarnation of Jesus (3:4, 8). The last occurrence of the verb φανερ?_ω refers to the revelation of Jesus as destroying the work of the devil (3:10). The third network (‘c’) refers to three virtues that the believers (the children of God) should demonstrate (righteousness [2:29; 3:7, 10], purity [3:3] and love [3:10]), which relate to the characters of both the Father and the Son. These virtues can only be achieved when one abides in Jesus. The fourth network (‘d’) refers to the family metaphor that characterises the believers (3:1, 2; 4–10). The fifth network (‘e’) refers to the revelation of Jesus as taking away sin (3:5) and destroying the work of the devil (3:8). The sixth network (‘f’) refers to the child of God who cannot sin, and this forms a chiasm (3:9) that emphasises that the seed of God remains in believers. The last indicated network (‘g’) compares the children of God with the children of the devil with regard to righteousness and love (3:10). Only two of these networks will be attended to below.

2. Linguistic features: Examples of these are ‘the occurrence of the first person plural (we) of personal pronouns (ἡμᾶς, ἡμῖν, ὑμᾶς), the first person plural of verbs (-ῶμεν, ἐσμεν, ἐσόμεθα), the high frequency of adjectives (every one, all [πᾶς];¹⁴ ‘no-one’ [μηδεὶς], 3:7) and the repetitive chiastic structures,¹⁵ parallelisms¹⁶ and cyclic reasoning¹⁷ in the text’ (Van der Merwe 2015:6). These all help the readers to comply with the intention of the text. The eightfold occurrence of the adjective πᾶς, in combination with a participle (3:4, 6 [twice], 9) or with only the participle (ὁ ποιῶν, 2:29; 3:4, 7, 8, 9, 10; cf. ὁ μὴ, 3:10) accentuates the personalised active person (cf. Du Rand 1979:14). These features draw the readers into the events described in the text, and it draws the text into the readers. The reader experiences the reality of being part of the household of God. ‘Being part of’ emphasises the close relationship between the Father, Jesus and the children of God.

3. Dialectic language: Dialectic discourse is defined as a rhetorical technique that extensively uses antithetical and binary language to convince or persuade another person regarding the truth or correctness of a specific argument (cf. Benjamin 1983:65; Cosigny 1989:281–287; Gadamer 1980:3; Holmberg 1977:233; Lake 1986:206f.; Murray 1988:286). Murphy (1971:116) adds to the definition that dialectical discourse also makes use of metaphors referring to transformation or even ‘becoming’ to convince readers that transformation is not only imaginable but also inevitable.

In the case of 1 John, each dialectical choice¹⁸ becomes an opportunity to direct the readers in making the right decision regarding ethical conduct in the household of God. Thus, dialectic discourse prompts readers to associate with God and to act like children of God. In 2:28–3:10, as already mentioned, the children of God are set against the children of the devil (3:4–10). For the Elder, the Father of the former is righteous (29:1; 3:7) whilst the devil commits sin from the beginning (3:8). His conduct is defined as the works of the devil (3:8). Believers are from God (2:29; 3:9) whilst the children of the devil are not from God (3:10). Believers know God, but the others do not (3:1, 6). The children of God do what is right (2:29; 3:7), and therefore, they will see him through the resurrected and glorified Christ. The children of the devil commit sin, therefore they will not see God (3:6; cf. Van der Merwe 2015:6).

Introspectively, the dialectic discourse in the text and some choices made by the readers create tension and sometimes even guilt within the readers, as well as a longing to do the right thing. This is reminiscent of what Paul says in Romans 7:15 (also v. 19): ‘For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.’ In addition, the high frequency of dialectic discourse in 1 John (see Tollefson 1999:79–89) is deliberately used by the Elder to communicate intellectually as well as emotionally with the readers, namely to convince them that change is definitely possible and also inevitable ‘now’ and has critical implications for the parousia.

4. Two prominent themes: These occur in the first paragraph (2:28–3:3). They closely relate to one another and run parallel throughout the paragraph to constitute important structural markers. They also contribute to the inherent cohesion of the paragraph, and together, they are responsible for the culminating eschatological spirituality embedded in the phrase ‘… for we shall see him as He is’. One theme (identity) is then explicitly developed in the second paragraph (3:4–10) whilst the other (eschatology) is implicitly present in the same paragraph. These themes are the following:

5. Intimate forms of address: By using these two forms of address, ‘beloved’ (3:2)²⁰ and ‘little children’ (2:28; 3:7),²¹ the Elder endeavours to make the reading of this epistle a personal experience. When he addresses his readers as ‘beloved’ (ἀγαπητοί),²² he firstly wants to attract their attention and secondly wants his readers to identify themselves with him and vice versa. He attempts to emphasise the spiritual truth already pronounced in 3:1 where he stated that, through the love of God, true believers can be called children of God (ἵνα τέκνα θεοῦ κληθῶμεν, 3:1, 2, 10). They are now (νῦν) already children of God (3:2) and they do what is right (ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην, 2:29). This emphasises the reality of their present status as children of the Father – νῦν τέκνα θεοῦ ἐσμεν (3:2, [now we are children of God]). This status balances the future character of God's children, which the Elder intends to describe in the rest of this verse (Smalley 1989:144), and was meant to encourage and motivate them to live as children of God.

When biblical texts are read, the readers’ imagination composes images of what the text presents to them. The reader subjectively and selectively composes ‘… the images out of the multifarious aspects of the text²³ as well as the metaphors embedded in the text’ (cf. Iser 1978:150; Van der Merwe 2015:5). The physical images, material objects, attitudes or events described in the text are imaginatively experienced. The reading process then facilitates the passive fusion between the meaning of a text and the experience of the text in the mind of the readers. This entails a connection between the text and the readers: The readers themselves, ‘… in constituting the meaning,²⁴ is also constituted’ (Iser 1978:150). At this point, various perspectives of parts of the text move into focus and become actualised in relation to and in comparison with preceding parts. In this reading process, readers constitute a sequence of these images in their minds. The successive images again progressively constitute a certain configuration to generate both a field of meaning and experience (Iser 1978:108–118).²⁵ Such a configuration is then understood, interpreted and applied in the lives of the readers.

Osborn ([1967] 2009:115), in his research on ‘archetypal metaphor in rhetoric’, makes a pioneering contribution to the understanding of metaphors. For him, archetypal metaphors create new possibilities both for conducting rhetorical analysis and for the composition of images in the mind. His view of the archetypal metaphor ‘… carries the idea of basic, unchanging patterns of experience’ (Osborn [1967] 2009:115). Osborn ([1967] 2009:116) claims that archetypal metaphors demonstrate a persuasive power because of ‘… their attachment to basic commonly shared motives’ (Osborn [1967] 2009:116). Adams (1983:56–71) also discusses the family metaphor as an archetypal metaphor.

In 1 John, the Elder uses a coherent network of metaphors²⁶ that relate to the social veracity of 1st-century family life (Lassen 1997:103; Moxnes 1997; Van der Watt 1999:491). He does this to explain important Christian concepts and conduct (Van der Merwe 2010:209). Family metaphors (network ‘d’ above) are also used quite extensively in this eschatological pericope (2:28–3:10). The Elder writes about the relationship between God and the Johannine Christians from a family perspective. Elsewhere in this epistle, he makes the apophatic statement that ‘nobody has ever seen God’. How then can one talk about such an invisible God? By using the family metaphor, the Elder not only makes it possible to talk about this God, but he also explains to the reader the character of the relationship between God and his children. He succeeds in drawing the reader into the text to experience life in the household of God via the characters and events described in the text. He incorporates conventions from the everyday family life of the 1st-century Mediterranean environment that used to be widely accepted in his description of the household of God. He applies these conventions to the actions and events in the community. In so doing, the Elder attempts to initiate and establish images of the social interrelatedness between a father and his children in the minds of the readers (cf. Van der Merwe 2010:209; Van der Watt 1992:272–279).²⁷

In 3:1 the Elder proclaims the theme of the fatherhood of God, which he already introduced as early as 1:2, 3, where he refers to Jesus as his Son (1:3). He relates this to the idea that believers can be called ‘children of God’ (3:1, 2, 10). More family terminology occurs, such as ‘born of him’ (2:29),²⁸ ‘God's children’ (3:2),²⁹ ‘Son of God’ (3:8), ‘born of God’ (twice, 3:9), ‘God's seed’ (3:9), ‘children’ (3:10) and ‘brothers’ (3:10). The behaviour in the family refers to the ‘love the Father has given’ (3:1), to ‘do what is right’ (2:29; 3:7), ‘to live pure’ and to ‘love their brothers’ (3:10). All of these references create images and lived experiences of the environment of family life. The readers of the 1st century were familiar with these images and could identify with them. All this then engenders eschatological hope (3:3, ἐλπίδα) and longing to see the Father and Jesus the Son of this divine family after the parousia (Van der Merwe 2015:6).

The use of these relational family images³⁰ entangles believers with one another and corporately with God (see 1:3 on fellowship) in relationships of which behavioural expectations inherently form part. This suggests that familial images referred to and used in written texts can evoke primary ‘… actions, attitudes, and emotions’ (Adams 1983:57). By using household expressions, the Elder involves the personal cognitive, emotional and social attachments that were familiar within early extended family life. This he then applies within the sphere of believers. These expectations of family life are embedded in the archetypal relational pattern that featured through centuries of human existence. ‘The concept ‘son’, for example, entails certain generalisable rights, duties, privileges, attitudes, pitfalls, problems, etc., which are associated with it. These associations can set up expectations, attitudes, emotions and actions’ (Adams 1983:57) if believers could be made to feel ‘son-ish’. The same pertains to the figures of the ‘father’, the ‘brother’ as well as ‘life in the family’ (Adams 1983:56).

When the Elder tries to get his readers imaginatively bonded to and involved in this kind of family life, he discloses a collective orientation. Such an orientation is imperative because one of the paradigms designed in 1 John was to bind people together for collective action and to distinguish them from other groups (see Van der Merwe 2010:207–226). For creating such collective experience and bonding, I already indicated that the Elder had at his disposal a range of familiar familial images to which he could refer. The family relationship amongst believers constitutes and strengthens a unity spelled out by means of cultural or religious norms. In this sense, relational images have a ‘bonding power’ that distinguishes them from other references of categorisation. The taxonomy ‘brothers and sisters’ (1 Jn 3:10) is a more powerful reference for unification and affection than ‘people’ because ‘people’ lacks the familial connotation and force (cf. Adams 1983:56f.).

In contrast with the familia Dei [household of God], the Elder displays the familia diabolus [household of the devil, ‘c’ above] in the last paragraph (3:4–10) with a specific reference to ‘the devil’ and ‘the children of the devil’ (3:10). Again he uses household terminology. He namely refers to those in opposition to the ‘children of God’ as ‘children of the devil’ (3:8, 10). The devil is their father (see Jn 8:44); he has been sinning from the beginning (3:8). The works of this devil and his children are ‘to sin’, which is depicted here as lawlessness (3:4) and ‘not to do what is right’ (3:10)’ (Van der Merwe 2015:5). This is the dominant structural marker of this paragraph (3:4–10; Du Rand 1979:13).

The reading of written texts gradually evokes a conceptual world. The picturing of the opposing images of family life (familia Dei vs familia diabolus) in this paragraph creates lived experiences of tension and concern in the reader. This means ‘… that textual perspectives contrast with each other’ (Waaijman 2002:745). As the early Christians read the texts, figures arose and their (different and various) actions became clear. Certain figures were characterised, some more than other, and were connected. As the text developed, themes developed or were pictorially illuminated from other perspectives (Waaijman 2002:746). The picturing of opposites helps the reader to understand, distinguish and experience entities or particular events in a certain way (Van der Merwe 2015:5). This environment of opposites creates tension within believers, which is further critically enhanced by the presence of the two eschatological texts (2:28; 3:2). These tensions affect the ‘lived experiences’ of the believers through what the text communicates about God and Jesus.

The above account underscores the strong rhetorical dynamic and imaging of the family metaphor. When family metaphoric is applied to a particular group of people in a specific situation, bonding power, images and lived experiences are created, and the reader is drawn imaginatively into the sphere of the household of God where the children of God are united into a coherent group.

Occurrences of public reading and recitation and even of public performance of Scripture are evident in Scripture (Dudrey 2003:235).³¹ Sometimes biblical writers explicitly requested that their texts be read aloud to the church.³² Most New Testament epistles simply assumed that the entire local church or congregation or all the congregations of the city or the region would hear the text read aloud (Dudrey 2003:235). These epistles were read over and over again when the Christians assembled on Sundays for worship. This may have brought those who heard the readings a sense of proximity to the text (Waaijman 2002:744).³³ Repeated (contemplative) reading or studying of the same (biblical) text will create various lived experiences. This will also happen as a text becomes more familiar to the reader and as the reader develops more insight into it.

1 John provides a specific example of a biblical document consciously written to be read aloud to an audience – a document of ‘oral literature’, filled with identifiable oral and auditory features³⁴ (Dudrey 2003:236). Witherington (2006:410) also agrees that 1 John was read aloud.³⁵

The reading of a written text causes the reader to become more vigilant and active. When such a text is descriptive, it arouses images in the imagination of the reader. These images emerge against the background of what the reader has already read and also (during repetitions) against the background of what still lies ahead to be read. The text continues to disclose itself at every moment of reading. This creates various ‘lived experiences’. The unfolding of the text takes place against ‘the combined background of memory and expectation’ (Van der Merwe 2015:7; Waaijman 2002:744).

Husserl (referred to in Waaijman 2002:744) labels this recalled background ‘retention’ and the awaited background ‘pretension’ (see also Iser 1978:112). Retention comprises the already read text, and pretension – which is still untenanted – the text still to be read. ‘The tension created between retention and pretension controls the reading experience’ (Van der Merwe 2015:7; see also Waaijman 2002:744).

In this pericope (2:28–3:10), the verb φανερ?_ω [to make visible, to appear] occurs six times (2:28; 3:2 [twice], 5, 8, 10). This high frequency dominates the whole of the Elder's line of thought (cf. Westcott 1902:98), and creates a dialectic of retention and pretension. The verb φανερωθῇ in 2:28 relates semantically to παρουσίᾳ (2:28), from which it receives its meaning, and occurs again in 3:2, the same meaning referring to the second coming of Jesus somewhere in the future. In verses 3:5, 8 (also 1:2) ἐφανερώθη has a different, although semantically related, eschatological meaning, referring to the incarnation of the Son of God. This appearance of the Son of God, which commenced at the incarnation (1:2) and presently continues to be in effect (3:5, 8), will be completed in the future (2:28; 3:2; Smalley 1989:146).

The Elder converges the two eschatological and revelatory events (the incarnation and parousia of Jesus) by using a similar verb, φανερωθῇ [to make visible], in reference to these events. Thus he wants to describe these two events (incarnation and parousia) as a single, all-embracing appearance or epiphany of God. Both of these events, as depicted in the retention and pretension of the verb φανερωθῇ, reveal the identity of God that became visible (experienced) through Jesus Christ. When the first readers read φανερωθῇ in 2:28, they would have recalled (retention) the incarnation of the Son as referred to in 1:1–3, as well as its ‘pretention’ as an epiphany of the love of God (4:9), his involvement in the redemption of sinners (3:5; 4:9, 10, 14) and his involvement in the destruction of the works of the devil (3:8).³⁶ Still part of the pretension is that, at the event of the parousia, Christ will again be revealed as an epiphany of the identity of God (3:2). At this event, the righteousness (1:9; 2:29) of God will be experienced (cf. Schnackenburg 1992:152), as well as his glory (Jn 17:24), love (1 Jn 4:8, 16) and purity (1:5, 3:3; Van der Merwe 2006:1055–1056; also Van der Merwe 2015:8).

New converts and those who discover new truths in a text after repetitive readings are, in the manner described above, caught up in the reading of the text. At first, these Christians do not know what is happening to them. They probably only feel the need to talk about these new eschatological truths (information) that they have discovered and the new life in Jesus of which they have become aware. They do this in order to find out more about what it is in which they have become entangled and what is expected of them to enable them to become part of the household of God. Their presence in the text depends upon their association with the correlative familiar objects or events in their minds. When they are present in any event, such as abiding in Christ and living righteous or pure lives, then something must have happened to them (Iser 1978:131). Iser (1978:131) explains that the more the ‘present’ reality and experience of the text means to the readers, the more their characteristic selves will, at least for the extent of the reading of the text, draw them back into the ‘past’. This then implies that the literary text of 1 John transfers the established views of the readers to the past by itself becoming a present, lived experience. Such a present experience of the text by them is unlikely as long as their characteristic, personal views form their present. ‘Experiences do not come about merely through the recognition of the familiar. Experiences only arise when the familiar is transcended or undermined’ (Iser 1978:131). Thus, each new action or acceptance of new truths become new experiences.

The entanglement of the reader with a text has the effect that various criteria of orientation are pushed back into the past whilst their validity for the new present is suspended. What happens here is that the past of the reader, whatever it might be, starts ‘… to interact with the as yet unfamiliar presence of the text’ (Iser 1978:132). During the course of reading, these experiences continue to change. This is because the attainment of any form of experience is not a matter of calculation, of adding on, but rather ‘… a restructuring of what the readers already possess’ (Iser 1978:132).

When reading the pericope dealt with in this essay (2:28–3:10), something happens to the reader's personal collection of experiences. These experiences cannot remain unaffected. This is because the presence of the experiences in the text has not been constituted through the recognition of what the reader already knows. The familiar experiences are only momentary; their significance changes during the course of the reading. The higher the frequency of these moments, the clearer will be the interaction between the present text and the past experience. New experiences then emerge when the experiences that have been stored are restructured. Such restructuring is what provides to new experiences their forms (Iser 1978:132).

This essay studied the eschatological pericope in 1 John (2:28–3:10) to discover and exploit the spiritualities embedded in this text. It became evident that the events foreseen in this text have implications for how people should live prior to these eschatological events. This essay probed how certain mechanisms in the rhetoric of the Elder, embedded in the text, constitute the following effects on the spirituality of the readers.

The reading of literary texts creates dynamic interactions between the text and the reader. The Elder uses various semantic networks and figures of style (chiastic structures and parallelisms). The two parallel and complementary themes and dialectic language contribute towards drawing readers into the text so that they become part of the dynamically constructed text. The interactions between the text and the reader constitute involvement, tensions and responsibilities, and they influence the emotions of the reader.

The reading of literary texts composes images in the mind of the reader. In 1 John, the family metaphors used by the Elder create not only distinct household images but also family structures, which reflect on relationships with which the reader should associate and to which the reader should conform, following family conventions. This should evoke ‘lived experiences’ of affection in all the members in the familia Dei within the eschatological tension of νῦν [now] and ἐὰν [when].

During the reading of a text, a dialectic of pretension and retention occurs. This is effected through the high-frequency use of repetitive words, phrases, concepts and activities throughout the selected text and helps the reader to become involved in the events of the familia Dei.

The entanglement of the reader in the text evokes new lived experiences. Stored experiences are restructured to constitute new experiences.