1 This study will avoid the term ‘penance’, since the practices that may fall under the umbrella of ‘penance’ are so diverse in the history of Christianity that the term might become misleading. Cf. Dallen, J., The Reconciling Community: The Rite of Penance (New York: Pueblo, 1986)Google Scholar; Goldhahn-Müller, I., Die Grenze der Gemeinde: Studien zum Problem der zweiten Buße im Neuen Testament unter Berücksichtigung der Entwicklung in 2. Jh. bis Tertullian (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989)Google Scholar; Poschmann, B., Paenitentia secunda: Die kirchliche Buße im ältesten Christentum bis Cyprian und Origenes (Bonn: Hanstein, 1940)Google Scholar.

2 We will never know to what extent the norms of 1 John were practised in real community life. However, this analysis proceeds from the assumption that 1 John 1.9 and 5.16 reflect and influenced community practices.

3 The ‘heuristic’ use of the behavioural sciences to structure our interpretation of history is well established, see e.g. Esler, P. F., ‘Social-Scientific Models in Biblical Interpretation’, Ancient Israel: The Old Testament in its Social Context (ed. Esler, P. F.; London: SCM, 2005) 3–14Google Scholar; Theißen, G., Erleben und Verhalten der ersten Christen: Eine Psychologie des Urchristentums (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlags-Haus, 2007) 20–32Google Scholar. This study will be sensitive to both cross-culturally recurring and culture-specific patterns of human behaviour.

4 Everett calls this aspect ‘interpersonal’. In a collectivistic context, where forgiveness often means reconciliation with a group, the word ‘relational’ is more adequate. Moreover, in a religious context, we should include the experienced relation to the divine in the relational aspect of forgiveness.

5 Worthington, E. L., ‘Initial Questions about the Art and Science of Forgiving’, Handbook of Forgiveness (ed. Worthington, E. L.; New York: Routledge, 2005) 1–14Google Scholar, esp. 3–5.

6 McCullough, M., Beyond Revenge: The Evolution of the Forgiveness Instinct (San Francisco: Josey Bass, 2008) xiii–xix, 41–87, 112–56Google Scholar.

7 Malina, Bruce J. and Rohrbaugh, Richard L., Social-Scientific Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998) 63–4Google Scholar.

8 Malina, B. J., The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 3rd ed. 2001) 58–80Google Scholar (originally published in 1981), introduced to biblical studies the notion that a person from a collectivist culture has a ‘dyadic personality’. That is, such a person experiences his identity as interwoven with others.

9 Lawrence, L. J., An Ethnography of the Gospel of Matthew: A Critical Assessment of the Use of the Honour and Shame Model in New Testament Studies (WUNT 2/165; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003) 113–41Google Scholar.

10 Kadiangandu, J. K., Mullet, E. and Vinsonneau, G., ‘Forgivingness: A Congo–France Comparison’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 32 (2001) 504–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 God is most probably the implicit agent of the passive verb ἀϕέωνται in 2.12.

12 E.g. Smalley, S. S., 1, 2, 3 John (WBC 51; Waco, TX: Word, 1984) 30Google Scholar, considers public confession to be a reasonable interpretation, but remains cautious. Strecker, G., The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996) 32Google Scholar, thinks that it cannot be decided whether confession is public or solely before God.

13 Brown, R. E., The Epistles of John (AB 30; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982) 208Google Scholar.

14 On the Jewish practice of confessing sins on the day of atonement, see Schnackenburg, R., The Johannine Epistles: Introduction and Commentary (New York: Crossroad, 1992) 82Google Scholar; on confessions of sins among Greeks, see Graf, F., ‘Confession, Secrecy and Ancient Societies’, Religion in Cultural Discourse: Essays in Honor of Hans G. Kippenberg on the Occasion of his 65^th Birthday (ed. Brigitte Luchesi and Kocku von Stuckrad; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004) 259–72Google Scholar.

15 Poschmann, Paenitentia secunda, 52–62, 85–97.

16 Cf. Tellbe, M., Christ-Believers in Ephesus (WUNT 242; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009) 197–203Google Scholar.

17 The authoritative ‘we’ in 1:1-5 proclaims a message from a position of charismatic authority. Cf. 2 John 10; 3 John 9.

18 As Painter, J., 1, 2 and 3 John (Sacra Pagina; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2008) 182–3Google Scholar, points out, 1 John is silent about ‘sisters’. Although ἀδελϕοί may mean ‘siblings’, it is more problematic that the community is addressed as νεανίσκοι and πατέρες in 2.13–14.

19 John proclaims that the anointing they received teaches them directly so that they need no teaching (2.20–21, 27), indicating relatively flexible leadership structures.

20 Thompson, M. M., ‘Intercession in the Johannine Community: 1 John 5.16 in the Context of the Gospel of John’, Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church: Essays in Honor of Ralph P. Martin (ed. Wilkins, M. J. and Paige, T.; Sheffield: JSOT, 1992) 225–45Google Scholar, esp. 228–37, argues convincingly that in the Johannine tradition the prayers of the community are considered analogous to the prayers of Jesus, since they share Jesus' positive relation to the Father.

21 The vocative ἀδελϕοί in 3.13 suggests that ‘brother’ is an ingroup designation.

22 I here assume the interpretation of the majority of commentators that ‘sin unto death’ means ‘sins that lead to spiritual death’. In 1 John ‘death’ is the state of those who do not belong to the group, but ‘life’ the state of those who do (3.14–15). Since 1 John ideally equates the visible community with the community of God and Christ (no corpus mixtum), as this article argues, sins unto death (probably false Christology and hate of brothers, see n. 59) are most likely sins that merit exclusion from the community.

23 E.g. Marshall, I. H., The Epistles of John (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 146 n. 17Google Scholar; Schnackenburg, Johannine Epistles, 249; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 300.

24 Bultmann, R., The Johannine Epistles (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973) 87 n. 16Google Scholar, rightly argues that ‘a change of subject between αἰτήσει (“will ask”) and δώσει and the ἐρωτήσῃ (“pray”) following is improbable. Otherwise a τις would be required before (ἵνα) ἐρωτήσῃ in v 16d, which is added in some MSS.’

25 Brooke, A. E., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912) 146Google Scholar. A third possible translation, not usually mentioned by commentators, is ‘it [i.e. the prayer] shall give life’. This translation is, however, functionally equivalent to Brown's suggestion.

26 Brown, Epistles of John, 612, 634–5.

27 The change from a human active voice (ἀϕῆτε) to a divine passive voice (ἀϕέωνται) indicates that human action mediates divine action.

28 This is not necessarily a problem. One might argue that the conclusion in 5.13–21 connects to 1.8–2.2 by means of allusion to a practice that was familiar to the audience. I will not pursue this argument in detail here, but many commentators label 5.13–21, ‘Conclusion’, and point out that the passage summarizes many themes of the letter, e.g. Brown, The Johannine Epistles, 630-41; Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 293–4, 310. The confidence in prayers for forgiveness in 5.14–17 is reminiscent of the assurance that Christ is their advocate in 2.1–2.

29 Schnackenburg, The Johannine Epistles, 83 n. 47.

30 Cf. Thompson, ‘Intercession in the Johannine Community’, 242–5.

31 Cf. Poschmann, Paenitentia secunda, 68–9.

32 This argument is weakened by the fact that 1 John has a tendency to use the iterative case in conditional clauses where the real case would do, cf. Brown, Epistles of John, 207.

33 Cf. Thompson, ‘Intercession in the Johannine Community’, 243, who rightly criticises the interpretation that ‘sins unto death’ in 5.16 refer to sins committed by outsiders.

34 There is no room in this study to relate the apparent claims of sinlessness in 3.6, 9; 5.18 to 1.9; 5.16–17, but it suffices to say that this author views the statements about sinlessness both as an eschatological reality, and as an ideal with an implicit hortative function, cf. Potterie, I. de la, ‘The Impeccability of the Christian according to 1 Jn 3, 6–9’, The Christian Lives by the Spirit (Potterie, I. de la and Lyonnet, S.; New York: Alba House, 1971) 175–96Google Scholar.

35 The integration of divine and interpersonal forgiveness and reconciliation is a frequent phenomenon in Jewish tradition, which has been explored by Morgan, M. L., ‘Mercy, Repentance, and Forgiveness in Ancient Judaism’, Ancient Forgiveness (ed. Griswold, C. L. and Konstan, D.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2012)Google Scholar.

36 Wilson, D. S., Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, 31.

38 Although Tertullian's account does not strictly prove anything about 1 John, the social and emotional problems he wrestles with are general enough to be valid in other contexts, too. It should be noted, however, that Tertullian seems to have 1 John 1.8–2.2 in mind in these chapters, since he argues that when someone confesses publicly, ‘Christ intercedes to the Father’ (Christus patrem deprecatur 10.6), thus alluding to Christ's function as παράκλητος in 1 John 2.1. There are several references to post-baptismal confession of sin in texts earlier than Tertullian's: Barn. 19.12; 1 Clem. 51.3; 60.1–2; 2 Clem. 8.2–3; Did. 4.14; 14.1; Irenaeus Adv. Haer. I.13.5, 7; Jas 5.16. See Poschmann, Paenitentia secunda; I. Goldhahn-Müller, Die Grenze der Gemeinde, for overviews. Irenaeus Adv. Haer. I.13.7 mentions that some are ashamed (δυσωπούμεναι) to confess and therefore apostatize. However, Tertullian's account gives us the most lively insight into the shame involved in public confession of sin.

39 According to social identity theory, people who act according to group norms are usually more appreciated and gain more influence over the group, see e.g. Turner, J. C., ‘Explaining the Nature of Power: A Three-Process Theory’, European Journal of Social Psychology 35 (2005) 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Konstan, Before Forgiveness, 22–90. Konstan surveys a great number of texts that cannot be recounted here. The examples from Greek and Roman texts in this section of the present analysis are merely illustrative.

41 Konstan, Before Forgiveness, 59. (ἀϕίημι, the most common word for ‘forgive’ in the New Testament, is not used with the meaning ‘forgive’ in other Greek texts, except in Jewish and Christian texts inspired by the Septuagint, which translates נשׂא and סלח with ἀφίημι.)

42 On honour and shame, see e.g. Malina, The New Testament World, 27–57; Moxnes, H., ‘Honor and Shame’, The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation (ed. Rohrbaugh, R. L.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996) 19–40Google Scholar; Rohrbaugh, R. L., ‘Honor: Core Value in the Biblical World’, Understanding the Social World of the New Testament (ed. Neufeld, D. and DeMaris, R. E.; New York: Routledge, 2010) 109–25Google Scholar.

43 Dowling, M. B., Clemency and Cruelty in the Roman World (Michigan: University of Michigan, 2006) 29–75, esp. 33–4Google Scholar.

44 Cf. the logic of challenge and riposte described in Malina, The New Testament World, 40–3.

45 Konstan, Before Forgiveness, 38–58.

46 Konstan, Before Forgiveness, 91–124.

47 Morgan, ‘Mercy, Repentance, and Forgiveness in Ancient Judaism’.

48 Reimer, D. J., ‘The Apocrypha and Biblical Theology: The Case of Interpersonal Forgiveness’, After the Exile: Essays in Honour of Rex Mason (ed. Barton, J. and Reimer, D. J.; Macon, GA: Mercer University, 1996) 259–82Google Scholar.

49 Exline, J. Juola and Baumeister, R. F., ‘Expressing Forgiveness and Repentance: Benefits and Barriers’, Forgiveness: Theory, Research and Practice (ed. McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., and Thoresen, C. E.; New York: Guilford, 1999) 111–32Google Scholar.

50 Weiner, B., Graham, S., Orli, P., and Zmuidinas, M., ‘Public Confession and Forgiveness’, Journal of Personality 59 (1991) 281–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Irons, W. ‘Morality, Religion, and Human Nature’, Religion and Science: History, Method, and Dialogue (ed. Richardson, W. and Wildman, W.; New York: Routledge, 1996) 375–99Google Scholar; Irons, ‘Religion as a Hard-to-Fake Sign of Commitment’, Evolution and the Capacity for Commitment (ed. Nesse, R. M.; New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2001) 292–309Google Scholar. The theory has since then been further developed by e.g. Bulbulia, J., ‘Religious Costs as Adaptations that Signal Altruistic Intention’, Evolution and Cognition 10 (2004) 19–38Google Scholar; Sosis, R., ‘Does Religion Promote Trust? The Role of Signaling, Reputation, and Punishment’, Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion 1 (2005) 1–30Google Scholar.

52 Sosis, R., ‘Why Aren't We all Hutterites? Costly Signaling Theory and Religious Behaviour’, Human Nature 14 (2003) 91–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 E.g. Brown, R. E., The Community of the Beloved Disciple: The Life, Loves and Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times (London: Chapman, 1979) 126Google Scholar, mirror-reads 1.8, 10 as reflecting a group of secessionists who think that they are free from sin. Brown's suggestion is but one of many reconstructions of the dissidents from the community, see e.g. Edwards, R. B., The Johannine Epistles (New Testament Guides; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996) 57–68Google Scholar. Lieu, J., ‘Us or You? Persuasion and Identity in 1 John’, JBL 127 (2008) 805–19Google Scholar, warns against mirror-reading 1 John too easily, but does not deny the existence of a group of opponents. Even if 1.8, 10 only represent a fictive antitype of the ingroup prototype, this antitype may have functioned as a fence against tendencies that could easily occur in the discourse of the community.

54 Ellemers, N., Spears, R., and Doosje, B., ‘Self and Social Identity’, Annual Review of Psychology 26 (2002) 161–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ellemers, N., Risjwijk, W. van, Bruins, J., and Gilder, J. de, ‘Group Commitment as a Moderator of Attributional and Behavioural Responses to Power Use’, European Journal of Social Psychology 28 (2005) 555–723.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Cf. n. 39.

56 According to Dallen, The Reconciling Community, 5–130, the requirement of public confession continued during the persecutions in the second and third century, but was gradually transformed into a private confession in the fourth century and thereafter, although public confession was still sometimes practised for serious transgressions. From a bird's eye view, this development seems to coincide with the lessened need to test the commitment of community members.

57 The idea that religion in general and rituals in particular involve assuming roles is used in many different ritual theories, e.g. Goffman, E., Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Interaction (Chicago: Aldine, 1967)Google Scholar; McCauley, R. N. and Lawson, E. T., Bringing Ritual to Mind: Psychological Foundations of Cultural Forms (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2002) 32–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rappaport, R. A., Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1999) 39–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sundén, H., Religionen och rollerna (Stockholm: Diakonistyrelsen, 1959)Google Scholar.

58 Sundén, Religionen och rollerna, suggests that role-taking also involves an expectation of the related roles in the ritual.

59 D. M. Scholer, ‘Sins Within and Sins Without: An Interpretation of 1 John 5.16–17’, Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation (ed. Hawthorne, G. F.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 230–46Google Scholar, argues that the two major kinds of sin in 1 John are (a) ‘murder’, that is, hating and not helping other group members (e.g. 3.11–18), and (b) ‘lying’, that is, false Christology (e.g. 2.22–23; 4.1–3).

60 We are emotionally dependent on the support of others to maintain cognitive certainty, particularly about beliefs that are not directly verifiable, see Deconchy, J.-P., ‘Rationality and Control in Orthodox Systems’, The Social Dimension: European Developments in Social Psychology (ed. Tajfel, H.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1984) 425–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Festinger, L., Schachter, S., and Back, K., Social Pressures in Informal Groups: A Study of Human Factors in Housing (New York: Harper, 1950)Google Scholar.

61 Hägerland, T., Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins: An Aspect of his Prophetic Mission (SNTSMS 150; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2011) 132–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Johansson, D., ‘“Who Can Forgive Sins but God Alone?” Human and Angelic Agents, and Divine Forgiveness in Early Judaism’, JSNT 33 (2011) 351–74Google Scholar.

62 Johnson, D. W., ‘Role Reversal: A Summary and Review of the Research’, International Journal of Group Tensions 1 (1971) 318–34Google Scholar. More generally, any method that increases empathy increases the chance of forgiveness, see W. Malcolm, S. Warwar, and L. Greenberg, ‘Facilitating Forgiveness in Individual Therapy as an Approach to Resolving Interpersonal Injuries’, Handbook of Forgiveness (ed. Worthington) 379–98.

63 Cf. J. G. Murphy, ‘Forgiveness and Resentment’, Forgiveness and Mercy (ed. J. G. Murphy and J. Hampton; Cambridge: Cambridge University) 14–34 (28). Murphy suggests that an apology can function like a ritual that humiliates the one who apologizes and thereby restores the honour of the offended party.

64 In this respect, Sir 28.2 and Matt 18.21–22/Luke 17.3–4 are rare as the texts imagine interpersonal forgiveness of an equal.