1, 2, 3 John

Home A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Abbreviations Glossary

---

1, 2, 3 John, by J. E. McDermond (Believers Church Bible Commentary)

Introduction

Relevance

The Johannine letters deal with basic issues in life: What is true . . . and how do we know what is true? What really matters? What can and must we say about Jesus? And how does truth (right belief) relate to faithful discipleship (right action) and to love (right relationships)? The author is deeply committed to personal and communal integrity in which right belief, right action, and right relationships are in alignment. If they are, we can have fellowship with each other and with God’s Son, Jesus Christ (1:3), and our joy will be com­plete (1:4).

The basic message of 1 John is two-pronged. First, you can rest assured that you are children of God and that you have eternal life because you believe in Jesus as God’s Son, God’s Messi­ah, the atoning sacrifice. Second, the only adequate response to this assurance is to love God and to love one another.

Date

No firm date can be offered for the writing of these letters. However, most scholars find a date in the 90s CE to be the most likely for 1 John, probably stretching into the second century for 2 and 3 John. First John had to have been written early enough to account for probable echoes in Polycarp (mid-second century) and Papias (first third of second century). However, the letters’ concern for theological “proto-orthodoxy” (see the next paragraph) fits more naturally what we know as second-century concerns than it does first-century concerns. These letters thus likely fit into the transitional period between the centuries and can be dated late first century to early second century.

It would be anachronistic to say that these letters reflect a concern for theological “orthodoxy,” since the consensus we know as orthodoxy was hammered out in the second and third centuries at the hands of Irenaeus and others (see Walter Bauer). Nevertheless, the letters are clearly concerned with faulty ideas about Jesus Christ (what later become known as a heterodox Christology) that threaten the ongoing faithfulness and even viability of the more proto-orthodox community. The Christology proclaimed by the author anticipates and aligns well with what later came to be understood as orthodox. The author cautions the church about associating indiscriminately with anyone who “does not abide in the teaching of Christ” (2 John 9, NRSVue, passim). And since this caution about “heterodoxy” defines the second century CE of the early church more than the first, it is likely that 2 John and 3 John date from the early second century.

As with the rest of the New Testament, these epistles were arranged in order from longest to the shortest, with no concern for the chronological order of writing. However, 1 John 2 clearly refers to some kind of exodus of part of the community born of theological disagreement. The reference in 2 John to “many deceivers [who] have gone out into the world” (v. 7) most naturally refers to those who left the community. The author feels a need to caution his flock about not associating easily with those holding to a false teaching.

Third John was written to encourage Gaius to continue receiv­ing and welcoming traveling preachers and evangelists, even if they are strangers, so long as they “walk in the truth” (vv. 3, 4). It is therefore easy to read 3 John as a subsequent corrective to a possi­ble overreaction to the cautions and warnings highlighted in Section 3 (vv. 7-11) of 2 John. That is, Gaius may have taken the author’s warnings in 2 John about indiscriminate asso­ci­a­tion with antichrists so seriously that he became suspicious of all outsiders and all unknown itinerate preachers, with the result that he was becoming an insulated xenophobe.

In summary, in this case the canonical order also seems to match the most likely chron­o­logi­cal order.

Canonization and Authorship

First John was readily admitted early into the New Testament canon, but 2 and 3 John did not fare similarly. Although most of the early manuscripts of the New Testament include all three of these letters, the early authoritative (third-century) Syriac manuscript (known as the Peschito, the Peshitta, and the Syriac Vulgate) does not contain 2 John or 3 John. The fifth-century Codex Ephraemi has 1 John and 3 John, but not 2 John.

The early church biblical scholars Origen and Jerome, the early church theologian Iraenaus, and the early church historian Eusebius all doubted that 2 John and 3 John were written by the same person who wrote 1 John. They were thus inclined not to attribute to them the same level of authority as they did 1 John. Along with 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John were among the last “books” of the New Testament to be admitted. Although Jerome himself thought 2 and 3 John were written by someone else, his including them in the Latin Vulgate ultimately ensured their acceptance into the canon.

The author does not identify himself by name in the “letters.” He does identify himself as “the elder” in 2 John 1 and 3 John 1, which are more clearly letters than is 1 John (see “Form and Rhetoric” below). Early church leaders generally took the term to distinguish the “elder John” from the “apostle John.” The term often refers to someone who was respected in a community and who had some responsibility for its spiritual oversight. The term also referred to someone of an ad­vanced age. The argumenta­tion within 1 John itself supports the suggestion that the author was an older person who was also a respected leader within the community.

In light of the above, Origin and Jerome (and others) doubted that 2 John and 3 John were written by the apostle John because:

1. While 1 John is anonymous, 2 John and 3 John identify the author as “the elder.”
2. While 1 John is a mixed genre steeped in rich theological themes, 2 John and 3 John are more clearly letters treating singular issues in a brief manner.
3. Early church tradition as known by Papias identified two important leaders named John, both of whom circulated in Asia Minor, suggesting that 1 John was written by the apostle and 2 and 3 John by the “elder.”
4. While 1 John was widely known and widely circulated, 2 John and 3 John were not.

On the other hand, none of these arguments is weighty, since different circumstances and therefore differing purposes can easily account for some of these differences. Furthermore, the counterevidence is weighty, since themes like truth, love, and walking in the commandments clearly connect the latter two with the first. Thus, there are no compelling reasons why these three letters were not written by the same person over a period of time. However, even if they were not all written by the same person, they all come out of and reflect similar life situations and probably even the same Christian community at slightly different times.

It is clear that the early church recognized 1 John as authoritative on the basis of the assump­tion that the author was the apostle John. The early church leaders simply accepted the point. Furthermore, the author claims to have heard, seen, and touched “the word of life” (1 John 1:1). None of the traditional arguments against apostolic authorship are compelling, and the authorial tone of an elderly man with an assumed authority fits that of an aging apostle John. Nevertheless, we cannot be certain and must content ourselves with the possibility or likelihood that these letters were written by the apostle John.

Historical Situation

Scholars generally recognize that these three letters are closely related to each other and to the Gospel of John and that each of these writings can and should be understood in light of the others. Several major themes indisputably connect the Gospel with the Johannine letters and the letters with each other. These include:

1. Witness or testimony (cf. John 1:7, 19; 3:11; 1 John 5:9-11; 3 John 12)
2. Christology of incarnation (cf. John 1:1, 14; 1 John 1:1; 2:22-23; 4:2)
3. The Sonship of Jesus (cf. John 3:16; 1 John 4:9)
4. A dualizing tendency (cf. John 1:5; 8:12; 1 John 1:5-7)
5. The saving power of knowing (cf. John 17:3; 1 John 2:3; 5:11-13; 2 John 1)
6. The Holy Spirit (cf. John 14–16, esp. 14:26; 1 John 2:20, 27)
7. The love command (cf. John 13:34-35; 15:12; 17:26; cf. 1 John 3:11; 4:8, 16; 2 John 5; 3 John 6)
8. Truth and deception (cf. John 8:44; 18:37; 1 John 2:18-26; 4:1; 2 John 1-2, 7; 3 John 9-10, 12)
9. The indispensability of obedience (cf. John 3:20-21; 14:15; 1 John 2:3-6; 3:7; 2 John 6)

Because of the clear thematic connection between the three letters, we will treat their summary and content together in what follows. Interpreting one of the letters apart from the other two can be misleading.

These letters clearly reflect a situation of theological conflict that has harmed the com­mun­ity, resulting in a separation or schism of some kind. However, the author is not writing to oppose those who are in the wrong. That conflict reached a breaking point in the not-too-distant past, resulting in some sizable portion of the community separating from some other sizable portion of the community. The schism seems to have rocked the community that remains, which is presumably the community with the more proto-orthodox Christology. The result of the schism is that the community that remains is suffering from some self-doubt and fear. The author writes to assure the community that remains that they are indeed beloved children of God, that they are in the right, and that they do know the truth. They can confidently rest in that assurance (1 John 2:28) and replace their fear with boldness and love (1 John 4:17-18).

It is difficult to be precise about the exact nature of the theological issue that precipitated the schism. Although scholars have offered different and contradictory proposals, it is clear that Christological orthodoxy was at the heart of the matter: What can and must we say about Jesus? What can and must we say about his being the Messiah, or the Christ? What can and must we say about his having come “in the flesh”? What can and must we say about his Sonship, his relationship to the Father? And what can and must we say about his atoning sacri­fice?

These theological issues are not just theoretical. According to the author, they are directly related to how we should live—to ethics. To proclaim Christ rightly is to walk in the light, and to walk in the light is to “walk in the same way as he walked” (1 John 2:6). At the heart of walking in the light is walking in love because God is love.

Second John reflects a historical situation similar to that reflected by 1 John, though arguably at a somewhat later stage. Second John is addressed to “the elect lady and her children” (v. 1). Is “elect lady” a simile for the community of faith or is she an individual? The question has been debated for centuries. The singular (vv. 1, 4, 5) and plural (vv. 6, 8, 10, 12) forms in the letter have been used in support of both sides of the debate, so they are inconclusive. However, the inclusio provided by the greeting and closing is more suggestive:

“The elder to the elect lady and her children” (v. 1)

“The children of your elect sister send you their greetings” (v. 13)

Although the “sister” in verse 13 could conceivably also be an individual, the Johannine penchant for symbolic language gives credence to understanding both the elect lady and her sister as symbols for “sister” communities of faith.

In contrast, 3 John was written to an individual: Gaius.

Section C of 2 John (vv. 7-11; see outline below) connects with 1 John 2:18-27. In 2 John 7-11, the author warns the community not to accept an antichrist (anyone who denies that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh). The author of 2 John warns the community not to receive or even welcome such a person into one’s house, presumably because the Christological heresy is so dangerous.

Like Philemon, 3 John was written to an individual. However, Philemon was apparently intended for public consump­tion. Third John is therefore unique in the New Testament for being a private letter to an individual. The English language obscures this characteristic, since “you” in English can be singular or plural. Furthermore, when the word “beloved” appears four times in this short letter, it is easy to read or hear it as a plural, since it usually is plural in the letters of the New Testament (including 1 John). However, both this term and the second person pronoun are consistently singular in the Greek of 3 John and refer to Gaius himself.

Form and Rhetoric

While 2 John and 3 John are clearly letters, the genre of 1 John is mixed (see the essay “Let­ters in the Ancient World” in the commentary). Proposals for how it should be ­­categorized have been many, but no one genre adequately reflects all the evidence.

The author maintains a vigorous and aggressive rhetoric: this conflict is not just a matter of differing theological convictions, or differing opinions: What is at stake is whether you are for Christ or antichrist! The fact that many antichrists have already come (in the first cen­tury) shows that the author and his commun­ity were living in the last hour (1 John 2:18). First John 2:19 says, “They [our oppo­nents who left, the “secessionists”] went out from us, but they did not belong to us, for if they had belonged to us they would have remained with us.”

These letters are both fascinating and frustrating because the author sees things in terms that are simple, if not simplistic: right and wrong, true and false (see the essay “Duality in the Epistles” in the commentary). Some of the author’s language is strong, if not strident: “All who hate a brother or sister are murderers” (1 John 3:15). Some of the author’s argu­men­ta­tion appears self-contradictory: “Those who have been born of God . . . cannot sin be­cause they have been born of God” (1 John 3:9), but “if we say that we have no sin, we de­ceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8; see the essay “Sin and Perfection­ism” in the commentary).

Perhaps the author is an older person (2 John 1 and 3 John 1) for whom life is becoming less com­pli­cat­ed and what really matters in life is becoming clearer. The praises of the author for the read­ers and the warnings and exhortations to live faithful lives remind one of the “testa­ments” we see in the Old Testament when an old patriarch offers parting words of blessing and exhortation to his children and grandchildren. This is another genre that may help us better understand 1 John.

Outlines of 1, 2, and 3 John

1 John Outline

A. The Word of Life 1:1-4
B. Walk in the Light, Not the Darkness 1:5–2:17

1. Walk in the Light 1:5-10

2. Don’t Walk in the Darkness 2:1-17

C. Rest in Your Identity 2:18–3:10

1. Don’t Be Deceived by the Secessionists 2:18-29

2. You Are Beloved Children of God 3:1-10

D. Love God and Love One Another 3:11–4:21

1. Love One Another I 3:11-24

2. Test the Spirits 4:1-6

3. Love One Another II 4:7-21

E. Live Eternally through Believing in God’s Son 5:1-21

1. Believe in Jesus as Messiah, Thus Conquering the World 5:1-5

2. Receive the Spirit’s Testimony about Jesus 5:6-12

3. Be Assured of Eternal Life 5:13-21

2 John Outline

A. Salutation 1-3
B. Walk in Truth and Love 4-6
C. Do Not Receive Deceivers! 7-11
D. Closing Greetings 12-13

3 John Outline

A. Salutation 1
B. Praise to Gaius for Walking in Truth and Love 2-8
C. Diotrephes and Demetrius 9-12

1. Warning about Diotrephes 9-10

2. Commendation for Demetrius 11-12

D. Closing Greetings 13-15

Summary and Content

The author weaves four main themes through the letters. First, love. Love God and love one another. This theme comes through strongly in the Gospel of John as well (cf. also Mark 12:30-31). The author maintains the impossibility of loving God without loving one another and vice versa (1 John 4:20-21). John uses strong, elegant, and perhaps even hyperbolic language in speaking about the im­portance of love: “everyone who loves is born of God and knows God” (1 John 4:7). That is a radical claim! “If we love one another, God abides in us” (1 John 4:12). “Those who abide in love abide in God” (1 John 4:16). “Perfect love casts out fear” (1 John 4:18).

The second theme is walking in the light, or living with personal and communal integrity. Walking in the light in 1 John (1:7; cf. 2:6, 11) is synonymous with walking in the truth, the language used in 2 John (v. 4) and 3 John (vv. 3-4). The author is talking here about living honestly and openly, living lives that are basically trans­parent. Jesus the Messiah is both the atoning sacrifice for our sins and an advocate with the Father with regard to our sins. Claiming to know Jesus while persisting in sin is to walk in darkness. It is to lack personal integrity. Talk and action: get it together (3:17-18, 24)! Claiming allegiance to Jesus entails living like Jesus lived (1 John 2:6). The themes of love and walking in the light are closely related because “whoever loves . . . abides in the light” (2:10).

The third theme is the importance of a true Christology. The five crucial ele­ments of this Christology are as follows: Jesus came in the flesh (1:1; 4:2; 5:6-8; 2 John 7). He is God’s Son (1:3; 3:23; 4:9-10, 14-15; 5:9-10; 2 John 3, 9). He is the messiah (1:3; 2:22; 3:23; 4:2; 5:1, 6; 2 John 3). As Son, Jesus is one with the Father (2:22-23; 5:1). Jesus’ death was atoning (1:7; 2:2; 3:5, 16; 4:10, 14; 5:6-8, 11). These Christological claims were appar­ently de­nied by the secessionists. However, going beyond this to construct a more precise, coherent, proto-heterodox Christology is to devolve into speculation.

Christology is not important to 3 John. In fact, 3 John is unique in the New Testament in that it does not even mention Jesus or Christ by name. Although Christ appears in the NRSVue in verse 7, the word is supplied by the translators, since the Greek reads more literally “for the sake of the name.” This uniqueness is not significant, however, for four reasons: (1) “the name” clearly refers to Christ; (2) this is quite a short letter; (3) this is a private letter; (4) it was written to commend Gaius for his faithfulness and potentially to correct a faulty conclusion based on 2 John. So here too we must read 3 John in light of 1 John and 2 John (and even the Gospel of John).

The fourth theme is assurance of being God’s children. To “abide” in God or in Christ is to rest assured of God’s love, particularly because the devastating schism has brought fear and self-doubt into the hearts of those remaining (but see also the essay “‘Abiding’ in the Jo­han­nine Letters” in the commentary). The poem in 2:12-14 emphasizes that the audience has already been forgiven, they already know God, etc. The author is writing not “because you do not know the truth, but because you know it” (2:21). “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life” (5:13). Be­cause of this assurance, the community can and should be “bold” (3:21; 4:17; 5:14). They need not be and should not be afraid (4:18-19). In addition to other essays mentioned above, see also “Children of God/Born of God,” an excellent short discussion of the theme in the Johannine literature. In 1 John, this theme should be understood first in its relation to the theme of assurance—an assurance needed by the com­mun­ity in light of the troubling schism and the self-doubt that it caused.

All four of these themes also appear in 2 John, though in abbreviated form. The one new theme in 2 John is a word of caution about receiving or welcoming anyone who does not maintain a true Christology. Perhaps this was not a live issue for the community in 1 John. Or perhaps the issue rose because of, and subsequent to, the exodus of the proto-heterodox referred to in 1 John 2:19. This new theme also appears in 3 John in a modified form, since in 3 John the issue is whether to receive or welcome strangers who are unknown to the com­mun­ity.

Conclusion and the Anabaptist Tradition

All four of the central themes of 1 John identified above were important to the Anabap­tists. The third theme—the importance of a true (proto-orthodox) Christology—was not particu­lar­­ly controversial for the Anabaptists, since they shared a basic orthodox theology both with other Protestants and with the Mother Church. However, the other three themes were par­­ti­cu­larly important to the Anabaptists in their relationship with other theological con­ver­sa­tion partners.

The introductory paragraph above highlighted love (right relationships), discipleship (right action), and truth (right belief) as central to these letters. In the centuries after the Reformation, followers of Christ have found it easier to emphasize two of these at the expense of the third, or one of these at the expense of the other two. In the historical situation behind these letters, the author clearly values all three and does not want any one of them to be minimized.

Some Anabaptists were influenced by the dualizing rhetoric of 1 John, which arguably contributed to the Anabaptists’ tendency to dualize church and world. “We” are God’s children (1 John 3:1). “They” are the world (1 John 2:15-17; 3:1, 13; 4:1-5; 5:19). According to Jay McDermond (p. 138), the dualizing words in 1 John 2:15-17 are among the most-quoted verses from 1 John in Martyrs Mirror. As noted above, the author was not drawn to the­o­log­i­cal subtleties. In particular, the author insisted that no split between theological com­mit­ment and a lived-out obedience is possible. If you are with Christ, you cannot go on walking in darkness. Speech and action must be in align­ment. This influenced the Anabap­tists to develop a high ecclesiology—an expecta­tion of the church “without a spot or wrinkle,” to borrow language from Ephesians 5:27.

So if you want to declare allegiance to Christ, you had better live like it (1 John 2:6)—none of the “simul­ta­ne­ously saint and sinner” concept that Martin Luther preferred. It is not that Chris­tians can earn their salvation. Only the blood of Jesus can cleanse us from sin (1 John 1:7). But if we claim to know him while disobeying his commandments, we are liars (1 John 2:4). There is thus a counsel of perfection in 1 John that influenced the Anabaptists (cf. 1 John 2:5). The penchant of many Christian groups to maintain a pure church has unfortunately led to thousands of church splits over the years. In this tendency Anabaptists seem to be among the leading groups. See the commentary, p. 53, “Christian Behavior” (pp. 104–7), and “The New Birth and Believers Churches” (pp. 237–40) for excellent treatments of this theme. McDer­mond’s thoughtful and nuanced handling of this feature in 1 John in light of sub­se­quent conversa­tions in the church is one of the more valuable con­tri­bu­tions of this com­men­tary in the Be­liev­ers Church Bible Commentary series.

Recommended Essays in the Commentary

“Abiding” in the Jo­han­nine Letters
Children of God / Born of God
Docetism
Duality in the Epistles
Eschatology
Letters in the Ancient World
Sin and Perfectionism

Bibliography

• Bauer, Walter. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. Translated by Georg Strecker. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1971.
• Braght, Thieleman J. van. Martyrs Mirror. Translated by Joseph F. Sohm from the 1660 Dutch edition and published in Elkhart, IN, in 1886. Reprinted Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1950.
• Brown, Raymond E. The Epistles of John. Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982.
• Burge, Gary M. The Letters of John. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.
• Kysar, Robert. I, II, III John. Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1986.
• McDermond, J. E. Epistles of 1, 2, 3 John. Believers Church Bible Commentary. Harrison­burg, VA: Herald, 2011.
• Rensberger, David. 1 John, 2 John, 3 John. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1997.

Invitation to Comment

To recommend improvements to this article, click here.

—Loren L. Johns

—Published BCBC commentary by J. E. McDermond