Healers to Physicians, Japheth K. G. Mati (a renown Kenyan medical professor and researcher) tells of an experience in Gainesville, Florida, where a waitress instructed another “take tea to that guy with an accent” (referring to him) and then Mati adds, “Actually I thought she was the one speaking with an accent” (172). Needless to say, our worldview is an accent in itself, and we all have one.
Abbreviations
1QS Serek Hayyahad, Community Rule (Manual of Discipline) from Qumran Cave 1
DNTT Dictionary of New Testament Theology
DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid
Eccl. Hist. Ecclesiastical History
HCSB Holman Christian Standard Bible
NASB New American Standard Bible
NIV New International Version
NKJB New King James Bible
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament
TNIV Today’s New International Version
UBS United Bible Societies
Introduction
The focus of this work is not issues of introduction but the teaching of the three letters. However, for their teaching to be explored fairly, an author has to work with certain conclusions, whether by way of assumption or well-argued discussion. The brief discussion below spells out the matters of authorship, date and place of writing, the historical context, and the question of genre or form and purpose.
Authorship
Unlike the Pastoral epistles (and some other epistles in the New Testament) whose Pauline authorship is questioned by many, and I have maintained in my writings that we cannot deny the truthfulness of the books’ claim that Paul wrote them (1 Tim 1:1; 2 Tim 1:1; and Titus 1:1) without diluting the authority of the rest of the books’ content,1 the three books traditionally called Epistles of John do not make mention of John at all.2 The first epistle goes directly to the message without a mention of who the author or the recipient are.3 The second and third epistles do better because they mention that the author is “the elder” (ho presbyteros) but without a name (2 John 1 and 3 John 1). Nevertheless I will, in this work, assume John the apostle to be the author. Apart from the defense of this traditional view in many books on New Testament introduction and other commentaries,4 there is a general view in the African context that when it comes to matters of history, information from the elders is more dependable than statements of later generations, unless good reason is provided for why the elders may have told lies.5
The traditional position on the authorship of 1 John is tied to the authorship of the Gospel of John, and the authorship of the Gospel of John is tied to the identity of the disciple of John 21:24 who is described in 21:20 as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” By implication, therefore, the internal evidence concerning the author is dependent on points that require to be argued out. The relationship between the Gospel and 1 John is primarily seen in the use of common language,6 and the identity of the disciple of John 21:24 is based on an argument of elimination of any other disciple until we are left with John the son of Zebedee.7
This internal evidence, though by deduction and not directly stated, is accompanied by statements by the early church fathers. These fathers include Polycarp,8 Papias,9 Irenaeus,10 and others.11 The closeness to first century dates of these witnesses (for example, Polycarp AD 110 and Papias AD 125) and listing in Muratorian Canon (AD 200) among other factors place the Gospel of John and 1 John early enough for the assumption that John wrote them to be a viable option. It cannot be dismissed without better evidence than what we have at the moment.12
Just as the similarity between the Gospel of John and 1 John implies the same authorship, so also 2 John in relation to 1 John. 2 John addresses the two issues (the matters of Jesus having come in the flesh and the practice of love among believers) at the center of 1 John’s teaching. This implies common authorship also. The vocabulary of 3 John (for example, “truth,” “children,” and “beloved”) also moves it toward 2 John, 1 John, and the Gospel of John. The argument would then be something like: Evidence that John wrote the Gospel (elimination of others and witness of church fathers) → Evidence that the author of the Gospel also wrote 1 John (similarity of content among other characteristics) → the writer of 1 John also wrote 2 John (same subject, and even use of “antichrist” in both) → the author of the Gospel, 1 and 2 John, also wrote 3 John (shared vocabulary and similar opening between 2 and 3 John).
It must, however, be mentioned that not everyone finds this convincing. Some have suggested that the similarities can be explained by the Gospel and the epistles sharing a common source, or guarding the same doctrinal interest, rather than one author.13 The mention of 1 John by the church fathers may also be viewed, by some, as better serving the point that the letter was in circulation early and not necessarily prove that apostle John was the author. Even with these challenges though, there is no better conclusive alternative to the view that John the apostle wrote all the four and that the church fathers were certain of their assertions. It is on the basis of where the weight lies that John will be assumed throughout this work.
Date and Place of Writing
Having adopted the position that John the apostle wrote both the Gospel of John and 1 John (and by extension 2 and 3 John also) the next question is, “Which of the two was written first, and what is the date for 1 John, and by implication also 2 and 3 John?” This question cannot be answered without working with some assumptions. A key assumption is that a full story needs to be told before those who deviate from it are rebuked. The Gospel tells the full story so as to show that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31) and in I John those who deny this truth are labelled “antichrist” (1 John 2:22). Working with this assumption, 1 John is to be dated after the date given to the Gospel, or about the same time, but not earlier.14
The date needs to be within John’s lifetime. Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. 3.23) quotes Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria as saying that John lived through the reign of Titus Flavius Domitian (emperor of Rome from AD 81 to 96) and into the reign of Trajan (emperor from AD 98 to 117). Given this information and the fact that John wrote in his fairly old age (his use of “children” for the believers implies this) the epistles (also the Gospel of John15) need to be dated in the late eighties or early nineties.16 Regarding from where John wrote, Yarbrough says, “Patristic sources plausibly affirm that in roughly 70–100 John was in Ephesus and ministered there.”
