details (late eighties or early nineties date, and writing from Ephesus) will be assumed in this commentary.
The Historical Context
Within the content of the three epistles, there is in each one of them at least one detail that is helpful in providing a feel of what was happening when John wrote them.
In 1 John 2:19 John talks of those who “have gone out of us.” While this will be discussed in more detail in the commentary itself, what this implies is that John’s readers are believers whom he had shepherded and they knew his position in matters of essential doctrines and basic Christian living. When he was writing, however, some false teaching had set into the community he had taught the truth and some of the members had been deceived to the point of leaving the congregation of the faithful. Most scholars refer to them as secessionists. Their position on sin seems to be that it did not matter (implied in what John teaches in 1 John 1) and their position on who Jesus is was that he did not come in the flesh, a lie that John refutes to the point of calling those who deny Jesus’ humanity the “antichrists” (2:18, 22; 4:3). Their worldview on these matters also seems to have made them downplay the place of love among people of God, against Jesus’ teaching that we love one another—a matter to which John gives extensive and repeated attention in the epistle. Lieu suggests that the “us” John uses in 2:19 refers to him and other teachers (for example, the apostles) like him.18 In other words, the seceding was at the teachers’ level and not at the level of members of the congregation. While this is not an impossibility, John seems to be exhorting the entire congregation in a manner (see for example, the use of “if anyone . . .” in chapter 1 and elsewhere in the epistle) that he is establishing them not to follow those who have been led astray. The picture painted does not seem to be just one of potential danger as Lieu proposes, but an existing situation.19 The assumption that will be adopted in this work is that the “us” of 2:19 refers to John and the faithful ones. He refers to the faithful as “you” from time to time but also, at times, places himself among them and uses “we” or us.” The false teachers are referred to as “they” or “them.”
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.
