HOW SHOULD WE INTERPRET 3 JOHN 1:2? DOES THIS PASSAGE SUPPORT THE PROSPERITY THEOLOGY?
By Ezekiel Kimosop
INTRODUCTION
I have often heard some prosperity Bible teachers quote 3 John 1:2 in an effort to defend their unbiblical teachings. It is my conviction that their application of this Scripture is misplaced and that the Scripture is often quoted out of its passage context to teach or support the prosperity gospel that is increasingly popular today. I beg to disagree.
I will first analyse the passage idea and then return to our conclusion.
ANALYSIS
Apostle John used this short letter to commend two faithful ministers, Gaius and Demetrius, for their faithful walk in Christ and their exemplary Christian hospitality. Gaius and Demetrius were possibly elders serving in an undisclosed Christian community with which the apostle was familiar.
John also took the opportunity to condemn one church leader called Dioptrephes for his hostility to church missionaries and his selfish haughtiness.
John indicated in the closing passage of his letter that he had left out of the short letter most of the details of what he intended to communicate because he was shortly to visit the particular church region or community in order to deal with the rebels.
Now having understood the purpose and context under which the Letter of Third John was written, we can return to our issue at hand.
The ruling question is thus: how should we interpret 3 John 1:2 in the light of what apostle John was addressing in his letter?
Does this verse agree with the teaching of prosperity teachers or can we find a more plausible interpretation?
The Scripture of 3 John 1:2 says (NKJV) "Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health just as your soul prospers."
Let us sample some of the key possible interpretations relating to this Scripture.
The first interpretation popularly held by some prosperity Bible teachers says that John used the above Scripture to express his desire that Gaius [the recipient of the epistle] may prosper materially or financially even as his soul [spiritual wellbeing] prospers or advances in Christ.
Of course this is a desirable wish that we all long for in any address! However, that said and done, we need to ask if this is the natural conclusion that arises from the study of this passage?
The second interpretation held by some scholars and teachers suggest that Gaius may have been a materially poor saint who gallantly served God despite his limited resources. While this could possibly be true, the claim is however difficult to prove from the Scriptures.
Was Gaius so materially disadvantaged that apostle John wished him financial prosperity? Was he also in poor health such that John wished him good health?
While we may not obtain direct answers to the above questions from the passage, we can infer from its overall message that there is no credible basis for determining that the verse was about financial prosperity or "perfect health".
A third and more plausible opinion to the interpretation of this verse is arrived at by roping in of the succeeding verse of 3 John 1:3. The writer here says "For I rejoiced greatly when brethren came and testified of the truth that is in you, just as you walk in the truth.
This suggests that Gaius was simply expressing his heartfelt joy in 3 John 1:2 and hence the benedictory apostolic statement. This interpretation is in my view sensible and consistent with the passage context.
The fourth school of thought holds that Gaius may have been in poor health at the time that John received the delegation of church leaders from Gaius and that he wrote the epistle to salute Gaius and to show solidarity with this servant of God and encourage him to keep up the good works.
Again this interpretation is inconsistent with the overall message. If Gaius was sick, why was John not specific about his condition?
I wish to offer a fifth and final view. My interpretation is that 3 John 1:2 is part of the salutation which should be read together with 3 John 1:1. The proponents of this view say that the verse was a common Greek salutation that conveyed a message of goodwill from the writer or speaker to his audience.
Looking at the context of the passage, I am convinced that the third and fifth interpretations appear to carry some exegetical weight. John could not have spoken words that do not relate to his ultimate message which was about appreciating the works of this faithful minister.
However given that the passage does not mention that Gaius was in poor health, we can conclude that John was most probably making an apostolic salutation in 3 John 1:1-2 and that the next verse of 3 John 1:3 conveys his joy for the encouraging report from the visiting leaders.
Some Bible scholars say the Letters of, 1,2,3 John were all written from Ephesus where Apostle John served as the apostolic overseer of the Gentile ministry after Paul was martyred by Nero in 67 AD.
The closing point is that the application of 3 John 1:2 by some Bible teachers to advance their prosperity gospel does not appear to find any exegetical support in the Letter and therefore fails our exegetical test.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly therefore, my closing view is that it is inappropriate to lift the Scripture of 3 John 1:2 out of its passage context and use it to advance the prosperity gospel when the passage context appears to speak otherwise!
Prosperity Bible teachers have a penchant or for ignoring the basics of Scripture interpretation and shooting wide off the exegetical tangent in an attempt to accommodate their false doctrines!
The word "prosper" as used in this 3 John 1:2 cannot be divorced from the Hebrew thought that informs the worldview of the writer of the Letter. John was Jewish and Gaius was obviously a Gentile believer.
The Hebrew idea of prosperity is best encapsulated by the word "Shalom" which speaks of the total spiritual and physical wellbeing of the person. It also speaks of divine peace that believers experience because of their covenantmerry relationship with God.
I believe that John had this idea in mind when he penned his letter.
© E
No comments:
Post a Comment