The Letters of John

Day 34

SCRIPTURE

⁹God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him. (1 John 4:9, NRSV)

WHAT

What have we learned from our study of 1 John? I have found it helpful when finishing a biblical study to look back and try to capture what really spoke to me. This summary is, therefore, personal. This is what spoke to me, but maybe not to you. Your summary may look different. But I encourage you to try to capture what you learned.

I will list several things that stood out to me in John the elder’s letter/sermon.

In our Background commentary I listed several questions I had going in to a study of 1, 2, and 3 John. We have learned some answers to these questions:

· Are these letters connected to each other?

· Who is Gaius?

· Who is “the elect lady and her children”?

· Who is “the elder”?

· Why are these three letters connected to John in their titles?

· Is this the same John who wrote the Gospel According to John?

· Why did “the elder” write these letters?

· What was the Holy Spirit saying to the original recipients of these letters?

· What is the Spirit saying to us through them today?

Yes, the three letters are connected, at least according to the scholarly opinion of Dr. Luke Timothy Johnson and others. I am working with that theory. What is that theory and what are those connections between 1, 2, and 3 John? What does that theory say to my other questions?

In this theory, the letter we call 3 John was a personal letter sent by John the elder in Ephesus to a church to which he was quite attached, a church in which a man named Gaius was a leader. 2 John is a cover letter the elder wants Gaius to read to the church right before he shares the longer letter/sermon we call 1 John. In 2 John, he refers to this church as “the elect lady and her children.”

The elderly “grandfather” is a well-known leader in Ephesus. According to Papias, a contemporary of the Apostle John, he is not the John who wrote the Gospel According to John, but he was highly influenced by that gospel, as was his church. In 2 and 3 John he refers to himself simply as “the elder.” He used terms of affection to address Gaius’ church, particularly teknion, or “little children.” Gaius as a leader in that church was opposed by a man named Diotrophes. The church had experienced a schism over the new “shiny object philosophy du jour,” which was emerging, or proto-Gnosticism. These Gnostic “Christians” denied that Jesus had come as God in the flesh. They denied that the Christ had given his life on the cross. Believing these things, they not only had left Gaius’ church, but they were trying to recruit others from the church to join them. Some of these schismatics had been highly influential in the church, calling themselves prophets. John the elder wrote to encourage people who remained in Gaius’ church not to join the schismatics, whom he calls “antichrists,” by reminding them of key Christian fundamentals.

This theory makes these letters relevant on many fronts, especially for me and any readers who are part of my tribe of The United Methodist Church, which has experienced its own schism. Even those readers who are not United Methodists, in your tribe I’m sure you’ve seen splits and schisms.

One way in which these letters are relevant is the situation of the congregation. The elder’s audience were second and even third generation Christians who had never walked with Jesus during his earthly life, and they probably knew no one who did. Thus, their faith was growing cold and routine. Professor William Barclay writes:

“In the first days of Christianity, there was a glory and a splendor, but now Christianity had become a thing of habit, ‘traditional, half-hearted, nominal.’ People had grown used to it, and something of the wonder had been lost.”

This sounds familiar because we are even further removed from the founders of the Church and its original glory and splendor. In many ways our discipleship has become a thing of habit which is traditional, half-hearted, nominal, and something we have simply grown used to and from which the wonder has been lost.

We saw that Jesus had predicted this would happen:

…the love of many will grow cold. (Matthew 24:12, NRSV)

Once the fire of devotion goes out, it becomes harder and harder to stand out, to be different, to be holy. It happened to those in Gaius’ church, and it happens still in ours. No one likes to be “different,” to stand out from the crowd. But that is what holiness requires. The lure of the “shiny object philosophies du jour” still attract people’s attention like moths to a flame.

Professor Johnson’s theory requires that these three letters be read and studied together, which is what we are doing. It also explains why it is so difficult to make heads or tails out of reading 2 and 3 John in isolation. (I cannot remember hearing or ever preaching a sermon on 3 John by itself! Have you? This helps explain why.)

Another point of relevance is found in the fact that the opponents of John the elder were internal to the church. These letters were written because there was a very serious division within the body! Unlike in some letters of the New Testament where the opponents of the Church are external – like Jews or Romans – the opponents in these letters are internal. They are – or more precisely, were -- fellow Christians! They are former members of the community who have separated themselves from it. This fact they share with Paul’s letter to the Galatians where the opponents are also internal.

I have felt profound sadness and dismay and even anger at the schism taking place in my tribe. We are not alone. The “family tree” of the Christian Church is filled with splits, schisms, and ruptures of all kinds. These letters of 1, 2, and 3 John – and indeed much of the New Testament – reveals that contrary to what was Jesus’ will expressed in John 13:34-35 and in his prayer of John 17, the Church has suffered splits and schisms ever since the very beginning. Their existence today should dismay and even anger us, but they should not surprise us.

We would be remiss in reviewing what we have learned if we fail to take a moment to feel the pain of this rupture. As two groups originally connected to one another who shared the Gospel According to John, this rupture would have been particularly painful to John the elder. The Farewell Discourse in John’s gospel (John 15:1-17:26) portrays a community of friends. They share one Spirit, being joined to Jesus as Jesus the Son is joined to the Father through the power and love of the Holy Spirit, in a fellowship of unity, intimacy, and ONENESS. To rupture this ONENESS breaks John’s heart as he knows it must break the Triune God’s heart.

Another point of relevance is found in John’s calling the schismatics “antichrists.” Plural, not singular. John believed that the spirit that animated and motivated the schismatics was opposed to the Spirit of Jesus Christ. Many people think there will be one big, bad antichrist who comes near the end of time, associated with something called the rapture. And this antichrist will be a satanic figure running the world and threatening believers. It is the fodder for countless conspiracy theories and much misinformation today. It has spawned a veritable cornucopia of books, movies, blogs, preachers, and so forth. This notion does NOT come from the letters of John. Nor in my opinion, does it come from anywhere in the New Testament, including Revelation, in which the word “antichrist” never even appears. These antichrists, according to the elder, are spirits, attitudes, behaviors which infect people and lead them to stand opposed to Christ Jesus. And they are not future; they have already come, says the elder.

We saw that John the elder sees at least two gradations of sin – sin that is mortal and sin that is not. In trying to understand what the elder meant, we came across the caution about sin that becomes habitual, about sin that crosses the line between “I didn’t know it was a sin” to “I knew it was sin, but I did it anyway.” The latter is certainly mortal in the sense that it removes the desire for repentance, and without repentance there can be no forgiveness.

Finally, as those who live in a Church which still experiences ruptures, splits, and schisms, it is significant to note that John the elder writes to strengthen those who remain in Gaius’ church by reminding them of fundamentals like the incarnation and the deep love of God for them, hoping to restore their original passion. While he has some things to say about the schismatics, he is not using this letter/sermon primarily to debate them and prove them wrong. He is loving on, encouraging, and strengthening those in Gaius’ church who remained. Perhaps that is what we who remain in a divided church must also do.

APPLY

John the elder is loving on, encouraging, and strengthening those in Gaius’ church who remained. Perhaps that is what I who remain in a divided church must also do.

PRAYER

Thank God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for speaking so clearly to me through this letter/sermon. My ears are still open to hear as we move into studying 2 and 3 John. In Christ. Amen.

QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION

What are you taking away from our study of 1 John? How can you apply these insights in your life?