Why Is There a 1, 2, and 3 John?

Have you ever noticed in the book of Isaiah the rapid shifts of tone? In Isaiah 39 we read the sobering words of Hezekiah. He will be protected, but bad days are coming for the people of Israel. Then in chapter 40 and on there is a rapid shift in tone. The book moves from doom, gloom, and judgment to hope and happiness for the exiled people of God. This has led some scholars to refer to “First Isaiah” and “Second Isaiah.” Some even break the second “book” into two sections and give us a Third Isaiah.

Yet, in the Hebrew Bible (as well as our English Bible) the entire book remains intact. Why don’t we do the same thing with 1, 2, and 3 John? The simple answer is that they are not meant to be put together. While they, arguably, come from the same pen, they each have a different purpose. There is a clear break in each letter and a new introduction. John did not write them with the intention of them being compiled into one unit. That is why we treat them as three separate letters. Authorial intent matters.

We should treat these books as different and consume them as free-standing units.

Photo credit: ©Getty Images/tang90246

Each of the three letters are written to different audiences that address distinct issues. 1 John is a general letter to a broad Christian audience, 2 John is addressed to "the elect lady and her children," often interpreted as a particular church or a woman and her family, and 3 John is addressed to an individual named Gaius.

If you’ve been in church for awhile you’ve likely heard a sermon series on 1 John. The letter has a more general tone that is easily applicable to 21^st century audiences. It dives deeply into important theological themes with the hope of giving an assurance of faith. It emphasizes the importance of living in the light of God's love, confessing sins, and walking in righteousness. It’s a tough book to outline, but the general themes are quite helpful in fortifying the faith of believers in all generations.

2 John and 3 John, on the other hand, have a more personal and practical tone. They almost read like you’ve intercepted a personal letter which you aren’t supposed to be reading. 2 John is a heartfelt exhortation to a specific community (or individual). Like 1 John it warns against false teachers but does so more specifically and personally. The tone is both protective and urgent, and less encouraging than 1 John. It warns against deceivers who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. (A similar theme that is found in 1 John.)

3 John, the shortest of the three, is a personal letter to Gaius, commending him for his hospitality and support of itinerant missionaries. It contrasts Gaius's commendable behavior with that of Diotrephes, who is criticized for his authoritarianism and refusal to support the traveling brothers. The tone here is encouraging and corrective, addressing specific relational and ecclesiastical issues within the early church. It might leave a 21^st century reader scratching their head wondering how this applies to them.

In fact, 2 and 3 John are so different that some have concluded this is an entirely different John than the author of 1 John and the Gospel which bears the name of John.

Photo credit: Pexels/Tima Miroshnichenko

1 John does not begin like a typical letter. There is no greeting or formal information about the author. 2 and 3 John are different. In fact, they bear the name of “John the Elder” or “John the Presbyter.” This has caused some to conclude that 2 and 3 John are by a different person than the apostle who wrote the Gospel of John.

This view is based on several factors. In 2 John and 3 John, the author explicitly identifies himself as "the Elder," a term not used in 1 John. This self-designation, along with the personal and direct style of the letters lends itself to the theory that its author is distinct from the person who wrote 1 John. The content of these shorter letters focuses on community-specific concerns, such as hospitality and confronting false teachers, leading some to question whether this matches what we see from the apostle John.

Early church tradition also lends some support to the distinction between the two Johns. Figures like Papias and Eusebius mention both John the Apostle and John the Elder, indicating that two prominent Johns existed in the early Christian community. This historical testimony provides a basis for considering the possibility of different authors for the letters. The differences in writing style, vocabulary, and grammatical structures between the Gospel of John and the Johannine epistles also add weight to the argument for different authors, or at least different stages of composition by the same author at different times.

While these are compelling reasons to believe there are two Johns, they are not definitive. In fact, many still hold that the traditional view that the Apostle John authored all three epistles is the most compelling. The theological coherence and shared themes across the letters, such as love, truth, and fellowship with God, support a unified authorship.

Early church fathers, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian, did attribute all three to the Apostle John. And the evidence is not definitive that John the Elder isn’t also John the Apostle. It’s clear that if this John the Presbyter is a different John, he still holds significant authority in the early church. Even if we ultimately discover that there are two separate Johns who have written these books, it does not change their content or authority. Yet even still, I do not consider the evidence strong enough to abandon the view that the apostle John wrote all three of these letters.

Photo credit: ©Getty Images/Jacques Julien

One way to help with your Bible study is this: What if you grabbed a black marker and began to mark out verses of your Bible? I know that sounds crazy, but stick with me. When we do this, we are often able to discern what would be missing if the verse were not present. Each verse, and each book of Scripture, has a unique contribution to the whole. It’s helpful to know what that is — and sometimes we can discover this by pretending it isn’t there. You’ll need to be sure to put that verse back in there … so maybe don’t use a black marker as previously suggested.

Let’s do that with 1, 2, and 3 John.

If 1 John was not in our Bible, we would lose an important letter which can help us with assurance of salvation. While we could certainly find other verses in Scripture which point to the forgiveness we experience in Christ, we would be at a great loss if we no longer had 1 John 1:9. John’s unblushing dedication to the necessity of the incarnation and sacrifice of Christ is inspiring and encouraging. 1 John underscores the transformative power of knowing Christ and living in His truth. When we come to Christ we are transformed.

Without 1 John, the church would lack its strong condemnation of early heresies, particularly those denying the incarnation of Christ, which are fundamental to orthodox Christian belief. 1 John is also strong in the imperative of loving one another and what this looks like practically. It’s assurance of eternal life, coupled with an emphasis on living out the gospel, is vital to New Testament Christianity.

2 John also offers a unique contribution to the story of redemption. While we might know from the Gospel of John about Jesus being full of grace and truth, we might not have a better example of this in the life of the believer than in 2 John. Here we see the balance between truth and love in a Christian community. This brief letter uniquely addresses the challenge of dealing with false teachers and the importance of safeguarding the integrity of the gospel message.

Perhaps more sharply than any other book or letter in the New Testament, we see here the importance of maintaining doctrinal purity. Yet, it also strikes a note of the necessity of walking in love, offering us a reminder of the dual priorities of living out the gospel. We are to hold fast to sound doctrine and express genuine love for others. The absence of 2 John would leave a gap in the New Testament's counsel on discerning truth and dealing with deception, as well as on how to navigate these issues in the context of Christian hospitality and community relationships.

One of my favorite things to read are the letters of John Newton. The personal correspondence helps me to understand how this great Christian of the past lived out the faith. It shows the various things he struggled with and how he navigated them. Though the situations are usually quite different, the heart behind them remains the same. Reading these shapes me as a pastor.

I think similarly of a letter like 3 John. It is deeply personal but also vital to giving us an example of how the early church thought through issues like hospitality. Without 3 John we might not have this picture of how the early church dealt with church leadership and conflict (the behavior of Diotrephes) and how they reinforced the necessity of hospitality.

In sum, each of these letters is unique and offers something valuable to the canon of Scripture. We benefit from reading God’s Word that is present in these precious letters from John.

Photo credit: ©Getty Images/Tinnakorn Jorruang