Reading 1 John with Exodus

The use of the Old Testament in the epistle of 1 John is widely disputed.[i] This short essay is an attempt to map out a set of allusions with a proposed typological pattern that is present in 1 John 1:5–2:2. My thesis is that this paragraph has Exodus 32–34 as a background, setting Jesus up as a new Moses, who intercedes on our behalf, and who is honored by the God who is faithful and just. The argument will unfold in five sections. First, the methodology used here is explained. Second, 1:5–2:2 has be defended as one literary unit. Third, a summary of the Exodus story is offered. Fourth, the points of contact between the two stories will be articulated. Finally, the conclusion will offer a summary of the evidence and the exegetical “payoff” from this intertextual connection.

Methodology

Before engaging with typology, allusions, or the NT use of the OT I want to make my own method clear.[ii] First, I am assuming the preference and priority of the authorial intent of the text.[iii] The Scriptures are divine documents, written by men who were inspired and carried along by the Holy Spirit. I do not believe that allegory or any other such approach that imposes a foreign or disconnected meaning onto the text is appropriate.[iv] Therefore, in my view, any allusion or typological pattern must be validated as intended by both the human and divine authors and the two are not opposed or divided.

Second, if allusions and typology are intended by the authors and not imposed onto the text by the reader, then we need a clear criteria and definition for each. Typology is aptly defined by Jim Hamilton as, “God ordained, author-intended historical correspondence and escalation in significance between people, events, and institutions across the Bible’s redemptive-historical story.”[v] In other words, a “type” is a pattern, found across the Scriptures, which happened in history (ordained by God), and that the human authors intended to be noticed. Types can be established in a text with three criteria—lexical correspondence (repeated words or phrases), shared sequences of events, and escalation in significance.

Allusions on the other hand, I define as conscious yet subtle references by an author to an earlier text.[vi] This is in contrast to a quotation, which is usually explicit and introduced with a quotation formula of some kind, or an echo, which is probably not a conscious reference, but simply a moment when the author’s imagination, culture, or memorized texts “seep out” into their speech. While authors like G. K. Beale have given extensive criteria for allusions,[vii] I want to focus on only a few.[viii] First, the text being alluded to must be available to the author, and it must have been probable that he would have read it. Second, there must be similar contexts, themes, or ideas which would connect the two texts. This way, the allusion is able to heighten the meaning of the newer while honoring the author of the older. Third, the allusion can be established on linguistic parallels that are shared in both texts. This should ideally be 3–4 words in sequence, but it could simply be unique forms that are shared in only those texts. These are the primary criteria for both allusions and types as we move through this passage.

The Literary Structure of 1 John 1:5–2:2

There is no shortage of suggested literary structures of John’s first letter.[ix] The goal here is to propose that 1:5–2:2 is one literary unit. The argument presented below requires that 1:5–2:2 makes up one cohesive unit, which alludes to Exodus 32–34. While some have suggested that the vocative at 2:1 (Τεκνία μου “my children”) indicates a discourse break between 1:10 and 2:1, I do not find this persuasive. According to Robert Longacre, throughout 1 John there are “structural paragraphs in most cases indicated by the distribution of vocatives.” [x] This is not entirely out of the question, but I contend that the vocative at 2:1 does not indicate such a break. First, as Longacre indicates, not every vocative indicates a paragraph or structural break. If this were the case then 2:12–14 would be a collection of six different paragraphs, each only one line. Second, this particular variant at 2:1 functions not as the hinge to a new paragraph, but actually the climax of 1:5–10. There are 19 total vocatives in the five chapters of 1 John, but this is the only one which is modified by a pronoun.[xi] Since it is unique in this way, it is not out of the question to view it as unique from the other vocatives throughout the book. This vocative with a pronoun functions as the climax of the argument which he has already been building. [xii] There are two additional reasons to view the discourse in this way.

First, the term ἁμαρτίας (sin) is a pivotal piece of the argument in 1:5–10. Indeed, it is repeated five times in this paragraph (v. 7, 8, 9 [x2], 10). This term is continued in its repetition through 2:1–2 (it is used 3 more times). Through the thread of ἁμαρτίας, the author is able to weave the whole paragraph together.

Second, if we take 2:1–2 with 1:5–10, then the argument is built in a perfect triad—built with three instances of ἐάν εἴπωμεν, followed by a claim of a false believer, which is then answered by another ἐάν + a subjunctive (περιπατῶμεν [1:7], ὁμολογῶμεν [1:9]) which offers hope to the liar, each one stepping up in intensity from the last. The final claim of the false professors results in God being a liar, and if it is separated from 2:1–2 then it has no resolution. However, if the two paragraphs are kept together, then 2:1–2 is able to offer a climactic resolution to the problem. In contrast to those who deny any practice of sin (1:10), the Apostle offers hope to the sinner—an Intercessor with the Father, who is able to make atonement not only for us, but for the whole world. This structure can be found in the outline below.

Heading: ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστιν καὶ σκοτία ἐν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδεμία (“God is light and in Him is no darkness at all”).

NEGATIVE (1:6): If we claim fellowship, but walk in darkness, we are liars and do not practice truth; ANSWER (1:7): If we walk in the light with Him, His Son cleanses us from all sin.

NEGATIVE (1:8): If we claim to have no sin, we deceive ourselves and do not practice truth; ANSWER (1:9): If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive sins and cleans unrighteousness.

NEGATIVE (1:10): If we claim to have never sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us; ANSWER (2:1–2): We should not sin, but if we do we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous, who is our great atonement.

Summary of the Exodus Story

Exodus 32–34[xiii] narrates one of Israel’s greatest sins. Chapter 32 opens to tell us that Moses is still up on the mountain with God (where he has been since 24:18). In response to the delay, the people call on Aaron to make them a golden calf. At which point he promptly collects their gold and jewelry to create this idol. Once the idol is built Aaron presents it to them saying, “This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt” (32:4). The Lord, while speaking to Moses, knows that this occurs and sends Moses down the mountain because “your people whom you brought out of Egypt have corrupted themselves” (32:7). God sets Himself at this point to wipe Israel off of the face of the earth and start again with Moses. At which point, Moses intercedes, pleading with the covenant promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so that the Lord would spare the nation. Once God relents, Moses goes down the mountain and as he and Joshua arrive near the camp they hear singing and loud noises from the camp.

Once in the camp Moses rages with anger and breaks the tablets from God. He then grinds up the golden calf, scatters it into the water, and makes the nation drink from it. Moses then turns to Aaron and speaks to him saying, “What did this people do to you that you have brought so great a sin upon them?” (32:21). After Aaron wanders around with excuses, the Levites who are on God’s side go through the camp and slaughter all the idolaters that will not repent, which results in the death of three thousand men of Israel.

Before Moses goes back up the mountain, he commands Israel to “fill your hands to YHWH” (32:29, author’s translation [מִלְא֨וּ יֶדְכֶ֤ם]). He says that they have committed a great sin, and he is going to intercede before God so that “perhaps I can make atonement for your sin (LXX: ἐξιλάσωμαι περὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὑμῶν)” (32:30). We read about Moses’ first intercession in 32:31–34. Here Moses pleads that God spare the people, even offering up himself in their place! God responds to this saying, “Whoever has sinned against me, I will blot him out of my book” (32:33).

The intercession continues into chapter 33, which is built chiastically: verses 1–6 God says He will spare the people, but will not go up with them into the land; verses 7–11 narrate Moses’ role in the tent of meeting, which is outside the camp, where God speaks with Moses face to face as a friend; in the final unit, 33:12–34:9, God shows grace to the nation, promises to go up with them into the land, and shows Moses His glory. When God shows Moses His glory, He passes over Him and declares perhaps the most important verses in the Bible,[xiv]

The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.

In the remainder of chapter 34 the covenant is renewed, and the feasts are reestablished. Likewise, we are told that Moses’ face, after meeting with God, would glow and terrify the people. Therefore, he wore a veil over his face until he would return to speak with God. The next question that we need to ask is—what ties this story with the epistle of 1 John? It is now that we turn to evaluate several points of contact between the two texts.

Lexical Points of Contact

The burden at this point in the essay is to establish lexical points of contact between the two passages in question. I hope to show that John intentionally repeated several words and phrases from the Exodus story in order that his readers might hear the similarities. I have identified 3 different types of lexical contact in the two passages which are presented in below.

The Recurrence of ἁμαρτάνω and Its Root

First, there is a constant drum beat in both texts with a focus on sin and the sinners. As presented above, this term is repeated in 1 John 1:7, 8, 9 [x2], 10, 2:1 [x2], 2. Likewise, the term is found in the Exodus story in 32:21, 30 [x2], 31, 32, 33, 34, 34:7. Not only is the term repeated throughout, but in the Greek texts there are particular uncommon forms that are shared. For instance, the perfect tense form “ἡμαρτήκαμεν” that is found in 1 John 1:10 is used in Exodus 32:30, 31, and 33 (ἡμαρτήκατε / ἡμάρτηκεν / ἡμάρτηκεν).[xv]

1 John 1:9 and Exodus 34:6-7

The next point of contact is made at 1 John 1:9. The similarities between the two verses are highlighted below:

Old Testament	1 John
Ex. 34:6-7 Κύριος ὁ θεὸς οἰκτείρμων καὶ ἐλεήμων, μακρόθυμος καὶ πολυέλεος καὶ ἀληθινός, 7 καὶ δικαιοσύνην διατηρῶν καὶ ἔλεος εἰς χιλιάδας, ἀφαιρῶν ἀνομίας καὶ ἀδικίας καὶ ἁμαρτίας, καὶ οὐ καθαριεῖ τὸν ἔνοχον.	1 John 1:9 ἐὰν ὁμολογῶμεν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, πιστός ἐστιν καὶ δίκαιος, ἵνα ἀφῇ ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας καὶ καθαρίσῃ ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀδικίας.

The Old Testament background for this verse has long been recognized and is not largely contested, although it is not discussed in many commentaries.[xvi] Several points of contact can be noticed here. Most importantly, you will notice that the verbs ἀφῇ (forgive) and καθαρίσῃ (cleanse) are found in the same order as Ex. 34:7. Likewise, though the nouns are in reverse order, we find the same pairing of ἁμαρτίας (sin) and ἀδικίας (unrighteousness) in 1 John.

1 John 2:1–2 and Exodus 32–33

In 1 John 2:1–2 there are both thematic and linguistic points of contact. First, we are told that, for those who sin, there is an Intercessor (παράκλητον) who stands before the Father (πρὸς τὸν πατέρα), who is Jesus Christ the Righteous (Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν δίκαιον). In the Exodus story, Moses is never directly given the title “Intercessor” or “Advocate.” However, this is exactly how he functions for the nation of Israel. Therefore, there is, at the very least, thematic similarity between these texts.

There are two more reasons to view Christ’s intercession and Moses’ as similar works. First, though he is not titled “Intercessor” we are told that Moses stands before God, and in Greek this is phrased similarly to 1 John 2:1: “καὶ ἐλάλησεν Κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν, ἐνώπιος ἐνωπίῳ (And the Lord spoke to Moses, face to face). . . Καὶ εἶπεν Μωυσῆς πρὸς Κύριον (and Moses spoke to the Lord)” (Ex. 33:11–12). Second, the noun ἱλασμός (propitiation), that John uses in 2:2, is an OT word used often for those offerings for the atonement for sins,[xvii] and it is also connected closely with the idea of intercession. The verb form of this term (various forms of it) is used throughout the Exodus story in 32:12, 14, and 30 to describe Moses’ intercessory work on Israel’s behalf.

Outcomes and Payoffs

What is the point of all of these details? What do we gain by reading 1 John in light of Exodus 32–34? I think that if read in this light, it heightens the meaning of 1 John 1:5–2:2. When put on the backdrop of the Golden Calf story, we are reminded that though we enter into the same type of idolatry as those people, some of us even lying about our sins, deceiving ourselves, still we have an Intercessor. We have a better Moses, who is Himself our propitiation, able to intercede on our behalf with the Father. Although Moses was not able to give himself as a propitiation for the people (Ex. 32:30–35), our Intercessor can! Indeed, our Mediator is the very one who has the glory of God Himself, being faithful and just, as God declared Himself to be the LORD the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. Our Mediator shares in this long title as true God of true God.

---

[i] While some work has been done on this, there is surprisingly little new research being done. D.A. Carson has admitted, “The fact remains that there is no quotation of the OT in these epistles, and the number of allusions, real or potential, is extremely limited.” Indeed, in his article in The Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament he mentions only four possible allusions or uses of the OT (D.A. Carson, “1-3 John” G. K. Beale and D.A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009], 1063.). In his article in the Dictionary of the NT Use of the OT he lists even fewer allusions. He summarizes the dispute over this type of study in 1 John saying, “On a very loose definition of ‘allusion,’ doubtless there are many OT allusions in 1 John, since 1 John deals with such themes as sin, atonement, love, obedience, faith, and much more. . . But their occurrence is so frequent that it is very difficult to map specific references to, say, ‘sin’ or ‘atonement’ in 1 John onto the OT.” (D. A. Carson, “John, Letters of” G. K. Beale et al., eds., Dictionary of the New Testament Use of the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2023], 402). C. John Collins suggests several OT backgrounds that might stand behind some of John’s vocabulary, but he is not exhaustive in his study (C. John Collins, “What the Reader Wants and the Translator Can Give” Wayne Grudem et al., Translating Truth: The Case for Essentially Literal Bible Translation [Wheaton: Crossway, 2005], 102–5). Andreas Köstenberger has addressed John’s use of the OT in several publications. In his work A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters he focuses primarily on the use and quotations in John’s Gospel and very little on the epistles (Andreas Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters, Biblical Theology of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2009], 298–310.).

[ii] I have worked to work out my own method in my handbook on Bible reading: Jared Ebert, Reading for Joy: A Handbook for Bible Reading (Puxico: Savoring the Savior, 2024).

[iii] Another way to say this would be to say that the literal sense to be the only genuine sense. This type of reading is the method which all of the Reformed have made use of. William Tyndale, for instance, wrote, “Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the Scripture hath but one sense, which is the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way.” William Tyndale, The Works of William Tyndale, 2 vols. (Carlisle: Banner of Truth Trust, 2010), 1:304. It is also the principle stated in the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith 1.9 which states that the meaning of Scripture is “not manifold but one.” Despite the recent efforts to return to the Roman Catholic four-fold sense, I am not convinced that this is helpful or proper. A recent Protestant advocate for the four-fold meanings is Patrick Schriener who has written, “Though the line has not run straight, there has always been an affirmation of the depth, beauty, and diversity to the Scriptures that cannot be discounted. Early interpreters employed the quadriga to explore this richness—also known as the fourfold method of the fourfold sense. The fourfold method wasn’t solidified until the Middle Ages, but the basic moves seem evident in the Scriptures and in the early church. Essentially, this method asserts that there are multiple senses to the Scripture. Though its usefulness is still disputed, the method has several benefits for interpreters.” Patrick Schreiner, The Transfiguration of Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Reading (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2024), 28.

[iv] Hans Fry has offered a helpful definition of allegory: “Allegory, the attachment of a temporally free-floating meaning pattern to any temporal occasion whatever, without any intrinsic connection between sensuous time-bound picture and the meaning represented by it.” Hans W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974), 29.

[v] James M. Hamilton Jr., Typology: Understanding the Bible’s Promised Shaped Patterns (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2022), 26.

[vi] Discussions around allusions and echoes abound. G.K. Beale has helpfully defined an allusion as “a brief expression consciously intended by an author to be dependent on an OT passage.” G. K. Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 31. I share all of the presuppositions of Beale, and like him, I consider myself a “maximalist” which means “I am open to exploring more intertextual connections than others might be.” G. K. Beale, We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry (Downers Grove; Nottingham, England: IVP Academic; Apollos, 2008), 22–24.

[vii] Beale, Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 33.

[viii] In Beale’s own words, “what matters most is uniqueness of a word, word combination, word order or even of theme (if the latter is especially unique). Nevertheless, it needs to be remembered that weighing the evidence for recognizing allusions is not an exact science but is a kind of art.” Beale, We Become What We Worship, 25.

[ix] Various suggestions have been made, ranging from chiastic structures to proposals which argue for no structure, but just a group of loosely stringed together collections of paragraphs. See Stephen S. Smalley, 1, 2, and 3 John, Revised., WBC 51 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2020); I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978); L. Scott Kellum, “On the Semantic Structure of 1 John: A Modest Proposal,” Faith Mission 23.1 (2005): 34–82; John Christopher Thomas, “The Literary Structure of 1 John,” Novum Testamentum XL.4 (1998): 369–81; Robert E. Longacre, “Towards an Exegesis of 1 John Based on the Discourse Analysis of the Greek Text,” David Alan Black, ed., Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis (Grand Rapids: B & H Academic, 1993) 271–286.

[x] Longacre, “Towards an Exegesis of 1 John,” Black, Linguistics and New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Discourse Analysis, 272.

[xi] Another unique vocative is found at 2:28 which reads, “Καὶ νῦν, τεκνία, μένετε ἐν αὐτῷ.” The importance of this vocative is debated. Longacre argues that this forms the conclusion of the letter’s introduction (Longacre, “Towards an Exegesis of 1 John, 274), while Kellum suggests that this forms “the introduction to the second major division of the epistle.” Kellum, “On the Semantic Structure of 1 John: A Modest Proposal,” 45.

[xii] A similar view of this vocative can be found in Martin Culy who says, “The use of the vocative and return to a first-person verb does mark a boundary of sorts, but it is better to view 2:1–2 as a sub-unit of 1:5–2:2 that serves as a ‘closure’ of the larger unit.” Martin M. Culy, I, II, III John: A Handbook on The Greek Text, BHGNT (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2004), 21.

[xiii] I believe that this entire narrative is built chiastically:

A. Moses on the mountain while the covenant is broken and his speaking to the people (32:1-30)

B. Moses intercedes (32:31-33:6)

C. The tent of meeting (33:7-11)

B’. Moses intercedes (33:12-23)

A’. Moses on the mountain while the covenant is reestablished and he speaks to the people (34:1-35)

[xiv] The importance of these verses has been noted by many theologians and exegetes. For instance, James Hamilton highlights these verses as integral to identifying “God’s glory in salvation through judgement” as the center of the whole Bible. James M. Hamilton Jr., God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgement: A Biblical Theology (Wheaton: IL: Crossway, 2010), 56. Gary Edward Schnittjer gives a fuller list of quotations and references to this text throughout the Old and New Testaments in Gary Edward Schnittjer, Old Testament Use of Old Testament: A Book-by-Book Guide (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2021), 16–17. Various other studies have been done in order to identify the importance of this text throughout the rest of the Bible: Alphonso Groenewald, “Exodus, Psalms and Hebrews: A God Abounding in Steadfast Love (Ex 34:6),” HTS 64.3 (2008): 1365–78; Dane Ortland, “The Old Testament Background And Eschatological Significance of Jesus Walking on the Sea (Mark 6:45-52),” Neotestamenica 46.2 (2012): 319–37; Joel Barker, “From Where Does My Hope Come? Theodicy And The Character of YHWH in Allusions to Exodus 34:6-7 in the Book of the Twelve,” JETS 61.4 (2018): 697–715.

[xv] The verb ἁμαρτάνω occurs 276 times across the Greek Old Testament and New Testament, but The perfect tense form of is used only 34 times. Per a search in Accordance for the root ἁμαρτάνω.

[xvi] Karen Jobes identifies this text as a possible backdrop for John’s epistle. However, she goes a step further to argue that the forgiveness and purification here are those that were preached for the New Covenant, namely in Jer. 33:8. Karen Jobes, 1, 2, and 3 John, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2014), 71.

[xvii] William Tyndale was right to argue that this comes from the Hebrew כּפר. ἱλασμός can be found in Ex. 29:36, Lev. 23:27-28, 25:9, Num. 5:8, 29:11, Ps. 129:4, Amos 8:14, Ez. 44:27, 1 Jn. 4:10. See Tyndale, The Works of William Tyndale, 2:153.