The Epistles of John: Living in Truth and Love. 3 John 10-11a
Week Four: Oct 2, 2011
This week we continue the study in 3 John picking up in verse 10.
I. Body
a. Criticism of Diotrephes (9,10)
10* – For this reason, when I come I will remind him of what he is doing1 in spreading false charges against us. And not content with that, he refuses to receive the brothers. He even tries to stop those who want to accept them and throws them out of the church.
– Most translation have, “if I come” but the Greek grammar here assumes a probably future. So John is planning to come and deal with this issue. In modern parlance, this would be the equivalent to saying “Lord willing…”
– John plans to come and to deal with this.
I will remind him of what he is doing
– The ISV and many translations have “call attention to.” The Greek word here (ὑπομνήσω / upomnēsō) mean to remember. The translation of “Call attention to” seems strikes me as implying a more public venue, whereas to remind could be private or public. I have no doubt that John planned to follow the biblical model of first confronting Diotrephes privately.
– John’s determination to come and deal with Diotrephes is not only proper it is good. There is no question that the improper exercise or rejection of authority is wrong and this would sum up Diotrephes. But a failure to exercise of proper authority is also wrong.
in spreading false charges against us.
– The Greek word here (φλυαρῶν/phluarōn) means “to speak in such a way as to make no sense, presumably because of ignorance of what is involved.” (Louw-Nida) This is in the present tense, as with the rest of the verse, indicating that this was an ongoing problem, not just something that had happened.
– It would seem that to justify his rejection of John’s authority, Diotrephes was making statements that were untrue. It is not clear if he was lying, but he certainly was not telling the truth. Some may be confused by this distinction, stemming from a general confusion about the meaning of lie. Saying something that is untrue is not necessarily a lie, as it could just be an honest mistake. On the other hand a carefully phrased statement may be technically true, but it can still be used to deceive, and it is that deception that is at the core of a lie. In short, a lie is anything said with the intent to deceive.
Thus it is possible that Diotrephes was not attempting to deceive, but rather in his attempt to justify himself, he was not as careful as he should have been. This is something that we should all be wary of. In fact he was so uncritical in his charges against John that he drifted into claims that were evidently internally inconsistent to the point of nonsense. So whether he was actively lying, or just spreading untrue statements, it is clear that Diotrephes did not love the truth.
– This is the question that we should ask ourselves: Do we love the truth? When we speak, particularly when we speak about others, are we sure about everything we say? This really becomes important when we are in a dispute. When we are in a dispute which is more important to us? Being completely truthful, even when it does not help us? Or is it winning? Probably most would say being truthful. But what if we rephrase that slightly? Unless one is a lawyer, winning is normally not the main concern, but rather winning for a reason. What if we, for the sake of argument, assume that we are completely correct, and in fact have been wronged, such that our side is the side of justice? Now which is more important, truthfulness or justice?
Here I think the Gospel of John and the Epistles give a pretty clear answer: truth is a more important value than justice. Jesus did not say in that he was “the way, the justice and the life.” Consider this, as sinners, do we really want to demand complete justice?
This really comes home when we consider how often we tend to cast things in terms of motives and compared with how well can we know motives? We can speak about motives, after all John said that Diotrephes wanted to be first, but we had better be very sure about what we said.
And not content with that, he refuses to receive the brothers
– Not content with saying things, Diotrephes moves on to actions as well. What we say can be bad, what we do is worse. While Gaius was praised for receiving the brothers, Diotrephes refused. Again there is no indication that the problem with Diotrephes was doctrinal. Perhaps he was them as a challenge to his authority? Or perhaps it was because they were associated with John and to accept them would be to accept John’s authority, but either way he did not receive them.
tries to stop those who want to accept them throws them out of the church
– Not only did he not receive them, he tried to stop others from receiving them as well. Throwing them out of the church should not be thought of in terms of formal excommunication. That would imply a more formal church structure than probably existed at the time. Rather this would be a breaking of fellowship. This indicates that the break with John was to some extent public and that Diotrephes had supporters within the church. These members may not have had the full story, as we have seen false statements about John played a role in all this. But Diotrephes did have supporters, and so John was coming to set the records straight.
b. Commendation of Demetrius (11,12)
11a – Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good.
do not imitate what is evil, but what is good
– With another a personal appeal, John marks a change in subject
– The commentators I read saw this as John telling Gaius to resist any pressure put on him to follow after Diotrephes. But, with all the praise of Gaius to this point, this simply does not strike me as correct, and it was not how I read this. Instead I saw this as John telling Gaius not to respond in like fashion. As we saw in the previous verse, Diotrephes was speaking ill of John, and putting pressure on member to follow him. Gaius should not respond in like fashion. He should not speak ill of Diotrephes, and put pressure on member to support John.
So how should Gaius (or we) respond? The two hallmarks of John’s teaching here have been truth and love. Modern culture responses to the love part of this pair easily. But truth, does not fare as well. Yet for John, truth, which is mentioned 6 times in letter, is very important. Love is mentioned once, beloved four times.
One other question is why does John say imitate (μιμοῦ / mimou)? For many, it is the heart that matters, and if your heart is not in what you do, it is meaningless. Yet the concept of imitating implies actions based, not on our heart, but on something outside of us. It is doing things even when our heart is not in it, or even against it. Yet, we learn and become better at what we do by imitation. If you want to learn a musical instrument or a language you must practice, and the practice is more important than where their heart is. Likewise, if we want to be a better Christians we must practice. This also touches on the modern distrust of ritual, as stale and dead. Yet many Christians have found that ritual can get them through periods where they “don’t feel it” and help rekindle faith. Now with a musical instrument it is easier if you have a teacher to imitate. Again the same is truth for Christians, and our teacher is Jesus.
Next week we will start in 3 John 11b
If you have question about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.
See here for references and more background on the class.
Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org
Note: Some places I have modify the text from the version ISV. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.
Footnotes
1) ISV: I will call attention to what he is doing
The Epistles of John: Living in Truth and Love. 3 John 5-9
I. Body
a. Commendation of Gaius (5-8)
b. Criticism of Diotrephes (9,10)
Questions:
The Epistles of John: Living in Truth and Love. 3 John 1-4
Week Two: Sept 18, 2011
3 John
Outline
The structure of 3 John is very close to a typical 1st century letter, and thus there is pretty broad agreement on the outline by scholars.
I.Opening
a. Address (1)
b. Prayer (2)
c. Personal Words for Gaius (3-4)
II.Body
a. Commendation of Gaius (5-8)
b. Criticism of Diotrephes (9,10)
c. Commendation of Demetrius (11,12)
III. Conclusion
a. Final words (13-14)
b. Greetings (15)
Study
I. Opening
a. Address (1)
1 – From:[1] The Elder
To: My dear friend Gaius, whom I genuinely love.
The Elder
The typical opening of a 1st Century letter contains 4 components: From, To, Greetings, and Prayer. John opens with the first two of these components.
John does not use his Name but rather his title. This would indicate that he had a position of great respect. Elsewhere the plural (elders) is used to refer to the leaders in a local church, (Acts 11:30, 1 Tim 5:17). It does not have quite the same meaning here as The Elder is apparently writing to a church other than his home church. Thus it would appear that The Elder is someone who had authority over many churches
The fact that John refers to himself as “THE” elder could indicate that John was the last of the twelve. The term elders would also indicate that John was elderly, though for the 1st century that is not saying much.
To: My dear friend Gaius
Gaius was a very common name in the first century, and so we really do not know who this is. Detailed address information would have been given to the carrier of the letter, which was probably Demetrius (v11-2). From the rest of the letter we know that Gaius was a Christian, was probably a prominent member of his church and that this church was most likely one of those under the care of John.
whom I genuinely love.
A genuine statement of affection.
For some reason John breaks with custom and does not include the formal greeting that would normally appear at this point. This also could be a sign of familiarity, i.e., to dispense with custom, or it could just be that John cared little for custom. He somewhat breaks with custom in 2 John and 1 John does not follow the format of a letter at all, though it is likely that 1 John is not actually a letter.
b. Prayer (2)
2* – Dear friend, I pray that you are doing well in every way and that you are healthy, just as your soul is doing well.[2]
Dear friend,
Another statement of affection. As we will see, John seems to use this and similar statements as a means of dividing up his letters. Here he does this just before starting his prayer.
I pray that you are doing well in every way
While skipping the traditional greeting, He does include the customary prayer.
The Greek word here (euodousthai) literally means “to lead along a good path” (Friberg) . In Romans 1:10 it is used literally … by God’s will I may at last succeed in coming to you. Here it is being used metaphorically, with the meaning “that your journey through life is a good one.” Outside of the NT it was also used to refer to gain or profit in business (Louw).
While spiritual welfare is important John does not limit his prayer just to that. He also prays that Gaius prosper and succeed.
and that you are healthy
Literally: To have well, an idiom for good health
While this does not indicate that Gaius had health problems, it does not rule them out. When we get to verse v9 we will see that health problems might explain some difficulties there.
just as your soul is doing well.
The Greek word for doing well here is the same as earlier in the verse. Here it indicates that Gaius’ soul is progressing well, so well that John prays that the rest of Gaius life is doing as well as his soul is doing.
Note: John is praying that Gaius do well both physically as well as spiritually, both are important to John. Getting the right balance between the physical and spiritual is tough.
c. Personal Words for Gaius (3-4)
3* – I have greatly rejoiced with every arrival of brothers that testified about your truthfulness [3]and how you live according to the truth.
I was overjoyed with every arrival of brothers that testified
John was not just happy but very happy. The Greek work for erchomenow is a present middle participle, and indicates repetition either by the same brothers many times, or by different groups of brothers. Either way, it is clear that John knew of Gaius, which is another indication that Gaius held a prominent position.
about your truthfulness
Literally “your truth.” This is more than just honesty, but also includes an adherence to the true. A key feature of Gaius’ faith was his adherence to the truth, i.e., to sound doctrine. This was so key that others would report on it.
and how you live according to the truth.
Gaius faith was more than just belief, he lived it as well. He put his beliefs into practice.
What would other say about us? What would their report be?
4 – Ihave no greater joy than to hear that my children are living according to the truth.
John stresses how much this pleased him. The word John uses for “greater” is an interesting one. The Greek word is meizoteran. In Greek the word for great is megas, which is where we get the English prefix mega-. Greek normally uses an ending (- teran ) to make a comparative, similar to the way English use the ending –er as in great + er is greater. But instead of using the normal ending Greek as a special word for greater : meizon. John, however really wants to make sure his readers understand just how great his joy really is, so he takes the Greek word for greater, and then for emphasis adds the –teran ending. In literal English, for him there is no “greaterer” joy.
my children
This could mean John led Gaius to Christ, or it could just be that he had spiritual authority over him.
What is our greatest joy? What is the greatest demand we put on our children? Is it School? Grades? Success? A particular career? If you were to ask parents today which was most important would it be that their children “live according to the truth” (or in secular terms that their children be good) ? Or would it be that their children get a good education and a career? More importantly, what would your children say was your greatest desire for them?
Questions:
One question that came up in class concerned the relationship of truth and love. A key problem is that living truth and living in love are sometimes in conflict. Living in truth requires a strict adherence to the truth. If we are not careful, this can lead to division and we find ourselves splitting over even minor disagreements about what the Bible teaches. On the other hand, living in love leads us to overlook differences in favor of just loving one another.
As with so many things this is a balancing act one of standing for the truth, but not in a cold doctrinal way, but one that stress Love, one where the focus is on reconciliation, not division. At the extremes it is pretty easy. We do not want to divide on minor issues such as whether the pre-mid-post tribulation rapture. On the other hand we do need stand firm on the deity of Christ. But as we get closer to the middle it gets harder to know exactly where the line is or just how we should respond. This is one of the main themes we will be looking at in this class.
Next week we will start in 3 John 5
If you have question about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.
Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org
Note: Some places I have modify the text from the version ISV. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.
[1] 1 The Gk. lacks From
[2] ISV your soul is healthy
[3] ISV: I was overjoyed when some brothers arrived and testified about your truthfulness
No Go
It was not an easy life and they had to be vigilant. They knew that they were being watched, so they could not leave their home unguarded. A trip to town meant one of them had to stay behind with a gun and stand watch. Some of their neighbors who had left their homes unguarded had been robbed. Others had been attacked, and some even killed. At times they could see the lookouts watching them, waiting for an opportunity. Fear was a key component of their lives. It was not an easy life.
While this could be a description of many places, and many times, it is not some distant land, it is the United States. It is not a description of the early life on the frontier. The above description is the real life experience that many American citizens face in this country today. This is life for those who live near the border in Arizona, and whose homes now lie within the paths used by the cartels that smuggle drugs and people into the country.
They can see the lookouts for the cartels watching them. In theory they could call the police, but local law enforcement is ill equipped to deal with the cartels. So calling the police would only mark them for retribution by the cartels, and the cartels do not simply kill you, they make sure that you and your family suffer horribly as a warning to others.
The Federal government certainly has the power and authority to deal with the cartels. But Washington is a long ways away, and the problem faced by these American citizens is far removed and easy to ignore. Besides, taking a strong stance against the cartels would mean effectively closing the border, and this immediately raises the issue of illegal immigrants, which many politicians support with talk of amnesty in order to get votes from the Hispanic community. Others are afraid to take any action for fear of losing Hispanics votes. While some do talk of building a fence and getting the boarder under control, so far the other two groups have successfully been able to block them.
So the only real action that the Federal Government has taken, other than the crazy attempt to sell the cartels weapons, which has already resulted in the numerous deaths, has been to mark off certain areas of the country as dangerous and post signs that say in big red letters:
DANGER – PUBLIC WARNING
TRAVEL NOT RECOMMENDED
* Active Drug and Human Smuggling Area
* Visitors May Encounter Armed Criminals
They have, in effect ceded those parts of America to the cartels. This is all well and good if you live in Washington or elsewhere in America and will probably never go there anyway. If you ever do take a vacation and happen to come across one of those areas, now you will know to turn around. But it is not so good if you happen to live in one of those areas.
It is not as if these people chose to live in fear of the cartels. These areas are not some unclaimed wilds. This is simply southern Arizona between the cities of Phoenix and Tucson. It was not all that long ago that these areas were just as safe as anywhere else in the country.
But the politicians in Washington are sacrificing this and other areas of the country in order to pursue their own political self-interests. The longer they ignore the problem the bigger it will become. One of the main jobs of the Federal Government is to defend the country. Any politician of either party that does not demand immediate actions to defend these citizens from foreign invaders is failing to do their constitutional duty, and should be kicked out at the first opportunity.
The idea that we have no-go areas in this country is an abomination that should not be allowed to stand. The very fact that the government has put up these signs is proof that they have failed in one of their most basic jobs.
The Epistles of John: Living in Truth and Love
This year I am beginning a study into the letters of John. I will be posting the study here online as well as teaching it at the church I attend. If you are in the area of Wausau Wisconsin and want to attend the class live, it is at Wausau campus of Highland Community Church and starts about 9:20 AM every Sunday from Labor Day through Memorial Day. In my classes, I encourage questions and discussions, so if you have question about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.
Week One: Sept 11, 2011
Background
This week we will deal with a lot of the background information. Some consider this unimportant and boring, but it can be important to understanding the context of the letters, and thus to understanding the letters themselves. As you will see as we go, I am a very big believer in the importance of context. So we will be spending some time, not only on the background information, but also the structure of the letters particularly 1 John.
One advantage of the online version will be that you can skim this background information for the moment, and just focus on the conclusions. Later as issues arise in the letters, you can refer back here as needed.
Finally, this is a class, not a full commentary. Thus, what I am presenting here, particularly in this first week, is the summary of my studies. While many may conclude I am going into too much detail, a few will notice the large amount of information I am skipping over. I can only say that this is a balancing act. If you think I am out of balance, feel free to ask a question. With that said, let’s get started.
Author
As one begins to look at the authorship of these three letters one thing that quickly becomes clear is that they are very closely linked to the Gospel of John. Even a causal reading reveals a marked similarity between all four documents (Gospel + 3 letters) and that they are somewhat different from other books in the New Testament. (Note: The similarity or difference with the book of Revelations raise some other issues which will not be addressed here.)
While some scholars claim that the internal evidence point to different authorship, these are arguments are very weak for the following reasons.
1) 2 and 3 John are too short for conclusions. They seem to have the same author but there are not long enough to reach a firm conclusion either way.
2) The Gospel and all three epistles do show a strong relationship in language. For example, they all present similar themes in terms of opposites with no middle ground such as Light/Dark, Life/Death, Truth/Lie, Love/hate.
3) As for the supposed difference between them, they are easily accounted for by context.
Thus in Gospel, the Holy Spirit is our paraclete (counselor) while in 1st John it is Jesus. But this is not a conflict because John 14:16 make it clear that the Holy Spirit is “another counselor” and that the Spirit is coming because Jesus is leaving.
2 and 3 John were letters sent by “the elder.” 1 John does not identify the author, though it is clear he was known to those to whom he wrote. The Gospel, likewise, does not identify the author by name, but there are enough details in the account to see that the author was the Apostle John.
Bottom line: The internal evidence is for a common authorship of the Apostle John.
When we come to the external evidence it is both early and clear. In particular, are Papias, who knew and studied under John, and Iraenaeus who studied under Polycarp, who like Papias knew and studied under John. Both were in a position to know, and both identified John as the author.
Often these early sources simply appear as references, but I thought it might be nice to actually quote them. First are a number of allusions to the letters of John, i.e., that is the message and words seem to be strongly influenced by these letters, but without a direct citation. These will be followed by the passages in John’s letters that appear to be the source. Finally I will cite some passages where the source is identified as John. Note that the parts in bold are the parts that are influence by John’s letters.
Allusions:
Clement of Rome – AD 96
1 Clement 49:5 Love joineth us unto God; love hideth a multitude of sins; love beareth all things; is long suffering in all things. In love there is nothing illiberal, nothing haughty. Love hath no schism; love maketh not sedition; love doth all things in harmony; in love all the elect of God have been made perfect. Without love nothing is acceptable unto God.
1 Clement 50:3 All the generations, from Adam even unto this day, are gone by; but they who have been made perfect in love according to the grace of God inhabit the abode of the pious, and shall be made manifest in the visitation of the kingdom of Christ.
Didache AD 90-120
Didache 10:5 Remember, Lord, Thy Church to deliver it from all evil and to perfect it in Thy love;
and gather it together from the four winds- even the Church which has been sanctified-into Thy kingdom which Thou hast prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever and ever.
1 John – Perfected in Love
1 John 2: 5 But whoever continually keeps his commandments is the kind of person in whom God’s love has truly been perfected. This is how we can be sure that we are in union with God.
1 John 4:12 No one has ever seen God. If we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us.
1 John 17-18 There is no fear where love exists. Rather, perfect love banishes fear, for fear involves punishment, and the person who lives in fear has not been perfected in love.
The Epistle of Barnabas – c130
Barnabas 5:9 – 11 And when He chose His own apostles who were to proclaim His Gospel, who that He might show that He came not to call the righteous but sinners were sinners above every sin, then He manifested Himself to be the Son of God. 10 For if He had not come in the flesh neither would men have looked upon Him and been saved, forasmuch as when they look upon the sun that shall cease to be, which is the work of His own hands, they cannot face its rays. 11 Therefore the Son of God came in the flesh to this end, that He might sum up the complete tale of their sins against those who persecuted and slew His prophets.
Barnabas 12:10 Behold again it is Jesus, not a son of man, but the Son of God, and He was revealed in the flesh in a figure. Since then men will say that Christ is the son of David, David himself prophesieth being afraid and understanding the error of sinners; The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on My right hand until I set thine enemies for a footstool under Thy feet.
Polycarp Epistle to the Philippians c135
Polycarp 7:1 For every one who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is antichrist: and whosoever shall not confess the testimony of the Cross, is of the devil; and whosoever shall pervert the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts and say that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, that man is the firstborn of Satan.
1 John – Come in the Flesh
1 John 4:2-3 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 But every spirit who does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist. You have heard that he is coming, and now he is already in the world.
2 John – Come in the Flesh
2 John 1:7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.
Direct Mentions:
Papias 110-140
Eusebius Church History Book 3 39:16 16. But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: “So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.” And the same writer[Papias] uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. These things we have thought it necessary to observe in addition to what has been already stated. (Note: First Epistle is Eusebius’ term not Papias’)
Irenaeus c 180
Against Heresies Book 3 16 2. That John knew the one and the same Word of God, and that He was the only begotten, and that He became incarnate for our salvation, Jesus Christ our Lord, I have sufficiently proved from the word of John himself… he has thus testified to us in his Epistle: “Little children, it is the last time; and as you have heard that Antichrist does come, now have many antichrists appeared; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but [they departed], that they might be made manifest that they are not of us. Know therefore, that every lie is from without, and is not of the truth. Who is a liar, but he that denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist.” Loosely quoted from 1 John 2:18
Against Heresies Book 3 16 8 And again does he [John] say in the Epistle: “Many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit which separates Jesus Christ is not of God, but is of antichrist.” 2 John 7-8
Bottom line: Taken as a whole, the external and internal evidence is strong that all 4 documents (Gospel & Epistles) were written by the same person, and that this person was the Apostle John.
While this conclusion is question by more liberal scholars, I believe it to be solid. In fact, it is so solid that it raises question as to why these scholars continue to question the authorship of John. For those interested, I wrote a post on this when I was doing this part of the research, and I refer those interested to that post.
Recipients
With the authorship established the next question is to whom did John write? This will of course depend on the letter.
1 John has no address or greeting that was the normal custom of the time. Its only parallel among the “letters” would be the book of Hebrews. Based on evidence from the letter itself, it would seem that 1 John was sent to a church.
2 John is a more conventional letter and was written to, “the chosen lady and her children.” For reasons we will go into when we get there, I believe that this refers to a particular church and its members.
3 John was written to a person named Gaius. Unfortunately this was a very common name in the 1st century and so does not help us much with identifying the particular person. It would somewhat be like finding a letter in Mexico addressed simply to “Jesus” or in Saudi Arabia addressed to “Mohammed.” The Gaius mentioned in 3 John, was probably not one of the other Gaius’ mentioned in the Bible, although there is a 4th century document that says it was sent to Gaius of Derbe in Acts 20:4.
Reasons for the letters
While we will go into the details for this as we work our way through each letter, here is a summary as to why the letters were written.
1st John
It seem that a splinter group had begun to question key teachings the faith and as a result had broken away from the church to whom the letter was written.
2nd John
Unnamed traveling preachers were spreading false doctrines.
3rd John
Diotrephes, a leader in the local church, was resisting John’s oversight and causing problems.
Date
Since John died around AD 98, that would put an upper limit on the date. As we saw above Clement appeared to use 1 John in his letter written in 96, which would move the upper limit for 1 John a few years earlier.
The date of 1 John is linked to the date of the Gospel. This is because, as we will see later, it would appear that the splinter group talked about in the letter, was an early version of Gnosticism, a religious movement that would really take shape in the 2nd century. Gnostics liked large parts the Gospel of John with it imagery of, for example, light and darkness. Of course they ignored those parts that directly conflicted with their views, but overall they like the Gospel of John. Many scholars have pointed out that 1 John can be seen as a corrective, not so much to the Gospel, but to the distortion of the Gospel by these early Gnostics.
From this we can draw two conclusions: Firstly, the Gospel was written before Gnosticism became an issue otherwise John would probably have been a little clearer so as not to leave room for Gnostic distortions. Secondly, 1 John was written long enough after the Gospel, such that this early form of Gnosticism could begin to grow, and to begin to distort the Gospel.
Some other factors are that in the Gospel there is no indication of the destruction of the temple (70 A.D.), which would indicate that it was either written before the temple was destroyed, or long enough after that it was no longer an issue. Finally, it would appear likely based on John 21:19 that Peter was already dead when the Gospel was written which would place it after 65 AD. This also makes it more likely that the Gospel was written after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD than before.
All of this taken together would tentatively point to a date in the early 80s for the Gospel, which would then put 1 John somewhere in the early 90s. Since the traveling preachers in 2 John have similar teaching to the group in 1 John it was probably written about the same time. 3 John on the other hand could have been written at almost any time during the latter part of John’s life.
Order of Writing
The order found in the NT does not necessarily reflect the order in which they were written. In fact, 1 John was probably put first because it was the largest. So we do not really know what order in which they were written.
There does seem to be an progression in the nature of the problems, with 3 John addressing a church leader who was rejecting John’s authority, 2 John addressing the arrival of traveling teachers spreading false teachings, and 1 John dealing with a split in a church over false teaching similar to those of the traveling teachers in 2 John. Yet we do not even know if the letters were all sent to the same church, much less addressed common problems.
Still this progression of problems is a useful way to approach these letters. Even if it is not a chronological order, it is still a useful order.
So we will start our study beginning with 3 John and then working our way back to 1 John. This will have the added advantage of giving more emphasis to 2 and 3 John, rather than treating them as after thoughts.
So Next week will pick up with 3 John 1:1. Again if you have question about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.
References
Some have asked me about the source material I use for in my research. So for those who are interested, here are the major sources I am using in this study.
English Translation
Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org
Note: Some places I have modify the text from the version ISV. Passages that I have modified have been noted and the ISV text included in a footnote.
Main Commentaries
I Howard Marshall; The Epistles of John. The New International Commentary on the New Testament.
Glen W. Barker; 1,2 & 3 John, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol 12
Other References
Friberg Greek Lexicon
Louw-Nida Greek Lexicon
Cleon L. Rogers Jr, Cleon L. Rogers III; The New Linguistic and Exegetical key to the Greek New Testament
D. A. Carson; The Gospel According to John.
Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction.
D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris; An Introduction To the New Testament.
Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament
W. Hall Harris II, The Prologue of 1 John (1:1-4) https://bible.org/seriespage/prologue-1-john-11-4
