The Second and Third Epistles of John
Rex Banks
Lesson 27
Authorship
Internal Evidence
(1) From the internal evidence it is abundantly clear that 2 and 3 John are twin epistles from the same writer. It is equally clear that this individual also wrote 1 John. Thus, the author of 2 and 3 John was John the apostle. He is also the author of the fourth Gospel.
“There is no doubt that the Second and Third
Epistles are from the same hand” (David Smith: Expositors Greek New Testament).
“With a few notable exceptions, modern critics
agree that the evidence points to a common author for 1, 2, and 3 John” (Glenn W Barker:
Expositors Bible Commentary).
“The three Epistles of John embody the same
language, the same ideas, the same ideals. There is little that is peculiar to them, as
distinct from the first Epistle, or the Gospel according to John; and of the
Second Epistle, seven or eight of the thirteen verses are found in the First
Epistle. In the Third, the writer
describes himself in the same fashion, writes largely in the same style, and
utilizes many of the same phrases” (Guy N Woods New Testament Commentary on Peter - John
- Jude).
(2) The following comparisons help to illustrate this point:
“The elder to the chosen lady...” (2 Jn 1).
“The elder to the
beloved Gaius...” (3 Jn 1).
“I was very glad to find some of your children
walking in truth, just as we have received commandment to do from the Father”
(2 Jn 4). “For I was
very glad when brethren came and bore witness to your truth, that is, how you
are walking in truth. I have no
greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth” (3 Jn 4).
“A new commandment I give to you that you love
one another even as I have loved you, that you also love one another” (Jn 14:34).
“Beloved, I am not writing a new commandment
to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning; the old
commandment is the word which you have heard” (1 Jn 2:7).
“And I ask you now, lady, not as writing to
you a new commandment, but the one which we have had from the beginning, that
we love one another” (2 Jn 5).
“Jesus answered and said to him, ‘If anyone
loves Me he will keep My word; and My Father will love
him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him’” (Jn
“For this is the love of God,
that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome” (1 Jn 5:3).
“And this is love, that
we walk according to his commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have
heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it” (2 Jn 6).
“(Many) false prophets have gone out into the
world. 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”
(1
Jn 4:1-3).
“For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist”
(2 Jn 7).
“These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full” (Jn
“And these things we write, so that our joy
may be made complete” (1 Jn 1:4).
“Having many things to write to you, I do not
want to do so with paper and ink; but hope to come to you and speak face to
face, so that your joy may be made full” (2 Jn 12).
In this context, we also note the repetition of certain words (eg “truth,” “love,” “commandment,” “walk/walking”) and the similar design of 2 and 3 John. In both, 2 John and 3 John describes the addressee as one whom “I love in truth” (2 Jn 1; 3 Jn 1). The distinctive phrase “I was very glad” is found in both (2 Jn 4; 3 Jn 3). The endings of both letters are very similar: “Having many things to write to you, I do not want to do so with paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that your joy may be made full” (2 Jn 12-13); “I have many things to write to you, but I am not willing to write them to you with pen and ink; but I hope to see you shortly, and we shall speak face to face...”
(3 Jn 13-14).
(3) The writer of 2 and 3 John introduces himself simply as “the elder,” and as we said in our discussion of 1 John, this failure to identify himself by name is also a characteristic of the fourth Gospel and 1 John. The term “elder” can refer to the office of an elder, but it may simply speak of an older man. It is evident that the title was used of certain apostles. Eusebius quotes Papias:
“If, then, any one came, who had been a
follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders -
what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by
James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord,
and what things Aristion and the presbyter John, the
disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would
profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice.”
It is clear that the writer is well known to the recipients, and that he writes with authority.
External Evidence
(1) In our study of 1 John we cited the relevant quotations from Ireneaus (Against Heresies). This work also includes citations of 2 John. For example:
“And John, the disciple of the Lord, has
intensified their condemnation, when he desires us not even to address to them
the salutation of ‘good-speed;’ for, says he, ‘He that bids them be of
good-speed is a partaker with their evil deeds;’ (2 Jn 11 – Rex) and that with
reason, ‘for there is no good-speed to the ungodly,’ saith the Lord’” (Against Heresies
1.16.3).
Further on we read:
“These are they against whom the Lord has
cautioned us beforehand; and His disciple, in his Epistle already mentioned (1
John – Rex) commands us to avoid them, when he says: ‘For many deceivers are entered into the
world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Take heed to them, that ye lose not what ye
have wrought’ (2 Jn 7-8 – Rex). And
again does he 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” (1 Jn 4:2 – Rex). These
words agree with what was said in the Gospel, that “the Word was made flesh,
and dwelt among us.” (Jn
Some think it significant that Ireneaus quotes 2 Jn 7-8 and 1 Jn 4:1-2 as from “the Letter of John” making no distinction between them. In Goodspeed’s view, “(the) fact that some early Church Fathers seem to mention only one letter of John, or only two, simply means that they regarded the three as forming a single letter, or two letters.” He argues:
“The ancients not improperly thought of I, II,
and III John now as one letter (Ireneaus), now as two (the Muratorian writer at
Rome about A.D. 200, and Clement of Alexandria about the same time), and now as
three (the Clermont List, probably reflecting Christian practice in Egypt about
A.D. 300). These varied testimonies are
not to be understood as meaning that one writer had one letter and another two,
but that all possessed the full corpus of three letters, one long and two very
short, and designated them differently, as well they might, since in a very
real sense they might be regarded as one letter with two covering notes, or two
letters with a covering note (III John).”
(2)
Ireneaus’
teacher Polycarp has the following in his Epistle to the Philippians:
“‘For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist;’ and whosoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whosoever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says that there is neither a resurrection nor a judgment, he is the first-born of Satan.”
In the view of some “Polycarp (here) cites rather 2 John, 7 than 1 John 4” (Catholic Encyclopaedia). It is not clear to me that this is the case.
(3)
Clement of Alexandria has the following in his Stromata:
“John, too, manifestly teaches the differences
of sins, in his larger Epistle, in these words: ‘If any man see his brother sin a sin that is
not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life: for these that sin not unto death,’ he says” (2.15).
Clement’s description of 1 John as the
apostle’s “larger epistle” suggests that he knew of at least one other. According to Eusebius, Clement left
“abridged accounts of all canonical Scripture, not omitting the disputed books
- …Jude and the other Catholic Epistles, and Barnabas and the so-called
Apocalypse of Peter”
(4)
Eusebius tells us that according to Origen “(John) has left
also an epistle of very few lines; perhaps also a second and third; but not all
consider them genuine, and together they do not contain hundred lines” (Church
History 6.25.10). Eusebius also
reports that Origen’s pupil Dionysius of Alexandria speaks
of “the reputed second or third epistle of John” (7.25.11) and
expresses the view that the absence of the writer’s name is in keeping with
John’s practice. Eusebius places among
the “disputed” writings “those that are called the second and third of John,
whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name” (3.25.3).
(5)
The Muratorian Canon
speaks of two Epistles of John (see 1 John). (If the position of Goodspeed and others is
correct, the Muratorian Canon may treat 1 and 2 John as one epistle
and 3 John as a second letter, but this is simple speculation).
(6)
Guthrie points out:
“It is significant that the earlier writers
appear to have less hesitation about apostolic authorship than the later, which
is the reverse of what would be expected if the doubts were based on accurate
tradition.”
(7)
In similar vein, Plummer
has:
“Thus it is precisely the earliest witnesses
who are favorable to the apostolic authorship; and at no time do the doubts as
to their apostolicity appear to have been general.”
(8)
It
is true that the canonicity of 2 and 3 John was
disputed for a long time, but since 3 John is certainly a private letter, and 2
John may also have been addressed to a single individual, the letters did not
have the same reason nor the same opportunity to
circulate as in the case of church letters.
Their size and late date may also explain why they are not quoted more
frequently. Anyway, by the fourth century
they were included in the Canon of the
Addressees
(1) 2 John is addressed to “the chosen lady (eklektē kuria) and her children” (NASB), “the elect lady” (KJV). Some like Plummer, Ross, Ryrie and R Wall (International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia) favor the view that a particular lady is the designee, while others like Bruce, Marshall, Wescott, Carson et al favor a local church. (Some such as Jerome have suggested that we have here a reference to the universal church, but this does not seem likely).
Among those who take the first position, some suggest that the addressee is a Christian lady named “Electa,” but others point out that the same word is used as an adjective rather than as a proper name in v 13. Others who take this position suggest that “Kuria is undoubtedly a proper name” (Wesley) while others think that John is writing to an unnamed woman. On the other hand, some note that in vv 6, 8, 10 and 12 we have the second person plural and conclude from this that John is addressing a local church. This is not decisive because of the inclusion of “children” in the greeting (v 1). Westcott speaks of this as an “insoluble (problem) with our present knowledge.”
I incline to the view that John is writing to a Christian lady, likely of some substance, who is in the habit of generously receiving travelling missionaries into her home, and who needs to be warned against offering such assistance to the heretical secessionists (see 1 John) who are attempting to gain converts.
(2)
Third John is addressed to one
“beloved Gaius” (v 1), and although this name occurs elsewhere in the New
Testament (Acts
Composition: Date
and Place
See our notes on 1 John. A date somewhere in the 80s to mid 90s (not
long after the writing of 1 John) seems best, and again
2 John -
Circumstances and Contents
(1)
Like 1 John, the keynote of the
second epistle is truth, and like 1 John, an earnest warning is given
concerning those whose erroneous teachings constitute a deadly threat to that
truth. As with 1 John, walking in
truth is inseparable from obedience to the divine commandment
and also inseparable from love of the brethren. This essential teaching is set forth in 2 Jn
4-9.
(2) As in 1 John, this reminder of what constitutes real faith is given in light of the fact that “many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh” (v 7). Again the apostle uses the terms “deceiver” and “antichrist” in connection with the heretical teachers against whom he is warning. We recall that John’s language (in the first epistle) suggests that the errorists have withdrawn from the mainstream Christian community. There he called them “false prophets (who) have gone out into the world” (4:1). It appears from 2 John that the errorists are actively engaged in trying to win converts from among John’s addressees, and hence his warning “Watch yourselves, that you may not lose what we have accomplished” (v 8).
(3) With the errorists in view, John speaks of “Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ.” Such a person “does not have God.” Concerning this person, the faithful Christian is told: “...do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting.” Consider the following points:
· What is the “teaching of Christ”? I agree with those who hold that the “teaching of Christ” is that teaching which Christ caused to be set forth in the New Testament, not teaching about Christ. (Just as the “teaching of Balaam” and the “teaching of the Nicolaitans” are references to the teaching which Balaam and the Nicolaitans did, rather than references to teaching about Balaam or the Nicolaitans). Thus, the person who “does not abide in the teaching of Christ” is the person who does not abide in the doctrine set forth in the pages of the New Testament which would include the teaching about Christ, but is not limited to this.
· Who is the person who “goes too far and does not abide in” the teaching which is set forth in the pages of the New Testament? One of the problems with which John deals in his letters is the problem of “false teachers…(who) claim to know God through inspiration (1 Jn 2:4; 4:1-3)” (Glenn W. Barker, the Expositors Bible Commentary). According to these errorists “knowledge of God…came through ‘mystical insights’ or by a ‘direct vision of God’” (ibid). Likely, these false teachers “claimed superior knowledge because they had received an exclusive ritual anointing that gave them knowledge (gnosis)” (ibid). The relationship which they had with God “was received through a process of speculative enquiry.”
Thus, as a result of mystical insights, special anointing of God and speculative enquiry and the like, these men claim to have progressed far beyond those who possessed only the teaching of Christ given through inspired men. Commenting on 2 John 9, Stephen S. Smalley says: “The verb ‘proago’ (‘is advanced;’ literally ‘goes ahead’) is clearly borrowed from the terminology of the gnostically inclined heretics who claimed to have a superior knowledge which enabled them to ‘advance’ beyond the ordinary Christian ‘teaching’ of their fellows” (Word Biblical Commentary).
In my view then, when John speaks of the one who “goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ,” he is speaking of the one who claims to have progressed beyond the knowledge of God available through the teaching of Christ. The errorist claims a knowledge of God based upon direct vision, speculative enquiry and mystical insight - a knowledge which allegedly takes him far beyond the knowledge of God available to those who have Christ’s doctrine and nothing more. In the mind of the errorist, he has “advanced” beyond Christ’s teaching to a superior level of insight, but John’s response is that such a one has not advanced, but rather has “gone too far.” The apostle warns the “chosen lady” that no fellowship or assistance is to be given to such a one (vv 10-11).
3 John -
Circumstances and Contents
(1) 3 John has been described as the “twin” of 2 John. Gaius, the addressee, is one who is in good spiritual health (v 2), and John writes commending him for “walking in truth” (v 3) and for demonstrating loving support for travelling missionaries (v 5-6). As with 1 John and 2 John, truth and love of the brethren go hand in hand here. John encourages Gaius to continue his support for travelling missionaries (“we ought to support such men”) who go out “for the sake of the Name” (vv 7-8).
(2) Gaius’ loving and generous spirit stands in stark contrast to that of one Diotrephes who “loves to be first” in the church and who, in his arrogance, does not respect John’s apostolic authority (v 9). What’s more, this man unjustly accuses John and his representatives, he does not accept missionaries sent out by the apostle, and he forbids others in the church to do so under threat of withdrawal of association (v 10). John tells Gaius of his intention to discipline this arrogant man, (“I will call attention to his deeds” - v 10). He adds “Beloved do not imitate what is evil, but what is good” (v 11) and perhaps he does so because he has heard that Diotrephes is trying to persuade Gaius to join him in opposition to John. Some have suggested that Diotrephes was one of the heretics whom John opposes so strongly in 1 and 2 John. John’s language simply suggests that he is driven by pride and ambition, but perhaps the leadership conflict involves the false teachers mentioned in 1 and 2 John.
Some regard 2 and 3 John as “covering letters”
which originally accompanied 1 John.
Outline – 2 John
(1)
Greeting (1 Jn 1:1-3).
(2)
Praise for Walking in the Truth
(1 Jn 1:4).
(3)
Love One Another (1 Jn1:5-6).
(4) Warning About Errorists (1 Jn 1:7-11).
(5)
Conclusion and Farewell (1 Jn
Outline - 3 John
(1)
Greeting (3 Jn 1).
(2)
Praise for Gaius (3 Jn 2-8).
(3)
Diotrephes Condemned (3 Jn 9-11).
(4)
Demetrius Praised (3 Jn 12).
(5) Conclusion (3 Jn 13-14).