Top 12 of CiHD: #5

For a summary of what I’m hoping to accomplish in this blog series (the first week of every month of 2018), I recommend reviewing my explanation here.

We’re getting closer and closer to the most-viewed post in the history of my blog! This month in the Top 12 Blog Posts at Covered in His Dust, we’ll look at the fifth-most-viewed post. It was a post titled “JUDE: False Teachers” — and you can find it here.

In this series, as we look at each post, I want to ask three questions: why, what, and what else? Why do I think this post got so many views; why were others drawn to it? What do I hope people found when they got here; what do I hope they heard? Finally, what else have I learned about this; what else would I say about these ideas?

WHY THIS POST?

For me, seeing this post on the list makes sense on many levels. While I don't know if there is a single reason that predominantly drove the number of views, I would guess it is a combination of both of the following (and maybe others).

First, I think Jude is a book shrouded in mystery for many Bible students. This short letter raises so many questions for those who dare to dig in to the details that it has to be a book people are Googling and searching for left and right. What is this reference about the body of Moses? Why the fascination with Enoch? Why does it feel like there are so many things going on “behind the scenes” with the book of Jude? While we talked about much of this in the original post, I’m sure it’s driving a lot of interest in finding posts and articles discussing the content of Jude.

Second, I think anytime you write a post titled “False Teachers” in our day and age of Evangelicalism, you are going to get some views. We have such an unhealthy (most of the time) fascination with doctrinal correctness and those who color outside the lines that Christian readers go a little gaga over the need to categorize people into one group or another. As we’ve chatted about before, the concern, as we are familiar with it, is not one that existed in the apostolic age and mainly arose as the result of losing our Jewish roots as a movement and dealing with the impact of the Gnostic Crisis in the second century and beyond. But let’s pull some of that apart below.

WHAT DO I HOPE THEY FOUND?

Some might ask, “How in the world can you say this wasn’t a concern in the apostolic age when the book of Jude (and others!) write about the need to be aware of false teachers?!”

This is where the irony runs thick. In the New Testament, a thoughtful examination of the arguments against false teachers will reveal that the danger is not in its orthodoxy, but in the orthopraxy. Obviously, the orthodoxy is important; without a doubt, the content of teaching drives our behavior. But the danger of the teaching is not in what it gets wrong, but in how it leads us to live. Consider the constant rebuke that exists from the Evangelical Doctrine Police of the world today. Is there any concern for the “living out” of a theologian’s position? Do we write posts ad nauseam about whether or not a teacher demonstrates the fruit of the Spirit in their life?

No. Too often, the lifestyle of a teacher and the fruit that comes out of his or her ministry is not the source of critique or the concern of those so driven to a flurry. They are worked up about the theological accuracy of a belief. They are worried about how it lines up against a creed or a statement of faith. But this is not what concerned the authors of the New Testament. What concerned them was that a person’s theology led them to be exclusive and inhospitable. It caused them not to show love to others and led them to pursue self-indulgence rather than selfless generosity. This kind of behavior was seen as a grave threat to the gospel. In the letters of John, this criticism was about whether or not a teacher led his students to be more loving. In Jude, the concern is that the teaching leads to debauchery and self-indulgence.

In all instances, the writers spend zero time critiquing the theology that lies behind the behavior; they spend their time critiquing the fruit of the tree itself. This is a thought that I hope people found when they got to this post.

WHAT ELSE WOULD I SAY?

I’m not sure I would add much else to this post over I’ve said above. I really do wish we (in the world of western theology) can demonstrate a greater ability to navigate this conversation in a way that mirrors the teaching of the Apostles and writers of the New Testament. This isn’t just an idea that shows up in writings about false teachers. It’s not just a theme we find in John, Peter, and Jude. As mentioned above, it’s also present in the teachings Paul. But maybe most importantly, it was a theme in the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus told us himself that you cannot pick grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles. Jesus said that something can look one way on the outside, but the fruit is what gives it away. It might look like a chicken, but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and lays duck eggs — we have a duck. It appears that his disciples understood this and later applied it to their experiences with false teachers. They were not primarily concerned with whether the words were right. They were more concerned with whether or not it (i.e., the teacher and his students) looked like Jesus.

It seems we have a lot to learn about whether or not our actions look like Jesus; Evangelicals are having to spend more and more time trying to explain why they are right because the words are correct. We seem to be spending an awful lot of time arguing about appropriate interpretations of Romans 13 and visions of heaven with walls. I think people like Jude would look right at it and say, “That’s easy. I don’t care what your words say; however you’re living out the words doesn’t look at all like Jesus.” I think Jude would find a lot of false teaching.

Top 12 of CiHD: #8

For a summary of what I’m hoping to accomplish in this blog series (the first week of every month of 2018), I recommend reviewing my explanation here.

As we continue our look at the Top 12 Blog Posts at Covered in His Dust, we will examine the post that got the eighth most views in the history of the blog. This brings us back to the pastoral letters of John and my post on 2 John. It was titled “2 JOHN: the ‘Woman’” — and you can find it here.

In this series, as we look at each post, I want to ask three questions: why, what, and what else? Why do I think this post got so many views; why were others drawn to it? What do I hope people found when they got here; what do I hope they heard? Finally, what else have I learned about this; what else would I say about these ideas?

WHY THIS POST?

If you have been following along and noticed that we hit 3 John and then 1 John, you might have thought it weird that the book of 2 John got skipped. Well, after a quick break to talk about atonement, we are back to round out our journey through the letters of John. As before, I am taken aback that these posts found themselves on the list. Whether it is the fact that people are doing studies in Johannine literature or that the name “John” is a thoroughly Googled name… I’m a little struck at the number of views here. I certainly never finished writing on the letters of John and thought to myself, “Now that was a good one!”

However, if there is one element that might have caused 2 John to rise above the other two pastoral letters, it is the great discussion about the nature and identity of this “woman” who John directs his letter to. Any search for “who is the woman mentioned in 2 John” could have led a reader to this post.

WHAT DO I HOPE THEY FOUND?

First, I hope they found a concise and well-presented argument for the different opinions on the identity of the woman/audience of 2 John. If I did my job, I hope that by pulling out a few key references in the letter, we noted how much credence there is to the different options. I also hope they didn’t sense me swaying the conversation toward my favorite option (more on that below); without a personal “dog in the hunt,” I wanted to let the potential Bible student use their own research to make a choice they felt good about.

In addition to this, I also hope that by asking these questions and provoking critical thinking without resolution that I encouraged a better way of engaging the biblical text. I do not mean this merely from a textual criticism perspective, for cold textual criticism is shallow and lacking in any power. But there is something to learn by engaging the Text from a place of critical (and yes, even western) thought. It causes us to become more intimate with the Text, grow closer to the God speaking through it, and consider the message He may be imparting to us through the original author’s intent.

WHAT ELSE WOULD I SAY?

There isn’t much I would add to the existing conversation. That is, of course, except my own favorite opinion. Now that the original conversation has run its course and I don’t have to worry about influencing the student/thinker, where do I personally land on the opinion? I love the third option, of course. I think John could have easily written and sent the letter to a prominent woman and her family in the church. In fact, I have a personal hunch that this woman was the leader of the larger church John wishes to speak to. We know from Paul’s writings (particularly letters like Romans) that the early church didn’t balk at placing women in places of leadership in the church. Knowing John’s role of leadership in the church of Asia and Asia Minor, I would imagine he followed suit.

But to cloak a deeper message within the trappings of surface-level reading would be exactly like John in his other writings. One of the things we find consistent within Johannine literature is a multi-layered approach to his writing where the reader keeps peeling back one layer after another to find John’s larger point being applied at deeper and deeper levels. We see John doing this all throughout his gospel and the book of Revelation. Many scholars have argued against the idea that the Apostle John penned all of the letters that are written under his name. Looking at 2 John, I would argue that the same John wrote the gospel, the letters, and Revelation. While I’m no Greek scholar, I see a lot of similarities in the style of writing.

3 JOHN: Diotrephes

Finally, we come to the incredibly short letter of 3 John. We see through the study of these letters that John has a group of disciples he is sending out to do teaching among the churches. Some scholars have even suggested that it’s these disciples who pen the three letters of John. I disagree with this assessment, but it does provide some explanation as to why the author of 2 and 3 John calls himself “the elder.” Of course, this title would be more fitting for John himself, but I digress.

The elder, 

To my dear friend Gaius, whom I love in the truth. 

Dear friend, I pray that you may enjoy good health and that all may go well with you, even as your soul is getting along well. It gave me great joy when some believers came and testified about your faithfulness to the truth, telling how you continue to walk in it. I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth.

Penning the letter from Ephesus, John writes about how his disciples have returned (or other believers have visited) and told of the love and hospitality they received from Gaius. John encourages him to continue walking in this truth. Note again how the idea of truth is attached to the idea of loving others; without loving others, there is no truth, only falsehood. Love is what makes the truth — well, the truth.

Dear friend, you are faithful in what you are doing for the brothers and sisters, even though they are strangers to you. They have told the church about your love. Please send them on their way in a manner that honors God. It was for the sake of the Name that they went out, receiving no help from the pagans. We ought therefore to show hospitality to such people so that we may work together for the truth.

Notice the use of the phrase “for the sake of the Name.” Back in our study of David we spoke of the phrase in rabbinic Judaism, rendered in the Hebrew as kiddush HaShem or “to hallow/sanctify the Name.” This idea continues to live into the New Testament where John tells Gaius to continue in his ways of love and hospitality, because it is here where we’ll find a life that truly does kiddush HaShem.

I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will not welcome us. So when I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, spreading malicious nonsense about us. Not satisfied with that, he even refuses to welcome other believers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.

However, not everybody is practicing hospitality. There’s a member of the community there refusing to welcome others (particularly John’s disciples). In this he is acting like the pagans mentioned above. This is the defining characteristic that sets believers apart from the pagans — hospitality. It’s interesting to note that Diotrephes means “loved by Jupiter” in the Greek. Could it be that he’s having a hard time letting go of his pagan ways?

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. Demetrius is well spoken of by everyone—and even by the truth itself. We also speak well of him, and you know that our testimony is true. 

I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink. I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face. 

Peace to you. The friends here send their greetings. Greet the friends there by name.

But Gaius is not alone. Those who follow God rarely are. Demetrius is also a fellow worker who has a reputation of generosity, love, and hospitality.

The letter of 3 John always serves as a reminder to me of a couple realities. First, there have always been and always will be people who oppose the work of the gospel and our call to be people of love in the world. For whatever reason (and there are often many), there are those who stand opposed to work that would kiddush HaShem. But second, this letter reminds me, yet again, that the way of truth is not truth because some abstract, absolute truth exists. The way of truth is truth because it is the way of love.

I know it’s very popular to say that “truth without love isn’t truth and love without truth isn’t love.” That may be true, but the Bible does not teach this idea directly. Yet the idea is undeniably evident, especially in the writings of John, that love is the foundational element, and you will find truth within love. Love always has truth in it.

2 JOHN: the "Woman"

John pens another letter, sent to a curious character.

The elder,

To the lady chosen by God and to her children, whom I love in the truth—and not I only, but also all who know the truth—because of the truth, which lives in us and will be with us forever: 

Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father’s Son, will be with us in truth and love.

John sends this to a “chosen lady.” This leaves us with a few options.

John could be addressing this letter to an actual woman and her children. This letter could very easily be written to a particular woman in Asia or Asia Minor (or elsewhere for that matter) and we are getting to see a very personal correspondence from John to her. It is entirely possible that any effort to come up with another explanation is simply overthinking the situation.

John could be addressing a certain body of believers (a church) as a woman. This would be entirely commonplace as the Church is often pictured as a bride, the outlying villages of a larger city as “daughters,” etc. To bolster this idea, there is the fact that when “she” is referenced in the rest of the letter, John uses the masculine Greek to address the recipient(s). This would not be expected in a personal correspondence.

It could very possibly be both. This could be a letter written to a particular woman with allegorical (whether intentional or unintentional) overtones, but we have already witnessed John’s incredible ability as an author to operate on multiple levels. Another very good possibility is that the “woman” in question is also the leader of a house church or an even larger body of believers in that area. In this regard, John would be writing to her, but intending the letter for a larger audience, as well.

It has given me great joy to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as the Father commanded us. And now, dear lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another. And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.

John rejoices because he has heard as the “Pastor to Asia” about her faith and how she lives it out. He has heard she walks in truth and, as we discovered in 1 John, this means she is walking in love. Without love, there would be no truth in her or her family; but she is a family of love and, therefore, she is walking in truth.

I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what we have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.

Could these “deceivers” be the (possible) Gnostics of John’s address in his first letter? Could these deceivers be those “Judeans” who followed Paul throughout Asia, and especially Asia Minor, opposing his gospel? Could they be legalistic believers who are attempting to disengage the culture and hold up in a corner? Could they be the Nicolaitans of Revelation? Any of these are great options and would fit the bill described above.

I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete. 

The children of your sister, who is chosen by God, send their greetings.

Finally, John’s sign-off seems to suggest that the latter two options above may be at play here, as the phrasing is awkward if we are talking about actual individuals. But before we look ahead to 3 John, I always like to pause and consider: If John were to write a letter about our family, “to the chosen lady” whom we find ourselves children of, what would be said? Would John rejoice in hearing that we walk in the truth because of our commitment to love?