In 2 John, we seem to have a faithful congregation that is facing the same issues (attacks) as the readers of 1 John. Promotion of love and defense of truth about Jesus having come in the flesh are also given central place. The only other place (in addition to 1 John) in the New Testament that “antichrist” is used is in this epistle (v. 7).
3 John focuses on hospitality, and from what is said, it is clear that there was one person (Diotrephes) who did not support it as an important practice among believers. It could have been the level of his understanding but it appears to have been more an attitude toward John and the faithful (a matter of the will) than lack of knowledge (a matter of the mind). The addressee (Gaius), however, was keen on hospitality and even exercised it beyond expectation. A third person (Demetrius) seems to have needed the support of Gaius and other faithful ones (or vice versa20), and so John recommends him to Gaius in a very positive manner.
Form/Genre and Purpose
A fourth and final matter of introduction we need to make a comment on before we look at the message in these letters has to do with form or genre. This is important because, even as some have commented, it could explain why the same word may be used differently by the same author. Jobes for example says, “Despite some differences that can probably be accounted for by different genre, the letters of John and the gospel of John are closer in language, style, dualistic worldview, and theology than they are to any other NT book.”21
While the Gospel of John is a deliberate presentation of who Jesus is, the Epistles of John, especially 1 and 2 John, are a defense of that truth. The defense is occasioned by teachings that deviate from the truth expounded in the Gospel. 1 John, by its general nature, may have been addressed to several congregations while 2 and 3 John may have been addressed to particular though different congregations.22 This, to begin with, could have determined the length of the epistles. While 1 John has five chapters (as we have it divided in what we have now23) 2 and 3 John have one chapter each.
The absence of the features of a formal letter or epistle in the first century (for example, author, addressee, greetings, good wish, or prayer) in 1 John and the limited use of the same in 2 and 3 John has led some to prefer viewing them, and especially 1 John, as either a tractate or a kind of manifesto,24 or a brochure of some kind.25 The absence of these features not ignored, especially in 1 John, the message definitely has an author (though not named) and recipients. As Culy says, “Recognizing that 1 John represents hortatory discourse is more important than settling the question whether or not it represents an actual letter.”26
Conclusion
As we approach the text of these three letters, therefore, we will assume that John the apostle wrote the three of them, to different congregations but having some shared problems. He wrote from Ephesus and in the latter years of his life. He wrote the first two letters because the truth (doctrine) and God approved behavior (morality) were under attack. He also wrote the third letter because the exercise of love, in the matter of hospitality specifically, was also under attack. He wrote to exhort the faithful to stand firmly in the true teachings they had received. The twenty-first century church is facing similar challenges and so the message is as relevant to us as it was for John’s original readers. It is for this reason that statements of application to our day will be made from time to time. Both “epistles” and “letters” will be used for the three books freely but without implying that they have all the features of a letter or epistle in the first century AD. Nevertheless, they are written with clear purpose of author exhorting recipient(s) on specific matters.
1. Ngewa 2009: 1.
2. The three epistles, and especially 1 John, resemble the book of Hebrews in this respect, about which a failure to accept the once held view that Paul wrote it is the more common trend even among those who prefer maintaining the traditional positions on these matters. Almost everyone uses “the author of Hebrews” over against saying “Paul” or someone else by name when making reference to the content of Hebrews.
3. A mention of the recipient is totally lacking, and the use of the first person plural (we) in the opening verses does not help much, except to tell us that the author was an eyewitness to the earthly life and ministry of Christ. The common practice in the first century was for a writer to begin by specifying who is writing and who the recipient is (in the New Testament, Pauline epistles adopt these features extensively), among other features like good wish or prayer (Doty 1973: 14). This has even led to discussions of whether the three books commented on in this work should be referred to as epistles or even letters. From the bibliography at the end of this work, it is noticeable that less and less authors are using “epistles” or “letters” in the title of their works on the three books. This, however, is a secondary issue to the message of the books. It is very clear that behind the message was an author and the message is directed to specific readers (see discussion on genre/form below).
4. See, among others, Guthrie 1970: 864–69; and Painter 2003: 44–51.
5. The argument that it was not uncommon to have a document attached to an authoritative figure for the purpose of its acceptance has been proposed, to explain away the traditional view, but that needs to be weighed against the extent of testimony of the early church fathers.
6. A significant point of similarity between the Gospel of John and 1 John is the use of vocabularies such as logos (word) found in John 1:1, 14 and 1 John 1:1 to refer to Jesus, paraklētos (advocate/comforter) in John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7; and 1 John 2:1; entolē kainē (new commandment) in John 13:34 and 1 John 2:7, 8; and gennaō (I give birth to) in John 3:3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; and 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18, just to mention some. For more detailed listing, see Brooke 1912: i–xix; Painter 2003: 58–73; and Jobes 2014: 25–27. The use of dualism (for example darkness and light, love and hate, truth and falsehood, God and devil) is also another important element of similarity between the two writings.
7. Assumption is usually made from a study of the Synoptic Gospels that Peter, James, and John would be the most likely candidates for the description, “disciple whom Jesus loved.” While Jesus had twelve disciples, these three constituted what appears to be an inner circle (see, time of transfiguration: Matt 17:1–8; Mark 9:2–19; Luke 9:28–36; occasion of healing Jairus’ daughter: Mark 5:37–42; Luke 8:51–56; and at Gethsemane: Matt 26:37–46; Mark 14:33–42). Peter is eliminated because he is mentioned alongside the disciple whom Jesus loved (John 13:23–24; 20:2; and 21:20–21) and James is eliminated because he was killed no later than AD 44 when Herod Agrippa (the killer) died (Acts 12:2) and no New Testament book was written that early. This leaves John who also meets the criteria of the author having been a Jew and a witness of what is recorded in the gospel. For more on this, see Ngewa 2003: 429–30; and Keener 2003: 89–91.
8. Polycarp lived AD 69–155 and in his letter to the Philippians