Category: BOOKS OF THE BIBLE

The Apostle Paul’s last letter. The Temple still existed in Jerusalem and believing Jews were still attending. Even though they believed in the Lord Jesus as their messiah, they were still trying to live by the Law for salvation. Paul wrote this letter to them to remind them of their salvation through believing in the Lord Jesus as Messiah was enough.

Many believe the author of Hebrews is anonymous, and the recipients of the letter are also anonymous. However, it is certain from the theme of the entire letter, beginning in Hebrews 1:1 “…spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets…”, that both the author and the recipients are Jewish. Hebrews 13:24  “all the saints from Italy greet you.” Probably means that the author is not in Italy, but some Italians are with him, and he is sending a letter to Italy. It would be most natural to assume that this letter was written to a Jewish congregation of believers living in Italy, probably in Rome. Despite the fact that many believe the author is unknown, many believe he is known to the recipients of the letter as the Apostle Paul (Hebrews 13:22 …for I have written a letter unto you in few words.). The only biographical reference in the letter is to “our brother Timothy” (Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty; with whom, if he come shortly, I will see you.).

More than any other letter in the New Testament, Hebrews reads as a letter written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD.
Hebrews 5:1-4 “For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining to God, in order to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins; he can deal gently with the ignorant and misguided, since he himself also is beset with weakness; and because of it he is obligated to offer sacrifices for sins, as for the people, so also for himself. And no one takes the honor to himself, but receives it when he is called by God, even as Aaron was.”
This passage about what high priests do is set entirely in the present tense, something that would be overcome by events if the book was written after 70 AD. Hebrews 9:25 “the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.” Hebrews 10:11“Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.”Again, both passages are set in the present tense. Furthermore, Hebrews is making a case that the sacrifices before Christ were insufficient. If the writer knew of the destruction of the Temple, the altar, and the entire sacrificial system, he could have used these events to bolster his argument, saying “see, they have passed away in any case.” The reason he doesn’t do this is probably because when he wrote Hebrews, these things had not yet happened.

Hebrews warns more severely against apostasy than any other letter in the New Testament. Hebrews 6:4-6 “For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.” Similar sharp warnings occur in Hebrews 12:15-29 and especially Hebrews10:26-31. Apparently, the temptation to deny the faith was exceptional at the time the letter was written. If the recipients were in Rome, the plausible setting would be during the persecution of Roman Christians under Nero. This occurred after the burning of Rome on July 18-19 of 64 AD, an event Nero blamed on the Christians. This would place Hebrews after the end of the account in Acts, and after all of Paul’s letters. Since Hebrews 13:23 says Timothy was now out of prison, and none of the other letters in the New Testament have him in prison, this also implies that the letter was written after Paul’s epistles and Acts.

These facts combine to create a window of time for the dating of Hebrews, set after the burning of Rome in 64 AD but before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. There is also no allusion at all in Hebrews to the Jewish Roman war, which started in 66 AD. Since some time should be allowed for the crisis in Rome to develop and to prompt this letter, yet allow the war to go unmentioned, Hebrews should be dated around 66 AD.

More than any other Letter in the New Testament, Hebrews reads as a Letter written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. Hebrews 5:1-4 “For every high priest taken from among men is appointed on behalf of men in things pertaining to God, in order to offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins; he can deal gently with the ignorant and misguided, since he himself also is beset with weakness; and because of it he is obligated to offer sacrifices for sins, as for the people, so also for himself. And no one takes the honor to himself, but receives it when he is called by God, even as Aaron was.” This passage about what high priests do is set entirely in the present tense, something that would be overcome by events if the book was written after 70 AD. Hebrews 9:25 “the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.” Hebrews 10:11“Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.”

⇛ continue reading Letters of Paul
⇛ checkout List of Topics ⇛

These epistles (letters) were written by the Apostles and other Jewish Believers to fellow Jewish Believers. The Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were written to record the Life of the Lord Jesus, the Messiah. Acts, written by Luke Recorded events after the resurrection and on to Paul’s missionary journeys. Peter, Jude and 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd John were written after the ascension of the Messiah into heaven to encourage Jewish believers and especially during the Tribulation. And Revelation, written by the Apostle John was to inform what was to transpire during Tribulation, Millennium (1000 years of Christ’s reign as King of Kings on Earth) and after for all who will study it.

Dates and order of Epistles are best estimates.

⇛ checkout List of Topics ⇛

Matthew is the first book in the New Testament, and according to ancient church tradition, it was the first of the four gospels to be written.

Matthew, Mark and Luke together are called the synoptic gospels. This is due to the close relationship between the three, as all three tell many of the same stories, often in the same way and with the same words. One clear example of the connection between the gospels is the story of the man who was sick of the palsy (Mark 2:1-12, Matt 9:1-8 and Luke 5:17-26). The accounts are so similar that even a little parenthesis -“he said to the sick of the palsy“- occurs in all three accounts in exactly the same place.

An additional point to make about the relationship between Mark and Matthew is found by comparing Mark 13:14 “But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it should not be (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains” with Matt 24:15-16 “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.” Here both books interrupt a speech by Jesus in the same place, – “let the reader understand” What was written in the book of Daniel!

Some early Christians believe that Matthew was written in Hebrew, others believe it was written in Aramaic. Today, in the KJV we have the English translation from Greek manuscripts. Matthew and Mark were originally written close in time to the life of Christ. These gospels were nurtured, revised, and extended by the early church until they came into the form we have today. In the case of Matthew, the modern form of the gospel is in Greek, but the first version was written in Hebrew to Jews prior to the destruction of the Temple.

Most modern scholars deny that Matthew was written in Hebrew originally, but the question is actually very complex. It is nearly certain that the dialogue between characters in the gospels was originally almost entirely in Hebrew or Aramaic. Therefore, any verse that quotes someone speaking is necessarily a translation – the only question is whether the translation occurred from a spoken Hebrew/Aramaic into written Greek, or from a written Hebrew/Aramaic into written Greek. For example, Matthew 1:21 says “You shall call His name Jesus: for He shall save His people from their sins.” This verse, though very familiar, doesn’t actually make sense in Greek (or English). It is only when one reads the text in Hebrew, and realizes that the name “Jesus” (Yeshua) is derived from the word “save” (Yoshia) that the sentence makes sense. There are numerous cases like this, and they are not limited to just Matthew.

In Matthew 17:24-27, Peter is challenged as to whether or not Jesus pays the two-drachma tax. This was a tax collected to maintain the temple. The short account ends with Jesus and Peter both paying the tax. The most immediate application of the story seems to address Jewish Christian readers, to inform them that they ought to continue to pay this tax. Needless to say, this points to a date of writing before 70 A.D. Matthew also has a good deal to say about the Sadducees, a sect controlling the priesthood and dependent on Roman favor. The Sadducees essentially disappeared after 70 A.D. Matthew 12:6 quotes Hosea 6:6, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” This Old Testament passage may have been chosen instead of other similar passages, in order to negate the requirement for sacrifices for Jewish Christians.

So overall, the culture behind the book of Matthew seems to indicate an audience of Jewish Christians, who still have a connection to the Jewish faith and ought to continue paying the temple tax, but who are beginning to separate themselves from non-Christian Jews in other ways, such as the practice of animal sacrifice. The Jewish Christians abandoned Jerusalem sometime after 62 A.D., but either before the Roman Jewish war or shorty after its start in 66 A.D. This would have been a major step in the breach between Jewish Christians and non-Christian Jews. The gospel of Matthew was likely completed before such a permanent breach was in sight. A date around 60 A.D. would seem reasonable.

⇛ return to New Testament Epistles

This shortest of the four New Testament gospels might have been the first to have been written. It often tells of Jesus’ ministry in more detail than either Matthew or Luke (for example, the miracle stories at Mk 5:1–20 or Mk 9:14–29). Mark stresses Jesus’ message about the kingdom of God now breaking into human life as good news (Mk 1:14–15) and Jesus himself as the gospel of God (Mk 1:1; 8:35; 10:29). Jesus is the Son whom God has sent to rescue the Jewish nation by serving and by sacrificing his life (Mk 10:45).

The opening verse about good news in Mark (Mk 1:1) serves as a title for the entire book. This presentation of who Jesus really is (Mk 1:1–13) is rounded out with a brief reference to the temptation of Jesus and how Satan’s attack fails. Jesus as Son of God will be victorious. Mark summarizes what Jesus proclaims as gospel: ‘fulfillment, the nearness of the kingdom, and the need for repentance and for faith’. After the call of the first four disciples, all fishermen (Mk 1:16–20), we see Jesus engaged in teaching (Mk 1:21, 22, 27), preaching (Mk 1:38, 39), healing (Mk 1:29–31, 34, 40–45), and exorcising demons (Mk 1:22–27, 34–39). The content of Jesus’ teaching is chiefly in parables (Mk 4) about the kingdom. His cures, especially on the sabbath (Mk 3:1–5); his claim to forgive sins (Mk 2:3–12); all stir up opposition that will lead to Jesus’ death (Mk 3:6).Jesus is portrayed as immensely popular with the people in Galilee during his ministry (Mk 2:2; 3:7; 4:1). Yet opposition mounts. Scribes charge that Jesus is possessed by Beelzebub (Mk 3:22), And all too often his own disciples do not understand Jesus (Mk 4:13, 40; 6:52; 8:17–21). The disciples do not grasp the mystery being revealed (Mk 9:32; 10:32, 38). One of them will betray him, Judas (Mk 14:10–11, 43–45); one will deny him, Peter (Mk 14:27, 31, 54, 66–72); all eleven men will desert him (Mk 14:27, 50).

The framework of Mark’s Gospel is partly geographical: Galilee (Mk 1:14–9:49), through the area “across the Jordan” (Mk 10:1) and through Jericho (Mk 10:46–52), to Jerusalem (Mk 11:1–16:8). Only rarely does Jesus go into Gentile territory (Mk 5:1–20; 7:24–37).  

Mark shares with Paul, as well as with other parts of the New Testament, an emphasis on election (Mk 13:20, 22) and upon the gospel as Christ and his cross (cf. 1 Cor 1:23). Yet in Mark the person of Jesus is also depicted with an unaffected naturalness. He reacts to events with authentic human emotion: pity (Mk 1:44), anger (Mk 3:5), triumph (Mk 4:40), sympathy (Mk 5:36; 6:34), surprise (Mk 6:9), admiration (Mk 7:29; 10:21), sadness (Mk 14:33–34), and indignation (Mk 14:48–49).

Although the book is anonymous, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark, in whose mother’s house (at Jerusalem) Jewish Christians assembled (Acts 12:12). This Mark (Marcus) was a cousin of Barnabas (Col 4:10) and accompanied Barnabas and Paul on a missionary journey (Acts 12:25; 13:2-53; 15:36–39). He appears in Pauline letters (2 Tm 4:11; Phlm 24) and with Peter (1 Pt 5:13).

Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written before A.D. 70, between A.D. 50-60. 

⇛ return to New Testament Epistles

Acts is the second of two epistles written by Luke, so setting a date for Acts also serves to establish the latest possible date for the Gospel of Luke. The Gospel of Luke is closely related to the other synoptic gospels, Matthew and Mark, and will influence the view on their dates as well. Also, Acts describes in detail the three missionary journeys of Paul. These journeys form the backdrop for most of the epistles of Paul, and help to date them as well. Finally, if Acts is analyzed by itself, the date of writing for the book is quite obvious. It is only because Acts is connected with other books in the New Testament.

There is a further reason to establish a date for Luke prior to establishing a date for the other synoptic gospels, Matthew and Mark. It seems that Luke has what can be described as a “simple”in the sense that Luke researched his work, then wrote it one time in Greek, then sent it to his friend Theophilus, and that this writing is essentially what we have as the Gospel of Luke today. Most of the New Testament books have a similar “simple” origin, but the stories of Matthew and Mark are more complex. This has led to what scholars call the “synopic problem”, the effort to untangle the relationship between the Matthew, Mark and Luke.

The opening verses of Luke and Acts make it clear that these two eistles were written by the same individual. The Gospel of Luke was written before Acts, based on Acts 1:1-3, with Luke calling the gospel his “former account.” Acts takes the story of Paul up through Paul’s voyage to Rome, where he awaits trial before Caesar in about 62 A.D. Having built to this climax, the story of Acts then ends with a few verses about Paul witnessing without opposition in Rome, leaving the reader hanging as to what will happen to Paul at his trial.

Further support for the conclusion that Acts brings the story up to date is the fact that Acts gives no hint of any knowledge of the major events that would take place within the decade. These events include the execution of James, the brother of Jesus and head of the Jerusalem church, the burning of Rome by Nero and the subsequent persecution of the Jewish Christians, and most of all, the Roman-Judean war of 66-70 A.D. One is left with the distinct impression that Acts doesn’t mention the results of Paul’s trial or any of these other events simply because they had not happened at the time the epistle was written.

Luke’s favorable attitude toward Rome points to a date before the persecution of Jewish Christians under Nero:
·  Roman soldiers are favorably addressed by John the Baptist, something mentioned only by Luke (Luke 3:14)
·  The account of the Centurion in Luke 7 is very favorable to the man, who “loves our nation” (7:5)
·  The Centurion Cornelius in Acts 10 is a favorable character who becomes a Christian
·  The Centurion and Roman commander in Acts 21-23 help Paul repeatedly
·  The Centurion guarding Paul on the ship while he is traveling to Rome is yet another favorably portrayed Roman soldier.
·  Paul is repeatedly treated with deference due to his Roman citizenship (Acts 16:37-38, 22:25-28)

The opposition to the gospel described in Luke/Acts comes primarily from either the Jews or from citizens acting outside the law. The Roman authorities are the ones who deal fairly and put things right. There is no warning of Roman sponsored persecution, nor any direct instruction provided to the church as to how to deal with it. There is no hint in Luke that Jewish Christians will soon be thrown to the lions by the very Roman authorities who were so helpful to Paul and his companions. The most logical reason for the absence of any such hint is that Luke does not know about it, because it hasn’t happened yet. This points to a date of writing prior to the Roman persecution of the late AD 60’s.

James, the brother of Jesus, who is head of the church in Jerusalem, is mentioned three times in Acts (12:17, 15:13 and 21:18). In every occasion the leadership role of James is taken for granted (Peter and Paul are not considered the top leaders, as they would be later). Luke makes no effort to identify who James is, nor to differentiate him from the other figures named James; it is just assumed that the reader knows that this is the most important James around. James was executed in Jerusalem in 62 A.D. by the High Priest Ananus, who acted in the temporary absence of a sitting Roman governor. However, Luke does not seem to know this either. Perhaps this word had not reached Luke before he finished Acts, as both events apparently happened at about the same time in different places. Certainly, if James had been a figure in the distant past, Luke would have needed to differentiate which James he was talking about when he mentioned him.

Luke was a very minor figure in the New Testament church, being mentioned just twice (Col 4:14, 2 Tim 4:11). Therefore, there would not be any motivation for the author to make the epistle appear to have been written earlier than it was. So, when the epistle closes its account in A.D. 62 and appears to have been written in A.D. 62, there is every reason to assume that it really was written then.

It seems that Luke, who was Paul’s traveling companion, was left with little to do for two years while Paul was imprisoned in Caesarea from around 59-61 A.D. He apparently used this time to research the story of Jesus, interviewing some of the eyewitnesses, and eventually produced the Gospel of Luke around 62 A.D., closely followed by Acts. As Luke researched his gospel, some of the material now in Matthew and Mark could have been available to him.

⇛ return to New Testament Epistles

Acts is the second of two epistles written by Luke, so setting a date for Acts also serves to establish the latest possible date for the Gospel of Luke. The Gospel of Luke is closely related to the other synoptic gospels, Matthew and Mark, and will influence a view on their dates as well. Also, Acts describes in detail the three missionary journeys of Paul. These journeys form the backdrop for most of the epistles of Paul, and help us to date them as well. Finally, if Acts is analyzed by itself, the date of writing for the book is quite obvious.

There is a further reason to establish a date for Luke prior to establishing a date for the other synoptic gospels, Matthew and Mark. It seems that Luke has what can be described as a “simple” origin – simple in the sense that Luke researched his work, then wrote it one time in Greek, then sent it to his friend Theophilus, and that this writing is essentially what we have as the Gospel of Luke today. Most of the New Testament books have a similar “simple” origin, but the stories of Matthew and Mark are more complex. This has led to what scholars call the “synopic problem”, the effort to untangle the relationship between the Matthew, Mark and Luke.  .

The opening verses of Luke and Acts make it clear that these two epistles were written by the same individual, “Luke”, in keeping with unbroken tradition since the apostolic age. The Gospel of Luke was written before Acts, based on Acts 1:1-3, with Luke calling the epistle his “former account.” Acts takes the story of Paul up through Paul’s voyage to Rome, where he awaits trial before Caesar in about 62 A.D. Having built to this climax, the story of Acts then ends with a few verses about Paul witnessing without opposition in Rome, leaving the reader hanging as to what will happen to Paul at his trial.

Further support for the conclusion that Acts brings the story up to date is the fact that Acts gives no hint of any knowledge of the major events that would take place within the decade. These events include the execution of James, the brother of Jesus and head of the Jerusalem church, the burning of Rome by Nero and the subsequent persecution of the Christians, and most of all, the Roman-Judean war of 66-70 A.D. One is left with the distinct impression that Acts doesn’t mention the results of Paul’s trial or any of these other events simply because they had not happened at the time the book was written.

Luke’s favorable attitude toward Rome points to a date before the persecution of Christians under Nero:
·  Roman soldiers are favorably addressed by John the Baptist, something mentioned only by Luke (Luke 3:14)
·  The account of the Centurion in Luke 7 is very favorable to the man, who “loves our nation” (Acts 7:5)
·  The Centurion Cornelius in Acts 10 is a favorable character who becomes a Christian
·  The Centurion and Roman commander in Acts 21-23 help Paul repeatedly
·  The Centurion guarding Paul on the ship while he is traveling to Rome is yet another favorably portrayed Roman soldier.
·  Paul is repeatedly treated with deference due to his Roman citizenship
(Acts 16:37-38, 22:25-28)

The opposition to the gospel described in Luke/Acts comes primarily from either the Jews or from citizens acting outside the law. The Roman authorities are the ones who deal fairly and put things right. There is no warning of Roman sponsored persecution, nor any direct instruction provided to the church as to how to deal with it. There is no hint in Luke that Jewish Christians will soon be thrown to the lions by the very Roman authorities who were so helpful to Paul and his companions. The most logical reason for the absence of any such hint is that Luke does not know about it, because it hasn’t happened yet. This points to a date of writing prior to the Roman persecution of the late 60’s.

James, the brother of Jesus, who is head of the church in Jerusalem, is mentioned three times in Acts (12:17, 15:13 and 21:18). In every occasion the leadership role of James is taken for granted (Peter and Paul are not considered the top leaders, as they would be later). Luke makes no effort to identify who James is, nor to differentiate him from the other figures named James; it is just assumed that the reader knows that this is the most important James around. James was executed in Jerusalem in 62 A.D. by the High Priest Ananus, who acted in the temporary absence of a sitting Roman governor. However, Luke does not seem to know this either. Perhaps this word had not reached Luke before he finished Acts, as both events apparently happened at about the same time in different places. Certainly, if James had been a figure in the distant past, Luke would have needed to differentiate which James he was talking about when he mentioned him.

At this point it’s important that Acts was written when it was. Its significance is mostly because of what it does to the dating of all the rest of the New Testament, but the exact date would probably not have mattered much to the early church. This is important, because people advocating late dates for books of the Bible often suggest that there exists an element of deception on the part of the author. This deception could take the form of an author falsely claiming to be someone else. It is certainly true that deception of this sort took place with some other earlier Christian literature. However, there is simply no motivation for this to have taken place with Acts. The author of the book is technically anonymous. Strong tradition and good reasons identify the author as Luke, the companion of Paul, but Luke was a very minor figure in the New Testament church, being mentioned just twice in passing(Col 4:14, 2 Tim 4:11). The epistle was written by Luke, with close connection to Paul and the events described in the book. Therefore, there would not be any motivation for the author to make the epistle appear to have been written earlier than it was. So when the epistle closes its account in A.D. 62 and appears to have been written in A.D. 62, there is every reason to assume that it really was written then.

It seems that Luke, who was Paul’s traveling companion, was left with little to do for two years while Paul was imprisoned in Caesarea from around 59-61 A.D. He apparently used this time to research the story of Jesus, interviewing some of the eyewitnesses, and eventually produced the Gospel of Luke around 61-62 A.D., closely followed by Acts. As Luke researched for his gospel, some of the material now in Matthew and Mark would have been available to him.

⇛ return to New Testament Epistles

The writings of John (the Gospel, 1,2 and 3 John, Revelation) are often assigned the latest dates of all New Testament literature, with some secular scholars placing them well into the second century A.D., and even most conservative scholars dating at least Revelation around 95 A.D., when John would have been over 80 years old. John and James were the sons of Zebedee, and disciples (Apostles) of Jesus.

It would perhaps be best to first establish the case that the same author is responsible for all the books associated with John.  The attributions within these books are not at all clear on this point, since the Gospel of John and 1 John are anonymous, 2 John and 3 John are letters from “The Elder”, and the Revelation is given to simply “His servant John” (Rev 1:1).

Unlike the other gospels, John the apostle is never named in the Gospel of John, though his name seems to be deliberately self-obscured by calling himself “another disciple” or the “disciple that Jesus loved” (John 13:23, 18:15-16, 19:26-27, 20:2-4, 20:8, 21:7, 21:20, 21:23-24). The “we” in John 1:14 indicates that the author, along with the other apostles, were eyewitnesses of Jesus.

Finally, Rev 1:1-2 “…John: Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw“. The author of Revelation was also the author of this Gospel.

Some scholars have argued for different authors for John and Revelation because of differences in how the Greek language is used in the two books. However, this can probably be explained by the circumstances of writing. John, the Galilean fisherman, would have learned Greek not as his mother tongue but as a second or third language. The Greek of Revelation is different and non-standard, probably because John wrote it as a letter without help. The Gospel of John, though clearly coming from John, looks like it was a collaborative effort. John 21:24 says: “This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true.” The “his” in this verse at the end of the book is probably John, and the “we” is almost surely the Jewish Christian community working with him to put the book into its final form. A similar reference occurs in John 19:35 “And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe”.

There are different views to the time when the Gospel of John was written. Some believe it was written during the reign of Nero (A.D. 54–68), or during the reign of Vespasian (A.D. 69–79), or during the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81–96). Since Jerusalem and the Temple appear to still be in existence, 65-68 AD appear to be when The Apostle John wrote his epistle

⇛ return to New Testament Epistles

The epistles of John 1,2 and 3. John did not number these epistles, not were they written in this order. That was done many years later by a Church Council.

If the end or the last days were shortly after the writing of revelation (approx. AD 70), then how can John say in 1 John 2:18 “Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.” Things were getting bad in Jerusalem and John probably thought the Tribulation was coming. 

Here there is little to go on, but some conclusions can be made. John writes as an “elder” to his spiritual “children”.
(1 John 2:1, 2:12, 2:18, 2 John 1; 3 John 1, 4).
Since John was apparently a youthful disciple, the younger brother of James, this implies that a good deal of time has passed since Jesus’ earthly ministry. Many of the themes in 1-3 John are also present in the Gospel of John. The subject of truth and the idea of a commandment of love is prominent in both books, along with the idea that God is light.

Also, John’s warns against a gnostic influence (1 John 1:1 says he “handled the Word of life (Jesus), in the flesh”). One of the gnostic teachings was that Jesus was a spirit-man rather than a real human. 1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.   A date around of 65 A.D. would seem appropriate as the date for this epistle..

⇛ return to New Testament Epistles

In the letter, 1, 2 and 3 John, remember, John did not number these epistles. That was done many years later by a church council.

Again, there is little to go on, but some conclusions can be made. John writes as an “elder” to his spiritual “children” (1 John 2:1, 2:12, 2:18, 2 John 1; 3 John 1, 4). Since John was apparently a youthful disciple, the younger brother of James, this implies that a good deal of time has passed since Jesus’ earthly ministry.

John does not identify himself as the author and there is a level of intentional anonymity – “the elder“, “the elect lady“, “her children“, “the children of your elect sister” (2 John 1, 13), and as he writes in 1 John 2:18 “Little children, it is the last times…” this might indicate a time of persecution. There is little dispute as to a common author for the short letters of 2 John and 3 John. Both are written by a man calling himself “The Elder.” In both books the author rejoices over “children walking in truth.” Many of the themes in 1-3 John are also present in the Gospel of John. The subject of truth and the idea of a commandment of love is prominent in both books, along with the idea that God is light.

A date around of 65 A.D. for all three letters would seem appropriate, and there does not seem to be a clear way to designate a particular order for the three letters.

⇛ return to New Testament Epistles

John writes as an “elder” to “the well beloved Gaius” (3 John 1, 4). Since John was apparently a youthful disciple, the younger brother of James, this implies that a good deal of time has passed since Jesus’ earthly ministry.

Also, John’s warns about Diotrephes (3 John 9), praises Demetrius (3 John 12).
He concludes “ I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee: But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face”.
(3 John 13-14).

There is little dispute as to a common author for the short letters of 2 John and 3 John. Both are written by a man calling himself “The Elder.” In both books the author rejoices over “children walking in truth.” Many of the themes in 1-3 John are also present in the Gospel of John. The subject of truth and the idea of a commandment of love is prominent in both books, along with the idea that God is light.

A date around of 65 A.D. for all three letters would seem appropriate, and there does not seem to be a clear way to designate a particular order for the three letters.

⇛ return to New Testament Epistles