I, II, III John

1 John: General Epistle

Author:

As concerns who wrote this epistle, it is John the Son of Zebedee, the apostle. Now, we must recognize at the outset that this letter is strictly speaking, anonymous; however, there are an abundance of reasons to accept that John the Apostle wrote it.

First, the external evidence clearly favors John as the author. No other author was set forth for consideration by the early church. We already noted the close association between John the Apostle and Polycarp, so it’s worth noting that this early church father quoted from this epistle as authoritative. He wrote in his own letter to the Philippians “For everyone who does not confess Jesus Christ to have come in the flesh is Antichrist.” This quote is dependent upon 1 John 4:2-3 “By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming; and now it is already in the world” (Carson and Moo 670).

Clement of Rome also makes use of 1 John in his writing in A.D. 96, as well as the author of the Didache (which was written between 90-120). The Epistle of Barnabas (a spurious but early work in 130) quotes from 1 John as well (Carson and Moo 671). Papias (who lived in the middle of the second century) was the first to refer specifically to the letter, and Irenaeus (in A.D. 180) explicitly stated that 1 John was written by the Apostle John (and remember Irenaeus knew Polycarp personally) (Carson and Moo 671).

So that’s the external evidence for the authorship. Now let’s deal with the internal evidence. Remember, we don’t necessarily like housing our arguments on grammar and syntax alone; however, when two works utilize a huge number of parallels, this does point to shared authorship (especially if the external evidence point to it as well). When we compare 1 John to the fourth Gospel, there are an incredible amount of similarities between the two. Stott points out that the “scheme of salvation,” as he puts it, is very similar between the two works. Carson and Moo point these out, writing:

“To offer but a few examples: In our unredeemed state we are “of the devil,” who has sinned and lied and murdered “from the beginning” (1 John 3:8/John 8:44); we are “from the world” (2:16; 4:5/8:23; 15:19); therefore, we “sin” (3:4/8:34) and “have” sin (1:8/9:41), “walk in the darkness” (1:6; 2:11/8:12; 12:35), and are “dead” (3:14/5:25). God loved us and sent his Son to be “the Savior of the world” (4:14/4:42) so that “we might live” (4:9/3:16). Believing in him or in his “name” (5:13/1:12), we pass from death to life (3:14/5:24). We “have life” (5:11, 12/3:15, 36; 20:31), for life is in the Son of God (5:11–12/1:4; 14:6). This is what it means to be “born of God” (2:29; 3:9; 5:4, 18/1:13)” (672). There are more than this, but we will content ourselves with these for now.

With both the external evidence and the internal evidence cutting in favor of John the apostle being the author of both works (the Gospel and 1 John) and the counter arguments lacking persuasiveness, we can confidently assert that John the son of Zebedee wrote it.

Recipients:

I John does not give any specific addressee or geographic hints that might help us pinpoint who exactly the recipients were. The work starts: “That which was from the beginning, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.” This tells us something about the author (that he was an eyewitness to the Christ), but nothing about the audience.

So, it is sort of guess work in order to try to pin down who his audience was. As we noted with the Gospel of John discussion, church tradition places John in Ephesus at the start of the Jewish outbreak in 66 A.D. and clear through the rest of his life (with the exception of some time spent on the island of Patmos). This leaves us with the presumption that John wrote to the churches located in this region (very similar to what we will find in the Revelation that is addressed to the seven churches of Asia Minor, including Ephesus) (Wilkinson and Boa 485).

Date and Provenance:

All three of the Johannine Epistles were written around the same time and from the same location. We’ve already placed him in Ephesus towards the end of his life (read the story from Peter Walker).

These three works all seem to have been written after the Gospel of John as well, which means that we are looking at a date after 80-85. Your textbook also suggests that since there is no mention of any persecution then this would cap the date at around 95 A.D. “when persecution broke out during the end of Domitian’s reign (A.D. 81-96)” though we will discuss this specific persecution more in-depth when we look at the Revelation. Thus, the probable date for writing for all three works is going to be in the early 90s.

Purpose:

Now let’s get to the why concerning the writing of I John. Remember that an incredibly important aspect of NT interpretation is to determine why the author set out to write in the first place, for this will shape what he chooses to include in his writing and the nature of the arguments.

John is writing at a time where there is a marked increase in false and heretical teachings stemming from those who claim to be members of the Church. Carson and Moo paint the picture well enough: “Some believers have already seceded (1 John 2:18–19), and John is writing to warn his readers about false teachers who are actively trying to deceive them (2:26). Paul’s prophecy to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:29–30), renewed to Timothy (2 Tim. 3:1–7; 4:3–4), was coming true: “savage wolves” were rending the flock, and John labels them “false prophets” (1 John 4:1), “deceivers” (2 John 7), and “antichrists” (1 John 2:18; 4:3; 2 John 7)” (678). These false teachers had left the church (probably as a result of their inability to persuade as many at they hoped), but were not content to keep their beliefs to themselves and instead become itinerant preachers throughout the region (I John 2:26 records: “I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray” this is an active “evangelism” campaign from these false teachers).

The exact kind of false teaching they are propagating is debated, but you will see a great deal of discussion on Gnosticism. This, if oversimplified, is the conflict between good and evil. The good is the spiritual, while the evil is the flesh. Thus we can see how, even a fledgling version of this would cause genuine issues in the church, for how could God (who is all good and spiritual) condescend and take on flesh (which is evil). Either, he would not have been able to, and thus Jesus is not divine, or he simply took the appearance of flesh and thus Jesus is not human.

We see something like this taking place among the false teachers in these congregations, but what this has really resulted in is the believers themselves (those who hold to the truth concerning the incarnation and the redemptive effect of the crucifixion and resurrection) have begun to question whether they really know God. Carson writes: “As a result some began to question whether they really knew God, were experiencing eternal life, and were in the truth. I John was written to bolster their assurance by providing criteria they could use to evaluate the spurious claims of the secessionists and with which they could reassure themselves” (ZSB 2559).

Theme:

This leads very nicely to the theme, which your textbook states is “Fellowship with God.”

2 John: General Epistle

Author:

We’ll actually take the authorship of 2 and 3 John together because the discussion over the two of them is essentially the same. At the start we must note that the external evidence for these two epistles is not as strong as the evidence for 1 John; however, this to a large extent can be accredited to the brevity of both works. They are very short and quite a bit of what is addressed in them is also addressed in 1 John, reducing the likelihood of it being quoted by the church fathers (Boa and Wilkinson 491). However, Irenaeus links 2 John with 1 John and Clement of Rome acknowledged “more than one” Johannine epistle. Origen (who died in 253 A.D.) was the first to mention all three, yet he does this while acknowledging that not everyone accepted the authenticity of 2 and 3 John (Carson and Moo 671). It is incredibly important to note however, as Carson and Moo do, that “Never is any of the three Johannine epistles attributed to anyone other than John the son of Zebedee” (671).

As concerns the internal evidence, even scholars that are hesitant to accept that John the son of Zebedee wrote the works readily admit that these four works were most likely written by the same author. Werner Kummel writes: “There can be no doubt that II and III John are closely related to I John (and John) in language, style, and conceptuality…(after enumerating some minor differences, he goes on to say) But insofar as these differences cannot be explained on the basis of an altered polemical situation, they are too trivial to make probable the assumption of different authors for I John and II and III John” (450).

Again, like I said before, we don’t necessarily like housing our arguments in the vocabulary and style argument; however, as Carson and Moo point out: “The links of both vocabulary and theme are too many (granted the brevity of the second and third epistles) to justify such skepticism (that II and III John were written by an author other than the one who penned I John)” (674). Given the similar topics discussed, if it was the same author we should expect him to use similar language, and this is what we find in these four works.

Actually, the thing that has thrown more scholars for a loop than anything else is how John the son of Zebedee refers to himself as “the elder” in II and III John. This has given rise (really unjustly so) to the notion that a relatively unknown presbyter (the Gk is presented with the article in the verse, and is ὁ πρεσβύτερος) wrote the two letters. This was the position of Eusebius and a number of scholars today; however, there is substantial reason to accept that John the Apostle utilized this term for himself.

First, it is not all that unusual for an apostle to refer to himself as an elder. Peter does this very thing in 1 Peter 5:1 “Now as an elder myself and a witness of the sufferings of Christ…” Second, it’s worth recognizing that the term has a dual meaning and does not just refer to a leadership position but to an “old man.” Remember that at the time of writing John is the last of the apostles, and is indeed an old man. The designation would be perfectly appropriate in both senses (Carson and Moo 674). Third, he does not refer to himself as “an elder” but “the elder” As Carson and Moo note: “He could scarcely refer to himself as ‘the apostle’: that would surely sound a trifle pompous, even if he was the last of the Twelve to survive. He was simply an apostle (note the usuage of Paul in Rom 1:1, and of Peter in 1 Peter 1:1). But he could be the elder in the Ephesus region, precisely because he was not just an ordinary elder” (674).

Having said all of that, given the similarity between all of the documents, the attribution of the work to John by Irenaeus and certain others, and the reasonableness of John the son of Zebedee referring to himself as “the elder,” it seems quite likely that John the Apostle wrote all four works. (Read about the elder John in Eusebius/the account of the young man).

Recipients:

The recipients for II John are similar to those of I John, though more specific. John would still be in Ephesus at this point in his life, and thus we presume that the letter is being sent to Christians in this area. Where it gets just a little tricky is when John refers to his audience here as “the lady chosen by God and to her children.” There are two approaches to this addressee. The first takes it as a literal statement regarding a certain respected Christian matron and her children, and while this seems like a vague possibility, most scholars today suggest that it is very unlikely. Kummel writes: “on the basis of the tone of the letter as a while, it must be assumed that the word kuria here has a figurative meaning” (447).

The second views the designation as a figurative reference to a church. Now, it is important to note that “the Church” is not in view here, which would make this a “universal letter” since John will refer to “the children of your sister” in 2 John 13, and as Carson and Moo point out: “the universal church has no sister” (677). Therefore, the letter is being sent to a specific church in Asia Minor (but exactly which one we do not know for sure).

Purpose:

John’s reason for writing II John is related to his reason for writing the first. These secessionists who have gone around the region, John warns this church, are not to be given hospitality or welcomed into the community. He writes in verses 10-11 “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching (which John has just laid forth), do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.”

Theme:

Your textbook states that the theme is: “Steadfastness in the practice and purity of the apostolic doctrine” which the readers have heard “from the beginning” (492).

3 John: General Epistle

Recipients:

Making our way to the audience in III John we find that we are simply narrowing down our prospective field with each letter. I John was going to the churches surrounding Ephesus in Asia Minor, II John was going to one specific church in this region, and III John was going to one specific individual. John addresses the letter to a certain Gaius. He writes: “The elder, To my dear friend Gaius, whom I love in the truth” (3 John 1).

There are three Gaius’s in the NT: One of Paul’s traveling companions from Macedonia (Acts 19:29); Gaius of Derbe (Acts 20:4); and Paul’s host in Corinth (Rom 16:23). It is always tempting to want to associate names in letters with those whom we find elsewhere in the NT; however, we ought to recognize that the name Gaius was a very common name during this time, and this particular Gaius is a resident of Asia (and while this does not completely preclude him from being one of these three) it may be best to assume that he is not one of these three (Wilkinson and Boa 497).

Purpose:

Unlike the previous two letters, this epistle is focused more on the actions of two individuals: Gaius and Diotrephes. Gaius has acted well in that he has provided hospitality for those who have gone forth proclaiming the true Gospel that the apostles had taught from the beginning. He writes concerning Gaius in vv. 5-8 “Dear friend, you are faithful in what you are doing for the brothers and sisters, even though they are strangers to you. They have told the church about your love. Please send them on their way in a manner that honors God. It was for the sake of the Name that they went out, receiving no help from the pagans. We ought therefore to show hospitality to such people so that we may work together for the truth.” Gaius has done well.

Diotrephes, on the other hand, has done poorly. He has acted selfishly and serves as the negative example (and the person to be warned against) of someone trying to gather up all the administrative power in the church to himself. It is not clear if he has any involvement with the heresy addressed in I and II John (it seems doubtful). It is more probable that he is simply contentious towards John and unwilling to cooperate.

Theme:

“Contrast between the truth and servanthood of Gaius and the error and selfishness of Diotrephes” (Boa and Wilkinson 497).