3 John, part three And wrap up.

In the last post, I made some major errors when recording verse numbers. They have hopefully been fixed.

We continue on with verse 12. There, the author speaks of a Demetrius who is "spoken well of everyone-- and even by the truth itself." How does "the truth" speak? It speaks when the author speaks. The next sentence is "We also speak well of him, and you know that our testimony is true." This Demetrius is an obvious contrast to the evil Diotrephes. The only other Demetrius mentioned in the bible is a silversmith who opposed the christians in Acts 19.

Last, the author says he's got a lot to tell the recipient, but he wants to do it in person, not in a letter. Then he sends greetings to unnamed friends.

So, to wrap up. This letter was written by an unknown person in an unknown location to a person named Gaius, also in an unknown location at an unknown time. There is no claim of inspiration. There is no mention of heaven, hell, angels, demons, Satan, or miracles. There is no mention of Jesus, his birth, life, teachings, death, or resurrection. This brings doubt to the claim that it is a christian letter, in my mind. There is no mention of any old or new testament events, places, or people. There is no glimpse into the author's theology other than words like brother, church, truth, the name, and god. Nothing ties those particular words definitively  to the early christian church. They could be applied to Jews and perhaps even Greeks. The word god (Theos) in this letter does not specify which god, it is a generic Greek word for god.

Because of the ambiguous wording that could have been used by Christians or Jews, or anyone literate in Greek. I suggested a couple possibilities for the provenance of the letter. 1. A Jewish sect, early christian or other, vying for place in the Jewish community. 2. A christian sect vying for dominance among other christian groups. Who knows? I could be wrong on those. However, my point is that there really is no way to know for sure.

One thing is for sure, it does not add anything vital to the Christian scriptures.

3 John part two

Today we are going to backtrack a little. Let's talk about Gaius. The name is probably of Latin origin, which may mean Gaius was Roman. There are three other mentions of the name Gaius in the new Testament. In Acts 19:29, Gaius was Paul's travelling companion from Macedonia (Greece). Just a few verses later, in Acts 20:4, a Gaius with Paul is from Derbe, which is in Turkey. Paul mentions a Gaius in Romans 16:23, and 1 Corinthians 1:14. From those letters, it seems that Gaius was an hospitable Corinthian, and a disciple of Paul. There is no way to know if the Gaius in 3 John is any of those or none.

Let's address some of the wording in 3 John that might make modern day English readers think this is written to Christians. We must remember that christianity came out of Judaism. Much of its vocabulary and practice was borrowed from Jewish concepts 1. The word elder. Jews had elders. 2. The word brother. People in the same religious community, even Jews, called themselves brothers. 3. The word for church (ekklesia) This was a generic term for a religious assembly or congregation, connected to a synagogue, that was later co-opted by Christians. Jews had those too. 4. The word pagans. This was actually a word that meant gentiles/ gentile nations, or ethnically non-Jews. The only other place it is used in the bible is in Matthew, where is is clearly referring to ethnically non-Jews. There were no Christians in the time period Matthew was writing about. So, it couldn't have been referring to non-christians. Christianity is not an ethnicity or nationality.

Let's now continue on to verse nine. It says, "I wrote to the church, but Diotrophes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us." This is kind of confusing. What church is he talking about? Is it the same church that the brothers reported to about Gaius? That wouldn't make any sense. And who is "us?" I could almost believe this letter was written by Paul to his Corinthian friend/disciple Gaius. This Gaius is hospitable and is a disciple of the letter's author, just like Paul's Gaius. Imagine Paul and his associates going from synagogue to synagogue, trying to teach in the assemblies about his Jesus visions/revelations and what he thought they meant. I imagine there were many Jewish synagogue leaders who would want nothing to do with Paul, his teachings, and his followers.

Verse ten says, "So, if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us." We have only one side of the story here. Diotrophes cannot defend himself. From what I have read of Paul's letters, this seems typical Pauline whining against the opposition. Can you even blame the opposition from trying to curtail what would be considered a  heresy to practicing Jews? Whether or not, this was Paul, I'm sure many synagogue leaders were wary of the new christian sect, or any sect.

Verse ten  continues, "Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church." Diotrophes does not intend to let anyone from this group (whatever group it is)  get a foothold in his congregation.

Verse eleven says, "Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God." The clear implication is that Diotrophes is evil.

It has occurred to me that another possibility is that this letter is about an established christian church rejecting an even newer controversial christian sect and teaching, after the Pauline era. Who knows? The author gives us no specifics.

Edited for major errors in verse numeration.

3 John introduction, and part one

Next we take a look at the book of the bible called the  Third Epistle (letter) of John. This letter was not written about by the authors of the earliest known christian literature. It was disputed as authentic in the 3rd century and was not even accepted into the bible canon until the fifth century. The author and date of writing are unknown. However, a few similarities to the other writings attributed to John, lead some to believe it had the same author and was written in the same time frame.

The letter begins just like 2 John with "the elder" indicating the author is a person of some authority in a church. It is addressed to his dear friend Gaius, of whose identity or location we have no clue. The author hopes his friend is healthy and his soul is well. The author has been pleased to get a good report from "some brothers" about Gaius and how he is continuing to "walk in the truth." The nature of this truth is not explained. The identity of the brothers is not revealed. The author refers to Gaius as his child. I'm assuming this is metaphorical and Gaius is a student, disciple, or convert of the author's. The author told his church about Gaius.

These brothers were treated well by Gaius, even though they were strangers to him. The author suggests that Gaius send them on their way "in a manner worthy of god." I assume this means to be generous with resources. These particular brothers are said to have gone out "for the sake of the name." What is this name? You might think it is Jesus, however, it could very well be the Jewish god Yahweh.

According to my bible commentary, many Jews today call god by a phrase that means "the name." Jews considered the name of god holy. In order to keep from breaking the commandment about using god's name in vain, they resorted to euphemisms for god. In fact, after doing a quick scan of this letter, I realize Jesus is not even mentioned or alluded to in the whole letter. Could this be another possible case of a letter written by a Jew being taken for a christian document? I'm beginning to think so.

When these brothers (fellow Jews or Jewish christians?) went out for the sake of the name, they received no help no help from the pagans. They were probably proselytizers, commonly called missionaries. Either that, or perhaps they were trying to drum up monetary support for displaced Jews during the diaspora. Just speculation.

More to come.