II AND III JOHN: INTRODUCTION TO LITERARY STRUCTURE

The following is abstracted from a chapter in my unpublished book The Structure of Scripture. For the complete chapter, write me at elmerphd21@hotmail.com.

The relationship between these two letters is a controversial subject and one that is certainly not going to be laid to rest in the present paper. However, structural analysis may shed a little light on the subject. Fortunately, the unity and integrity of II and III John are not seriously disputed so those issues do not need to be addressed.

The ambiguities regarding these two epistles begin with the fact that they were apparently not joined in the first historical reference we have of them.  Regarding the literary form of these epistles, there are also some differing opinions. On the one hand, these letters are said to be “among the best NT examples of Hellenistic epistles.” (Culpepper)  However, others such as Grayston feel that the forms of II and III John depart somewhat from both other NT letters and from secular Greek models.

Two extremes dominate the debate concerning the subject matter of II and III John as well. In a general sense we can certainly agree with Brevard Child’s statement, “The last two letters illustrate the universal message of the gospel which is manifest in the daily life of the church.”  But is there a closer relationship between these epistles? Orr simply states, “The Second and Third Letters are obviously a matched pair.”  Factors going into this conclusion include the identification of the writer as The Elder, their comparable length, and similar statements at the conclusions about an upcoming visit. Also, “..the fact that they have been preserved together (or indeed at all) suggests that they are more closely related....We may expect a common purpose in the Letters.”

On the other end of the spectrum are statements such as that by Raymond Brown: “very similar to II John in format, style, authorship, and length, III John is, nevertheless, quite unlike I and II John in subject matter.”  Brown elsewhere overstates his case even further: “As for the substance of the bodies of II and III John,...the two letters have little in common.” 

II John

There is a fair amount of agreement regarding the manner in which to divide up this letter. The relationship between the various sections is another matter. Based on overall structural considerations and parallels in III John, the divisions shown in Fig. 1 are proposed instead. These depart from common wisdom in two points. Verse 4, treated by Brown as a transition section and by most others as the opening to the body of the letter, is included with the introductory material instead. Also, within the body of the epistle, v. 7 is considered separately.

Figure 1: The Structure of II John

I. Introductory Greetings (vv. 1-4)

II. Exhortation: Love One Another and Follow Commandments (vv. 5-6)

III. Deceivers (v. 7)

II'. Exhortation: Abide in the Doctrine (vv. 8-11)

I'. Final Words (vv. 12-13)

Fig. I pictures II John as a simple chiasm in which sections I and I' and sections II and II' are paired. Most of the justification for this architecture comes from the subject matter rather than from specific verbal parallels. I and I' contain greetings to the recipients and share the words “for,” “children,” “rejoice/joy” and “elect.” The last term forms an inclusio for the whole letter. In addition, “lady” in v. 1 and “sister” in v. 13 “serve as metaphors for two local church assemblies.” (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery)  Sections II and II' are exhortations to live the Christian life and contain between them exactly the same three aspects of Christian living emphasized in I John.

The center section (v. 7) constitutes another critical transition in the epistle. There is an implied connection with the previous section since this verse begins in the Greek with hoti (“because”). However, the nature of that connection is not that obvious, and it is more proper to see this as the start of a new literary unit because of the christological discussion that ensues.  The proposed division in Fig. 1 incorporates both these concepts.

III John

There is considerably more controversy concerning the division of literary units in this shortest book in the NT than over many books of considerably greater size. In a sampling of nine commentaries, no two exactly agreed with one another. The divisions shown in Fig. 2 echo those of Marshall.  E. W. Bullinger posits a similar seven-part chiasm also centering on vv. 9-10; however, he pairs 1-2 with 13-15; 3-4 with 12; and 5-8 with 11.  A comparison of figs. 1 and 2 shows that the two letters are arranged in a similar manner.

Figure 2: The Structure of III John

I. Introductory Greetings (vv. 1-4)

II. Exhortation: Love (vv. 5-8)

III. Diotrephes (vv. 9-10)

II'. Exhortation: Do Good and Shun Evil (vv. 11-12)

I'. Final Words (vv. 13-15)

The openings of three of these units (I, II and II') are marked by the address “beloved” while the other two units begin with “write.” In addition, “truth / true” appears near the end of sections I, II and II'.

As in II John, the chiastic structure is seen mainly through the common subject matter of the paired sections. However, there may be a form of inclusio for this short letter. Thus, Brown argues that agapein in III John 1 is interchangeable with philos (III John 15) “designating the Christian believer as the recipient of God’s love – the ‘beloved’ for whom Jesus had laid down his life.” 

Two specific examples of desired Christian behavior, Gaius in II and Demetrius in II', flank the Diotrephes section. Culpepper also notes the alternation between praise and criticism in these three sections.  To emphasize the deliberate contrast, the same Greek root for “works” appears in praise of Gaius in vs. 5 and in the censure of Diotrephes in vs. 10.  Also, Marshall concurs that vv. 9-10 constitute the climax of III John. 

Parallels between II and III John

As mentioned above, figs. 1 and 2 show marked similarities in makeup. Even the center sections of each are similar in intent by describing characteristics of dangerous negative elements within the church. There are a number of striking verbal similarities between these two epistles also, especially between the corresponding literary units:

  I and I: “the elder to the...whom I love (agapao) in the truth,” “children,” “all,” “I rejoiced greatly,” “walk(ing) in the truth.”

            II and II: “love”(agape)

            III and III: “come”

            II' and II': “God”

            I' and I': “I have/had much to write to you..I would rather not..and ink...I hope to see you...and talk with you face to face”

All of the above similarities may mean no more than that the author showed a lack of imagination in composing these two letters, each seeming to address a particular, and different, concern. However, there is one strong piece of evidence suggesting that from a canonical viewpoint these two letters were meant to be read as companion pieces. This is seen in the respective opening and closing greetings to each letter – those sections showing the greatest inter-textual verbal similarities.

Among the blessings given to the recipients, “peace” is bestowed only at the opening to II John and the closing to III John. Conversely, “joy” appears as a blessing to the author in the final greeting to II John and the opening greeting to III John, with the word appearing nowhere else in these two letters. These form a combined chiastic pattern:

Peace to recipients (II John 3)

 Joy to the author (II John 12)

                                        ---------------------------

                                    Joy to the author (III John 4)

Peace to recipients (III John 15)

By so highlighting the purposed effects on author and recipient for these two letters, this literary technique also forces the present reader to consider how the themes of these two epistles might complement one another.

Conclusion

Guthrie damns II and III John with faint praise: “No-one would suppose that their influence on Christian thought has been great, but they nevertheless make a contribution to our knowledge of contemporary affairs, even if it is no more than a glimpse that is given.”  Perhaps the fault lies not with the author but with our own lack of understanding of the common purpose behind these letters.

Between these two epistles, opposite extremes in attitude toward outsiders who travel under the name of Christ are countered. Specifically, the Second Letter of John addresses a particular situation in which roving teachers going under the name of Christ are actually heretics. These are to be strictly shunned and not given any greeting or aid (II John 10). The opposite situation appears in the third epistle. In this case a self-important member of the church, Diotrephes, refuses to accept Christian brothers from elsewhere who visit their community and excommunicates those in his congregation who do so.

So in a larger sense, these paired letters highlight the occasional dilemma arising between consideration of two marks of a Christian spelled out in John's First Epistle. That is, what happens when requirements of loving one another come in conflict with adherence to proper doctrine? Brief as they are, II & III John provide valuable guidance to present-day believers when confronted with both an environment of religious pluralism and continuing inter- and intra- denominational disputes.