It becomes glaringly obvious that the last several books of the New Testament deal with heresy. Paul, Jude, Peter and John were all concerned with the effects of heresy on the early church. They sought to mitigate it, to teach believers how to recognize it, and to encourage them to weed it out of the church. Before I turn my attention to John's seminal discussion of heresy, I thought I'd take a brief look at how heresy might be affecting the modern church in the United States.

Evangelical Christians base their lives on the Bible. We believe that it is God's Word and, therefore, authoritative in matters of faith and practice. The Bible indicates the great truths of who God is, how we can relate to Him, how we can understand ourselves and the world. In short, the Bible contains the words of life. Believers use it as our guide to discerning God's will, from the monumental to the mundane. We read it to gain hope and to glean truth. It affects our beliefs, attitudes, and behavior. In short, the Bible is our pipeline to heaven: without it, we are adrift, unprotected in a hostile world.

It is therefore unfortunate that modern-day Christianity sometimes deals very loosely with the Bible, often with full suppport from the secular world and occasionally with tacit support from Christians.

For example, rather than recognize that the Bible is a book made up of 66 books, each written to a specific people for a specific reason, we tend to wrench verses right out of their contexts because the words agree with what we already believe. Sometimes believers say silly things like, "God gave me a verse today." There are two things wrong with that. This approach to Scripture does not honor the divine authorship of Scripture; God gave the verse at least 1900 years ago. You may have discovered it today, but it's been there all along. To say that God gave a verse today is really an existential statement, as though the Bible didn't become alive until we read it a certain way. Revelation has ceased; it's already all there in the Book. This manner of speaking almost sounds as if revelation continues, though the work of the Spirit today is decidedly not on the cognitive level. He is not bringing us new revelation; His work in relation to the Bible is primarily in the realm of conviction; He helps to drive home the message of the Bible once it is properly understood. This approach (i.e., the "God gave me a verse today" approach) to Scripture does not honor the human authorship of the Bible. When Paul wrote to the Galatians, he wrote a coherent, holistic message. He never intended for someone a couple millennia later to rip verses out of their context and wield them any way they chose! Certainly we may quote verses of Scripture; but we do not have a right to ignore the context to make them say what the language cannot say. That deals dishonestly with the original message. One reason for the abuse of Scripture is a lack of respect for the Bible as a divine and human work. This approach renders it a magical incantation book, like a collection of unconnected fortune cookie sayings!

Part and parcel of this abuse of Scripture is laziness. Most people simply don't take the trouble to read the context or to do their homework on the meaning of the Bible. Even when confronted with overwhelming evidence contrary to their view, they often glibly reply, "That's just your interpretation." This kind of response sounds as if all interpretations are up for grabs, as though all interpretations are equally plausible. Such a view is patently false. Take the following sentence as an example: "My mother likes climbing vines." One interpretation of these words is not just as valid as another. This sentence cannot mean "My father is an auto mechanic." "Mother" does not mean "Father"; "likes" does not mean "is"; "climbing vines" is not a synonym for "auto mechanic." Language cannot be twisted in this manner. Now, without a context, there are, however, two distinct options for the sentence in question. Either "My mother likes vines that climb" or "My mother likes to climb vines." The only way to divine the right interpretation is to look at the context of the statement or to ask the author of the sentence! Both things are used in Biblical interpretation. Sometimes the context solves the problem; other times, the more we know about an author, the better able we are to determine his meaning. Unfortunately, one recipe for missing the meaning of the text is to be too casual about it, which may be why Paul told Timothy, "Study to show yourself approved".

Another reason for Scripture twisting is simple dishonesty. Peter reminded his audience that Paul wrote things that are hard to understand, which the unstable and wicked twist to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15-16). Sadly, this approach to Scripture represents the attitude of far too many folks, and not just heretics of old or cultists, either. Too often preachers fall prey to the temptation to what sounds good from the pulpit rather than what is true. My friend Alan who is a Greek scholars has sat through many sermons by other preachers who tried to make the Greek of a passage say something that it doesn't say. The audience in the pews doesn't know that. While it may be that the pastor sometimes doesn't know it either (not all pastors have studied Greek), Alan has often spoken with pastors who told him quite sincerely that they either didn't care or didn't think it mattered. Teachers of the Word don't have all the answers; Alan would prefer if they exercised humility and admitted to their audience when they don't understand something in Scripture, but that's usually when the pulpit gets pounded the hardest, despite James' warning that teachers will incur a greater judgment.

We cannot always divine the reasons why some people use the Bible in a way it was never intended to be used. Yet we do have the responsibility to be good stewards of the Word. Our attitude should be the same as the Bereans, who when they heard the gospel that Paul preached, Luke told us, were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians. They received the things that Paul said with joy, but also searched the Scriptures to check him out (Acts 17:11)! We should listen to the Word being taught with a critical ear and a smile on our face, aware that any misdealing with the Bible is a potential seed bed for heresy.

John would have been an old man by the time he wrote this letter, but we see a man who was still working for the Lord and active. It is wonderful that we have this example of dynamic elders from the Bible.

This concluding greeting is similar to 2John 13. The mention of “friends” here does not necessarily mean that Gaius knew the Christians in Ephesus or that John knew the Christians in Gaius’ town. The designation of “friend” may simply have been the same as “brother” and that John was essentially saying “the Christians here wish you well and I hope you’ll give our fond regards to the Christians there.” The phrase “by name” would indicate that John wanted Gaius to give personal greetings to each of them, even if John did not know them personally. Perhaps he was asking Gaius to share the contents of this letter, particularly the corrections, to each member privately, so that they would not feel put on the spot in the congregation. Maybe.

John wrote this very brief letter of introduction for a group of missionaries traveling to a distant town. In it, he introduced (possibly) their leader to a church member who he thought would be helpful to them. He knew there were problems in that town, that another church member had over-reacted to John’s advice not to allow heretics to taint the congregation and now was trying to prevent any strangers from having a voice in the church. This speaks so loudly to the need for balance in our churches. All too often churches become dogmatic about some things without ever questioning if they are following the Lord or letting pride rule them. It is fortunate that John did write this letter and that we have it to speak to our generation about the need for moderation and discernment within our congregations.

“I wrote something to the church,but Diotrephes,who loves to be first among them, does not acknowledge us.Therefore, if I come,  I will call attention to the deeds he is doing– the bringing of unjustified charges against us with evil words! And not being content with that, he not only refuses to welcome the brothers himself, but hinders the people who want to do so and throws them out of the church!” 3John 1:9-10

Diotrephes appears to have been an influential person (perhaps even the leader) in a local church that Gaius may have been a member of (there are scholars who insist that he was a member of another congregation). John described him as somewhat arrogant, demonstrated by his refusal to acknowledge John’s prior letter. Probably John’s first letter concerned the traveling missionaries and Diotrephes had refused to acknowledge John’s authority to intervene in the matter.

Diotrephes, perhaps acting on the advice John had given in 2John, had refused to show any hospitality to the traveling missionaries (who had apparently been sent from Ephesus). He had even disfellowshipped church members who had wanted to help the missionaries. John had tried to contact him, but Diotrephes had rejected John’s authority, perhaps because he believed John had no local jurisdiction in the matter or because he didn’t recognize John’s authority at all.

John warned that he would expose Diotrephes’ behavior as un-Christlike if he was able to visit. Diotrephes had made unjustified charges against John and John intended to bring charges of his own against Diotrephes. John actually identified the charges he meant to bring. Diotrephes was maliciously gossiping about John. He had refused hospitality to Christian missionaries. He had hindered others in the church from helping them. He had expelled (or lead the effort to expel) members who had aided the missionaries.

“Dear friend, do not imitate what is bad but what is good.The one who does good is of God; the one who does what is bad has not seen God.

“Demetrius has been testified to by all, even by the truth itself. We also testify to him,and you know that our testimony is true.” 3John 1:11-12

We might ask if Diotrephes was a Christian. Maybe, maybe not. Certainly John suggested that his actions called into question the genuineness of his faith. I would note, however, that I have met Christians with similar attitudes whom I believe are truly Christians, but who are off-base in this area. John counseled Gaius not to imitate Diotrephes’ evil behavior, but to do what is right. He then drew a comparison between the bad behavior of Diotrephes and the good reputation of Demetrius. As we will see in 1John, John believed that behavior was an indication of genuine faith and that actions like Diotrephes’ toward the missionaries called his faith into question.

Demetrius, on the other hand, had a good reputation. John wanted Gaius to know that as Demetrius was coming to his church. Gaius should extend hospitality (as he had done before) and assist him in his missionary efforts.

Sometimes the Bible seems to contradict itself and this might appear to the casual observer to be one of those times. It isn’t! In 2John, John counseled the churches not to provide hospitality or a speaking opportunity to heretics. He did not counsel them to slam the door in the face of every missionary. I believe that Diotrephes took John’s advice too far. Perhaps he lacked discernment. Perhaps he was a conceited jerk. We don’t know. However, he refused the missionaries the hospitality of the church and he took this charge so seriously that he was willing to disfellowship anyone who didn’t follow him.

Maybe he was just a control freak, but I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt for discussion sake. Diotrephes thought he was doing what John wanted. When the missionaries returned to John, however, John recognized that Diotrephes had gone too far. He tried to write to him and, now, Diotrephes refused his authority. Why? Well, pride is one possible answer. Who among us likes to be corrected, especially when we thought we were following orders. I can imagine Diotrephes saying “Well, John made a mistake sending those guys here. They’re heretics or I’m a blind man! If he can’t admit that, then what right does he have to tell us what to believe?”

The fact is, churches should be discerning about who they let into their pulpit, but they should also be welcoming to missionaries from other places. We can never compromise orthodox doctrine, but there’s nothing wrong with new ideas that walk in orthodox pathways. In my church, it’s not unusual for someone to ask an Eskimo to pray in his/her language. The rest of us don’t know what they’re praying because we don’t know Inupiat, but we do know the heart of the one praying and we say “amen”. Sometimes the Koreans or the Hispanics offer worship in ways that are native to their homelands. That makes some people nervous. My church accepts it for what it is and worships accordingly.

On the other hand, when a new pastor began preaching borderline heresy from the pulpit, we asked him to step down and would have fired him if he had not agreed to resign. There is much discernment that is required in God’s kingdom. Diotrephes went too far, but some churches do not go far enough in protecting the pulpit from heretics.

My church has been blessed over the years by a lot of great missionaries who left a deep imprint on the spiritual DNA of our congregation. That is not the history of every church, nor should it be. Some churches have spiritual DNA for great teaching or children’s ministries. My church’s DNA is of a multi-cultural, missionary-type church. For this reason, we have reached out to missionaries, opened our doors to travelers and been the base of operations for several village missions.

We would recognize Gaius in the faces of the lay workers at our church.

Addressing Gaius as “dear friend”, John commended him for his faithful service to the traveling missionaries (the brothers), even though Gaius did not know them personally. Gaius had aided them and they reported to John that this was a fine brother in the Lord. In some ways, this contrasts with a parallel expression in 1Corinthians 6:6, where Paul accused some of the Corinthian believers of defrauding their fellow Christians. Not all who claim the title of Christian act in loving ways toward their fellows. The faithfulness demonstrated by Gaius in assisting the traveling missionaries who had come his way was all the more remarkable because they were strangers to him; he did not know them personally. If 3John followed 2John, Gaius had exercised discernment in assessing these missionaries’ orthodoxy and deciding whether they should be given his assistance.

These same missionaries brought a favorable report on Gaius’ hospitality to John, so he was now requesting additional assistance with these same missionaries, who were apparently headed out for another journey.  Perhaps Demetrius was one of this group, but a new member or perhaps a new leader for that group. It seems likely that the missionaries had been sent out to combat the false teachings of the heretics since they were “accepting nothing from the pagans” (meaning non-Christians). Their mission was not evangelization, but correcting an “inner church” debate over the nature of Christ. There is no indication that John meant they were avoiding Gentile Christians. It’s more likely he meant the missionaries were avoiding any support from Gentile unbelievers. Why support from non-Christians should be refused is not entirely clear, although a number of interpreters see the possibility of confusion with missionaries representing pagan deities.

“Therefore we ought to support such people, so that we become coworkers in cooperation with the truth.” 3John 1:8

The first person plural here is inclusive—the author refers to himself, Gaius, and all genuine Christians, all of whom should “become coworkers in cooperation with the truth” by supporting the efforts of the traveling missionaries to resist and counteract the teaching of the heretics.

John’s writings tended to personify “the truth”, often referring to Jesus or the Holy Spirit. The “truth” at work through the missionaries would, then, be the Holy Spirit, who works through their efforts. Thus the Christian who supported them became a co-worker with the Spirit of God Himself.

A couple of years ago, I received a letter from a Christian in Japan. I didn’t know this woman and I didn’t know why she would want to write me, but she explained it in her letter. Years before, I had taught a Japanese man in an English class at my church. After he’d finished graduate school at the local university, he had returned to Japan to his life, taking with him his newfound faith in Jesus and his English skills. He’d used his English skills to reach out to others in his native land and had brought this woman to the Lord through that ministry. As part of an exercise in thanking those who support missionaries, she had written me that I might know what my actions had brought about in her life.

Tomo is not a missionary, per se. He’s an oceanic environmental scientist. Yet, he has been a missionary to his own people because he accepted the Lord at our church and is compelled to tell others of his faith.

Often, we think of support of missionaries as something that we direct to professional missionaries. Certainly we ought to support them in their endeavors. But we should always recognize that missionaries might not always be the guys who go in with the Bibles and the full support of the Foreign Mission Board. Sometimes, they might be the scientist who is returning home to Japan with Jesus Christ in his heart or the carpenter who takes a job rebuilding villages in Iraq. We should support and encourage those missionaries too, because they are as important in God’s kingdom and often far freer to promote the gospel than any of the “professionals” we might send.

Back when I was in college, I took a road trip from Seattle, Washington, to Sante Fe, New Mexico, and the Glorieta Baptist Conference Center in the Sangre de Christo Mountains. We spent a week worshipping and studying about God. On the way back, it was Sunday and we encountered a church having some sort of revival on the lawn. We decided to stop and join them. We probably looked a little ragged from the road and we were modern college students – jeans and t-shirts, jewelry on the girls, beards on some of the boys. We picked a church that was apparently very legalistic. I guess we might have spotted the bun-ladies a little sooner and not gotten out of the van, but ….

I don’t think the pastor planned to preach on the adorning of hair or the wearing of jewelry. I think he changed his message just for us. I wasn’t the only one in our group who thought that. To our credit, we didn’t walk out. We waited for the end of the sermon/diatribe and then politely headed for the van. A bun lady intercepted me with her husband in tow. Why were we there? Where had we come from and where were we going? Well, those Baptists sure are liberal, letting you girls run around in such skimpy clothes – okay, my arms were bare from just below the shoulders (did I mention this was southern Idaho in August?) – and letting your hair hang everywhere – my waist-length curly hair was in a braid (I guess a bun would have been more appropriate). And, do your parents know you’re traveling with boys (uh, my parents – wow, they really didn’t know my parents, who couldn’t have cared less if I’d been sleeping with boys)?

Eventually, we all managed to get back to the van where our leader suggested we had just had a 3John moment. What was he talking about? Most of us had never really read 3John. I know I read it when I read the entire New Testament a couple of months after I was saved, but I had never really read it. That night, in our motel room (yeah, the boys joined us from their room across the hall), we studied 3John and understood totally what Don (and John) meant.

3 John was a standard 1^st Century letter and is a bit shorter than 2John. It deals with a specific situation in a specific church, so is addressed to a specific individual who is given a specific task.

“From the elder, to Gaius my dear brother, whom I love in truth.” 3John 1:1

The author refers to himself as “the elder”, which bothers some scholars for some reason, but I tend to agree with the other scholars that John was just being modest and that he was writing to a church who knew him, or at least knew of him.  The addressee was Gaius, which was a very common name in the Roman empire, so was probably not the same man associated with Paul (Roman 16:23; 1 Corinthians 1:14; Acts 19:29, 20:4). A 4th-century tradition recorded in the Apostolic Constitutions 7.46.9 (ca. AD 370) states that John the Apostle ordained Gaius as the first Bishop of Pergamum, but this is questionable because of the relatively late date. Whoever Gaius was, he was well-known to John, but it is not so certain whether they had met in person prior to this letter, since the report of Gaius’ conduct toward the brothers was apparently heard second-hand. Some scholars believe Gaius and Diotrephes belonged to different churches and that Gaius was a leader in this second church. This really isn’t well supported, in my opinion, but it is clear that John regarded Gaius as orthodox (v. 3) and a valuable ally in the controversy with the heretics and their false christology. He commended Gaius for his adherence to “the truth”, the theological orthodoxy that stood in the face of heresy.

John affirmed that Gaius was a Christian and prayed that Gaius’ physical health would match his spiritual health. Spiritual health was clearly the standard John used to measure someone’s physical health, not the other way around.

John assumed Gaius’ orthodoxy and made no effort to correct his doctrine. Verse 5 indicates that John’s knowledge of Gaius’ faithful work with the brothers (travelling missionaries) commended his orthodoxy. In other words, his act of love toward Christian missionaries testified of his orthodoxy. John would expand upon this in 1John.

John may have been referring to Gaius as one of his own converts (like Paul referred to “spiritual children” in 1 Corinthians 4:14-15, Galatians 4:19) but more likely the author simply regarded those under his spiritual authority as his children. We can see examples of this in 1John. John regarded himself as the pastor of the region and those under his authority were his “children”. I have heard teachers use the same analogy for their students in their classes.

What is clear to me is that this church had a problem and John was reaching out to a leader in that church in hopes of bringing him alongside to help with this problem. Just as Paul had had workers in churches whom he recognized as leaders and co-laborers, John recognized Gaius as one who was willing and able to do good things for God. I think this is something that is often missing in many churches today – a recognition by ministry staff that regular members can and often should take over leadership roles based on strong orthodoxy and loving ministry toward other Christians. Too often we want to have ordinary Christians to become certified in this or that ministry by this or that human board when in reality, God can commission anyone anytime to do His work and that should be acknowledged and used.

Like 2John, 3John didn’t receive a lot of attention from the early church fathers. It’s brief and has a lack of quotable material, much like 2John, so that may explain why the patristic writers largely ignored it until the 3^rd Century. However, there is strong evidence that the writer of 3John also wrote 2John and a strong possibility that the writer was John the apostle.

Scholars have suggested that 2John and 3John were written and dispatched around the same time. That explains the remarkable stylistic similarities. Modern scholars suggest a date of between AD 66-67, as was discussed in the introduction to 2John.

The letter was addressed to “Gaius” – who might probably have been a Gentile Christian. This theory is buoyed by the use of two other Greek names-- Diotrephes and Demetrius. Gaius would have been a member in one of the churches of Asia Minor which John had adopted as his own after the death of Paul.

Gaius had shown hospitality to itinerant preachers of the gospel, even though such men were strangers to him (vv. 5-7). Diotrephes had apparently stopped the brothers from showing hospitality to these preachers. When some of the Christians brothers had objected, he booted them out of the church (vv. 9-10). John had written to the church about Diotrephes, but Diotrephes either did not allow the letter to be read publicly or repudiated John’s authority. John was therefore sending Demetrius to the church (v. 12) to stay with Gaius. 3 John functions as a letter of introduction for him.

The occasion for 3 John does not at all seem to be an issue of heresy, but one of pride. There is no real evidence that Diotrephes was a heretic. He and Gaius appear to be members of the same church (v. 9). Why did Diotrephes dispute John’s authority? Possibly he did not recognize the authority of any apostle, but more likely, he disputed John’s authority. He had recognized Paul’s authority, but was suspicious of the authority of others who claimed to be apostles. That’s not really surprising when you consider how often Paul warned his readers to be careful of their mentors. Thus, the problem would crop up after Paul’s death. It’s a theory and one I don’t think needs a lot of emphasis, but it does recognize the very real possibility that the apostles were not universally recognized and respected in their lifetimes.

The overall theme of the letter, however, is to show hospitality to strangers. I’m going to suggest that 2John was actually sent out before 3John and that Diotrephes had acted on John’s advice. Since he didn’t know these teachers, he kicked them out of the church, then – infused with a pride that comes from being proactive – he disfellowshipped those Christians who thought he’d gone too far. While John had advised the churches not to give hospitality to heretics, he hadn’t issued a blanket command to close the church doors and not allow anyone new in. So, now John needed to send an emissary to correct his earlier teaching. It had been well-intended and probably executed just fine in most churches, but in this one particular church, it had gone awry.

Wow, don’t we have many examples of that in the 21^st Century?!

John had some great ideas he wanted to share with his congregation, but he didn’t want to do so in writing. Writing has its place. Thank God, John wrote what he did; else the Bible would be the poorer. However, it is not the same as face-to-face communication involving give-and-take question-and-answers.

The urgent danger that John knew was coming their way was what had prompted him to write and send this hasty and incomplete letter. John felt a deep and abiding obligation to the church(es) to which he wrote. They were his fellow believers in Christ – brothers and sisters in salvation. He knew that when they were together, they would enjoy fellowship as co-laborers in the cause of Christ. He would come to visit them and would write later. We will turn to 1John shortly to see what more John had to say on this subject.

Final greetings were sent from the members of the congregation where John was located at the time of writing to those in the congregation addressed in this letter. John was most likely at Ephesus. The “elect lady” was most likely a church somewhere out in the hinterland of Asia Minor. You might notice that he referred to the church at Ephesus as a sister church, not as a dominant regional ecclesiastic seat of authority. The authority of John resided in Ephesus while John resided in Ephesus, but there is no indication that Ephesus itself, or any other local church, was ever considered somehow more authoritative than any other church. Jerusalem was considered a seat of authority not because it was in Jerusalem, but because the apostles were in attendance there. When the apostles moved on, the authority moved as well.

John’s overriding concern was that the church be ready to face heresy when it came and that they not contribute to the problem by being too kind to the false teachers. We do well to remember that in the 21^st Century. We are as surrounded by heresy now as John was then. We should look at what he counseled to inform our response today.

In our modern world, we often like the newest teachings, assuming them to be better than the old teachings. Anyone remember “new math”? Yeah, that was an idea whose time should never have come.

In the 1^st Century, some people preferred the “new” teachings to the old, but John, writing a church in Asia Minor that was beset with heretics, reminded his readers that he was going back to the foundation. This wasn’t new doctrine he was teaching. They’d had this teaching from the beginning – from Paul and then Peter and now John.

“But now I ask you, lady (not as if I were writing a new commandment to you, but the one we have had from the beginning), that we love one another.” 2John 5

John would repeat this statement in 1John 2:7. John had already acknowledged the readers of this letter were “living according to the truth” (verse 4). Yet, their previous good behavior caused him to stress obedience even more because of the threat now at hand. The false teachers were about and it was necessary to revisit foundational teachings, such as “love one another”.  This was not a new teaching. It didn’t originate with him. He charged the heretics with being “progressives” who had “gone too far” (verse 9). What he was presenting was not an innovation, but the teachings of Jesus Christ.

“(Now this is love: that we walk according to his commandments.) This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning; thus you should walk in it.” 2John 6

Most of us would not define love as John did here. John’s definition of love consisted of obedience to God’s commandments (1John 5:3). According to John, believers express our love for God by obeying His commandments, specifically by loving one another. There is no contradiction between love and obedience to God’s commandments as far as John understood. The commandment to love one another is comprehensive, affecting a person’s total behavior.

Often in today’s society we are taught that Christians shouldn’t judge the walk of another, that we should know that salvation is between the believer and his God, not between the believer and anyone else. I would, in my American individualism, like to agree with them, but my problem is that John, the last of the apostles, did not. He wanted his readers to understand that they could tell the difference between real Christians and heretics and that they should have a genuine response to that difference and that difference shows in the behavior of the person.

Do we hear that wisdom today?

Unlike 1John, 2John was a personal letter and a brief one at that, just 245 Greek words (3John has 219). It was written as a 1^st Century letter, with an introductory prescript, then a body of discourse, followed by a word of farewell.

Just as in the Gospel of John, the author doesn’t explicitly identify himself as the apostle John. The churches he wrote to knew who he was. He may not have felt it necessary to describe himself to them. Certainly, there’s no evidence that demands authorship by anyone other than the apostle John. I rather like the idea that “the elder” was an affectionate term for the last remaining apostle. It might be noted that the author of the Gospel of John showed considerable reluctance to identify himself as the apostle John. Most scholars find a degree of humility in this avoidance. It is not inconceivable that he chose the term “the elder” here for the same reason. Clearly, these churches knew him and what his status was. We wouldn’t expect the President of the United States to address a letter to his best friend since junior high as if they didn’t know one another. It’s the same concept.

Although the letter was addressed to “the elect lady” (probably a church) it was also addressed to “all those who know the truth”. This clearly refers to genuine Christians who are members of the community of which the author is writing. They have held fast to the correct Christological confession in the face of opposition by the heretics because “the truth resides” in them.

At face value, “the truth” seems to have a primarily doctrinal focus, but it may also refer to the truth as the Holy Spirit who resides permanently with believers.

John greeted his audience with the standard format of a 1^st Century letter and it sounds a lot like one of Paul’s openings. This would have provided a significant amount of reassurance for the readers. Paul was dead, Peter was dead, but the Christian faith continued.

John had discovered the sad, but joyous truth, that some of the churches were living according to the truth. It may be that he did not have personal knowledge that some had strayed from doctrinal integrity, but he did believe that genuine Christians were holding fast to the apostolic Christology in the face of heresy.

Essentially, John is writing a letter to a church of people he knows to address the heresy in their midst. His sources tell him that some, but potentially not all, of the members of this church are still standing strong for Christ as God incarnate despite the heretics around them who are teaching otherwise. He is delighted to hear that they are still set on Christ.

In a moment, he’s going to launch into the body of his letter, his specific concerns and instructions to them. For now, he assured them that he knew they were Christians standing with Christ.

Sometimes when we do things in the modern church, I think we forget this. Either we’re afraid to address heresy because it’s potentially offensive or we forget to assure people who are standing firm that we see that. We, the church of the 21^st Century, have much we could learn from John.

Okay, this is going to confuse some people. We’re used to reading the Johannine letters in the 1, 2, 3 order. Some scholars suggest they weren’t written that way, so I’m following my standard practice, started with the letter of James of presenting the letters in their written order. Thus, 2John before 1John.

Early testimony regarding the authorship of 2 John is not as strong as it is for 1 John, but it’s a short letter, so there was less material for the early church fathers to quote. When you consider how small 2John and 3John both are, it’s really quite remarkable that they were preserved, thus lending credence that at least part of the early church thought this was Scripture and of Johannine authorship.  2 John was alluded to by Irenaeus and Polycarp and mentioned by the Muratorian Fragment, Clement, Origin, and Dionysius of Alexandria. Eusebius rejected 2 and 3John as disputed and Ambrose expressed doubts. The Syriac church apparently rejected them until sometime after AD 411 (latest possibly date for the Peshitta) and they were not fully accepted until the beginning of the 6^th century.

Scholars have noted that the earlier writers were more comfortable with these two letters than later writers were, indicating the doubts were not based on accurate tradition. There may have been some political wrangling going on among the later church fathers (it is known that Eusebius took issues with some of John’s doctrinal teachings). The fact that 2 and 3John made it into the canon with so much skepticism arrayed against them speaks strongly that people in that era believed that they had been written by John the apostle.

There are some who are bothered by John addressing himself as “the elder” in 2John. Why didn’t he identify himself as the apostle or use this self-identification in 1John? Several scholars have suggested that “the elder” might have been an affectionate term John’s congregation used. By this time, John was the last surviving apostle. John, unlike Paul, did not need to defend his apostleship because he was one of the original 12. It might be noted that Paul, though he used the title in all of his letters, only spent time defending his apostleship when it was being called into question. 1John was more of a written homily than a letter and contains no self-designation. There are scholars who believe that 1John was actually written later than 2John, so no self-designation would be needed in 1John since the audience knew the writer. There may also have been a self-designation on the verso side of the original papyrus, which was not copied. The style, verbiage, and outlook of all three letters ascribed to John leave little doubt that the same man authored all three. There’s no compelling reason to deny common authorship of the three letters ascribed to John.

2John, like 1John, was probably written from Ephesus. John was writing to “the elect lady”, which might have been a church or, possibly, a real person. Scholars favor the theory that it was written to a church because of the strong statement in verse 1 that seems to address a body of believers and the second person plural is used throughout the letter. The church was most likely in Asia Minor, since John had moved there and taken up pastoral duties in the area. Obviously, it was not Ephesus, since that was his base of operations. It probably wasn’t Colossae since the church seemed a bit naïve about the heretics, but Paul had written Colossae about heretics almost a decade before.

There is little doubt that the false teachers mentioned in verse 7 are the same as those referred to in 1 John. However, 1John shows the false teachers to have separated from the Christian community altogether while in 2John they present themselves as true believers who must rely on the hospitality of Christians in order to accomplish their propaganda. They did not originate from the church addressed in 2John, though they apparently did come from the church(es) addressed in 1John. 2John was written to warn the church not to show hospitality toward itinerant preachers who cannot confess that Christ has come in the flesh.

Scholars suggest that the letter was written no later than AD 66-68 to warn believers to exercise discernment and not to invest in the work of heretical propagandists by showing them hospitality.

The disciples had seen their master die and consequently lost all hope. Christ had told them He would die and be raised; it was an integral part of His claims. Yet they were utterly disheartened and meeting in obscure places in the first few days after His death. After the resurrection, however, we find the disciples joyous, fearless, and bearing public testimony. They were even willing to die. Few people are willing to die for something they know is a lie.

On the night of Jesus’ arrest, Peter denied the Lord when confronted by a young girl. On Pentecost, he boldly proclaimed the word in front of the same religious leaders who crucified Christ.

When we consider the transformation of the disciples in connection with the silence of the Jews and their inability to produce the body of Christ or any evidence to the contrary, the events of Pentecost become another proof of Christ's resurrection.

It was just six weeks following the death and resurrection when Peter preached the doctrine of the resurrection and thousands gathered to hear him. He was preaching to people who had access to the tomb. No one offered him a rebuttal. The Jews were silent--a silence which is as significant as the boldness of the speech of the disciples. Three thousand people who were in a position to know the facts about the resurrection of Christ believed and were saved. (Acts 2:41; 4:2-14).

The theology of the resurrection is vitally important to the Christian for it affects our salvation and sanctification. In 1 Peter 1:3 Peter pointed out we are “born” unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The resurrection authenticates Christ as the Son of God (Romans 1:4). It proves the atoning value of Christ's work (Romans 4:25). The resurrection did not provide our justification, it proved Christ's death was sufficient to bring justification by faith. Therefore, having been justified (as proven by the resurrection) we have peace (Roman 5:1). The resurrection ensures our salvation (1Corinthians 15:17-19). It provides assurance for the fact of our salvation and affords comfort with regard to our deceased loved ones (I Thessalonians 4:13 ). There is an inscription found in Thessalonica which reads, "After death, no reviving, after the grave no meeting again." The resurrection guarantees the falsehood of such a belief.

While the resurrection can provide assurance of salvation, a living hope, it also provides assurance of judgment because the resurrection marks Jesus Christ out as God's Son and provision of grace for our sin (Acts 17:31). For those who reject Christ (God's manifested provision for salvation) there is nothing left but to look fearfully for a day of judgment. It assures the unbeliever of a second death just as it assures the believer of resurrection unto life.

The important question is -- do you know Jesus Christ as your personal Savior?

God is perfect holiness, but He is also perfect love and full of grace and mercy. We can never attain such holiness by our own works of righteousness; however, because of His love, grace and mercy He has not left us without hope or solution (Romans 5:8).  This is the good news of the Bible, the message of the gospel. It's the message of the gift of God's own Son who became man, lived a sinless life, died on the cross for our sin, and was raised from the grave proving both the fact He is God's Son and the value of His death for us as our substitute (Romans 1:4; 4:25; 2Corinthians 5:21; 1Peter 3:18).

How do we receive God's Son that we may have the eternal life God has promised us?

"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, {even} to those who believe in His name." (John 1:12)

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world should be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:16-18)

Because of what Jesus Christ accomplished for us on the cross, the Bible states that "He that has the Son has life." We can receive the Son, Jesus Christ, as our Savior by trusting in the person of Christ and His death for our sins.

This means we must each come to God the same way--as a sinner who recognizes his sinfulness, repudiating any form of human works for salvation, and relying totally on Christ alone by faith alone for our salvation.

Would you trust in Christ today as your personal Savior? Just tell God that you know you need the Savior, Jesus Christ, and that you want to receive His Son by faith.

Christianity has been around for nearly 2000 years. The early church suffered intense persecution, but the church flourished. Many of the first missionaries of the Christian faith died a martyr's death because of their belief in Jesus Christ.

Why were these early Christians willing to face death for their belief in Jesus Christ? They were convinced of the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that this proved without a doubt that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and the one and only Savior of the world. For them, death was not the end. The resurrection is a historical fact--not just some philosophical ideal or idea.

The message of the early church was always centered around the historical fact of the resurrection. This was not a theological myth which began circulating 20 or 30 years later among the followers of Jesus Christ. It was a message proclaimed immediately beginning with the morning of the third day. It was a message based upon incontrovertible evidence.

Luke 24:9-11; 33-35 showed the women (Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, but also others unnamed) who had gone to tend Jesus’ body returned from the tomb and reported all that they had seen to the eleven and those with them.  The apostles didn’t believe the women, so they went to the tomb themselves. Peter and John found the tomb empty.

When Luke began the book of Acts, he said that meant to provide convincing proof of Jesus. Luke had examined the evidence. Dr. Luke, who lived in the time of Jesus Christ and who had personally talked to many eye witnesses, tells us there were many demonstrable and incontrovertible proofs, not merely one or two, but many. (Luke 1:1-2)

From the beginning there have been those who have rejected the resurrection as a hoax, a tale, a lie or fiction. A number of theories have been advance to disprove the resurrection, but all of these have been solidly discredited by one historical scholar after another. So interestingly, not one shred of solid evidence has ever been given to support these claims. Why do people continue to make these claims? Because they have never examined the evidence, or because of their prejudice, their philosophical bias, and unbelief in the miraculous.

The silence of Christ's enemies and the lack of historical evidence against the resurrection is almost as strong an evidence as the positive evidences for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Consider a debate between Gary Habermas and Anthony Flew. The book published on this is  entitled, Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?, the Resurrection Debate. The debate was held in Dallas and was judged by a panel of judges organized into two panels of experts in their respective areas of specialty to render a verdict on the subject matter of the debate. One panel consisted of five philosophers who were asked to judge the content of the debate and render a winner. The second panel consisted of five professional debate judges who were asked to judge the argumentation technique of the debaters. All ten participants serve on the faculties of American universities and colleges such as the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Virginia, Western Kentucky University, James Madison University, and George Mason University.

The decision of the judges were as follows. The panel of philosophers judging content cast four votes for Habermas who argued for the fact of the resurrection, none for Flew, and one draw. The panel of professional debate judges voted three to two, also in favor of Habermas, this time regarding the method of argumentation technique. Note what one judge said:

I conclude that the historical evidence, though flawed, is strong enough to lead reasonable minds to conclude that Christ did indeed rise from the dead. Habermas has already won the debate. . . . . By defeating the Hume-inspired skeptical critique on miracles in general offered by Flew and by demonstrating the strength of some of the historical evidence, Habermas does end up providing "highly probably evidence" for the historicity of the resurrection "with no plausible naturalistic evidence against it." Habermas, therefore, in my opinion, wins the debate (Habermas and Flew, p. xv).

There are always those who say the historical fact of a physical resurrection of Jesus Christ is not important. They feel that it is sufficient to believe in a spiritual resurrection or to focus on the theological truths embodied in the tale. You can just believe in Jesus as a great leader and an exemplar of love, kindness and peace.

I think this is pure non-sense, illogical, and contrary to the facts of the life of Christ.

We need to see clearly that there can be positive theological implications of the resurrection only if it’s historical reality is affirmed. While many theologians may find such a conviction hopelessly antiquated, the man in the street knows better. His common sense tells him that there is no reason why a dead man should be decisive for his existence today, and I agree with him. Once doctrinal teachings are detached from their historical realities, we have entered the arena of myth. There is simply no good reason to prefer Christian myths over other myths or, for that matter, secular philosophies. The resurrection is only real for our lives today if it is a real event of history.

If we take away the resurrection, then Jesus Christ was not even a good human leader, but a delusional nut job. Either Jesus was the world's greatest deceiver and deserved to die, or He was who He claimed to be, the God-Man Savior of the world. The resurrection makes the difference.

This is a big subject. It is not my intention to give all the evidence, but to concentrate on some of the more remarkable evidences.

The gospel accounts (Matthew 28:1-4; Mark 16:1-4; Luke 24:2; John 20:1-9) all tell us that there was a heavy stone placed across the front of Jesus’ tomb. This was standard burial practice in Israel at that time. Intact tombs from that era show that these tombstones were very heavy, meant to keep out wild animals and grave-robbers. A seal was set on Jesus’ stone (Matthew 27:62-66). The Pharisees requested this of Pilate to guard against any fraud or lies by Jesus’ disciples. However, it also provided two excellent evidences for Christ’ resurrection. Unwittingly, they prepared an unanswerable refutation to their own claims in their attempt to discredit the account of the resurrection (Matthew 28:11-15) because the seal consisted of both a Roman guard unit and a seal consisting of a cord set in wax around the stone where it was connected to the tomb.

Although some scholars working in English have suggested that Pilate required them to use the Temple guard, Greek scholars say that the verb used can be an imperative, meaning he granted permission for a Roman guard. Also, if they could have used their own guards, why go to Pilate who it seems was a bit irritable with them by this time. Also, the statement in verse 14 would have been unnecessary if only temple guards were involved. There would have been no need for consultation with the governor or bribery.

The presence of Roman soldiers at the tomb and the Roman seal over the tombstone made the possibility of the religious leaders' claims many times more difficult, if not impossible. The gospel accounts show the Galilean disciples were timid and fearful. It’s highly unlikely they would even consider stealing the body of Jesus out from under the noses of a guard of highly disciplined and skilled Roman soldiers; it also seems ridiculously impossible to think they could pull it off. Even had the soldiers been asleep, think of the noise the disciples would have made trying to remove the huge stone covering the entrance to the tomb!

The tombs in Palestine were pretty much caves hewn out of the rocky side of a mountain or hill. They consisted of a rectangular opening into a main room or central chamber with a niche carved into the side of one of the inner walls where the body was placed. At one end was a special elevated place for the head. The opening of the central chamber was covered by a large circular stone set in a slanting groove so that when the stone was released it would roll by its own weight and cover the entrance. Because of its enormous weight (possibly several tons) it would require the combined efforts of several men to move the stone back up the groove and block it. But who would roll away the stone?

The enemies of Christ and His disciples wouldn’t for they were the ones who requested that the door be sealed (Matthew 27:62-66). If the disciples did it, it was without the knowledge of the women, for they were coming to care for the body (John 20:1-2). Besides the guards were present. The women themselves would have been unable to remove the stone. As they came to the tomb on Resurrection morning, they were wondering who would roll away the stone for them (Mark 16:2-8). Matthew 28:2-4 tells us that an angel of the Lord did so upon God’s command.

The stone was not rolled away so Christ could leave. He could pass through the walls in His glorified body. By divine purpose it was removed to call attention to the testimony of the empty tomb. The tomb had been opened not to let Jesus out--but to let people in so see the astounding evidence of the resurrection in the witness of the grave cloths.

Upon seeing the stone removed, Mary's immediate reaction is that thieves, perhaps the Jews, have taken the body. Without entering as the other women did, she returns to Peter and John. Her conclusion was that the Jews had taken the body (John 20:2-9). Her report prompted John and Peter to run to the garden and investigate this claim themselves.

John arrived first, pausing at the entrance, saw the linen wrappings. The verb used (the Greek blepo) describes the simple exercise of sight, a single look or glance. At just a casual glance what caught John's eye were the undisturbed wrappings, lying in their natural position as when around the body. Even a casual glance caught this.

Then Peter arrived and, in his impetuous way, entered immediately. The word "Beheld" is theoreo. This word denotes a purposeful and careful look, one which observes details, not just a casual look. What Peter observed were the linen wrappings lying undisturbed. He noticed the face napkin rolled up separately, as it had been when the body was prepared, suggesting that the head wrapping had partially retained its form.

Had a thief stolen the body he would have taken the body with the linen wrappings intact. Had the wrappings been removed from the body they would not have been in an undisturbed fashion. As previously described, there was a place for the body with an elevated ledge for the head. The head was wrapped separately from the body. If someone had removed these from the body, they would not have been lying as originally placed and undisturbed. Peter continued to ponder in his heart all he had observed.

When John entered the tomb, what he saw brings immediate comprehension of the facts. The word for sight in this verse denotes mental perception resulting principally from the vision.

Peter is pondering all he has observed, but not John. Having now seen the witness of the empty tomb, he understood that Jesus had risen from the dead. In verse 9 we are told he understood and believed the Old Testament scripture and Christ's own words concerning Messiah being cut off, but returning and reigning by means of the resurrection. (Psalm 16:10; Daniel 2; Daniel 7; Daniel 9:6) The disciples had not previously understood the Scripture or Christ's words, but now sight (perception) came to John (Luke 24:25-27, 44-47).

The personal appearances of Christ following His resurrection are another overwhelming historical proof. The women and the disciples saw, heard, and even touched the Lord. In fact, 500 brethren saw him at one time (1Corinthians 15:6).

Various explanations have been given concerning the resurrection, but none of them honestly and fairly deal with the record and are clearly prejudicial attempts to deny the evidence.

R. T. France in his book, The Evidence for Jesus, wrote about the various theories regarding Jesus and His life, death, and resurrection and the usual attempts to get at the so-called “real” Jesus through the typical theories regarding His life, death, and resurrection. He showed how these invariably give prominence to the theories of skeptics and do not treat the Gospels as historical evidence. At the end of the book, after discussing both non-Christian and biblical evidence, he made the following statement:

"In the earlier chapters we have noticed the tendency of some recent writers to try to go behind the NT portrait of Jesus, in search of a more `recent' Jesus who even by the time the New Testament documents were written had been largely forgotten and replaced by a semi-mythical figure, the `Christ of faith'. We have seen repeatedly that the evidence on which such reconstructions are based (when they are not mere unsupported speculation) is in fact later in date than the NT writings, and can generally be identified with what by the second century were regarded as heretical movements, deviations from the original Christian message, usually in direction of a faith more appealing to the philosophical or religious climate of the day." (The Evidence for Jesus, R.T. France, The Jesus Library, Michael Green, series editor, pp. 165-166)

Ordinarily, there was little ceremony in connection with the crucified; their bodies would be thrown into a shallow grave or even on a refuse heap. Sometimes they were left the hang on the cross as a warning until the body rotted and fell on its own. The problem of what to do with the body of Christ was quickly solved, however, by the intervention of Joseph of Arimathaea.

Joseph (Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56; John 19:38-42) was a wealthy and influential man, a member of the Sanhedrin (Luke 23:51), and a secret disciple of Jesus (John 19:38). He went boldly before Pilate, although this involved ceremonial defilement for a Jew during the feast, and requested the body of Jesus. Pilate was surprised that Jesus was already dead; he inquired of the centurion for verification and then gave his permission to Joseph to take the body.

In the custom of the Jews, Jesus was wrapped in clean linen cloth, and His body was placed in a new tomb hewn out of the rock. The stone door was rolled before the opening of the tomb, as they completed the act of burial. Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary,” identified in Mark 15:47 as “mother of Joses,” watched the burial. Nicodemus, who first encountered Jesus in the incident recorded in John 3, participated in the burial, bringing myrrh and aloes of about one hundred pounds, the spices being used to saturate the linen cloths in which the body of Jesus was bound. John also recorded that the place of burial was in a garden.

The entire burial operation was done with some haste, because the Sabbath, which began at sundown, was already beginning (Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:42). The Sabbath following the Passover had a special meaning, leading as it did to the seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Only Matthew recorded the incident of the chief priests and Pharisees coming to Pilate the next day, which was Saturday, and requesting that the tomb be sealed to keep the disciples from stealing the body of Jesus and then claiming that He was risen from the dead. Interestingly, the unbelieving chief priests and Pharisees remembered the prediction of Jesus that He would rise again after three days while this truth does not seem to have penetrated the consciousness of the grieving disciples. With Pilate’s permission, the Jews sealed the stone, which had closed the tomb’s door, and set a watch of soldiers to be sure there was no interference with the tomb.

The temple soldiers were not used for this purpose, as their jurisdiction was only the temple area. A regular detachment of Roman soldiers was sent to watch the tomb. Following Pilate’s orders to make it as secure as they could, the Roman unit would have made stealing the body of Jesus was an impossibility.

It would not matter! The chief priests and Pharisees, and all the power of the Roman government could not prevent Jesus rising from the grave. Their care in thus guarding the tomb only added to the certainty of the evidence when the resurrection took place.

Fifty-three percent (53%) of Americans say Easter is one of the nation’s most important holidays, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. That's up seven points from a year ago.

More evangelical Christians (78%) deem the holiday, which commemorates the resurrection of Jesus Chrsit, as one of the most important ones than do other Protestants (53%) and Catholics (50%).

Only seven percent (7%) consider Easter one of the least important holidays and 38% say it’s somewhere between the most and least important holiday.

Americans will celebrate Easter in a variety of ways, according to Rasmussen, from family meals to Easter egg hunts. Adult participation in Easter egg hunts is up slightly from a year ago.

Rasmussen apparently did not track whether people would celebrate Easter by attending church.