Though none of the books of the Renewed Covenant (or “New Testament”) are as obscure as some books of the Hebrew scriptures (or “Old Testament”), like Obadiah or Nahum, the books of the General Epistles are far more often maligned and ignored than the remainder of that august body of books. And it has been so from the beginning—the General Epistles include four of the five “Western Five” of the Deuterocanonical books that were not included in the Peshitta and whose status was long disputed (and one of which, 2 Peter, ironically comments on the first century canonization of the Renewed Covenant scriptures). Having previously read a book that sought to explain the Seven General Epistles and found it wanting [1], I thought that as this is the subject of today’s lecture in my History of the Christian Church class, it is a subject worthy of discussion here on my blog as well.

James and Jude bracket the Seven General Epistles in a chiastic fashion. Both James and Jude were half brothers of Jesus Christ, and both wrote “Jewish” epistles, albeit in a slightly different fashion. James wrote a stern defense of the Christian obligation to obey the law, pointing out that even showing partiality would make one a lawbreaker [2], and showing that genuine faith and works are inseparable, and even commenting on Jesus Christ’s sense of social justice against those who exploited the poor (see James 5:1-6). James’ Epistle was strongly dislike by Martin Luther (he put it in the “Appendix” of his Bible because of his inability to accept its defense of godly works as a fruit of genuine faith. As mentioned earlier, James’ defense of the law went hand in hand with its midrash on Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) which also contains a strong defense of God’s law and its remaining applicability to Christians (Matthew 5:18-20).

Jude, on the other hand, is a typically Jewish epistle for a different reason. Jude quotes two pseudographical books popular among gnostics, The First Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses, and uses them to preach against the ungodly and rebellious attitudes of the gnostic leadership themselves. The book is full of harsh condemnation and a clever use of quoting the premises of one’s opponents to demolish their arguments. As a result, this harsh book, which condemns the apostates of the mid 1st century Church of God in extremely blunt language, has been very unpopular among many readers, largely because they themselves have shown violent hostility towards the truth, been hirelings seeking after their own profit, and showing rebellious attitudes towards just and legitimate authorities (Jude :11). Unlike James, though, the book of Jude has not been put in the Appendix as much as it has been neglected and ignored.

First Peter, on the other hand, is a very often quoted and highly respected epistle. Peter’s quotes about the church serving as a royal priesthood and a holy nation have been pivotal in debunking hierarchial theories of the church that only ordained ministers were priests of God [3] and the focus of 1 Peter upon respect not only for authorities but for everyone is an important truth that helps Christians apply the command to love others as ourselves by respecting and honoring everyone [4]. Even though the larger point of 1 Peter has often been missed, 1 Peter’s defense of respect for authority has ensured that it has remained commonly quoted and well known as an epistle.

Second Peter, however, has been often forgotten and denigrated. Though the book contains a vigorous defense of the first century canonization of the books of the Bible (see 2 Peter 3:14-16), and also a stern opposition to the appeal by heretics to “private interpretations” that would overturn the verdict of written scripture (see 2 Peter 1:19-21), the book has largely been thought far inferior to 1 Peter. Like Jude, which strongly resembles 2 Peter 2 in its condemnation of false teachers and ministers, 2 Peter is often ignored because of its toe against heretics and its expectation of judgment for those who are rebellious against God’s authority. Nevertheless, it is an excellent and short letter to those who are interested in learning some of the unusual details about the Transfiguration and how the early Apostles canonized the text of scripture shortly after its books were written.

First John, like First Peter, has been a well-loved and well-quoted book. In fact, the book is so well-loved that some Trinitarian scribes attempted to fraudulently pass off a gloss of 1 Peter 5:7-8 as a genuine Trinitarian reference in the Bible (of which there are none). Besides that misuse of 1 John, the focus of the book on love has made the book particularly popular and appreciated by believers over the centuries. Its pointing out of how Christians cannot say they love God and hate their brother is a point that we all need to remember a lot better (myself definitely included).

Second John and Third John, however, are far less well known and far less quoted than First John. Second John is a very short letter to a woman (often seen as allegorically referring to a congregation) preaching of the need for Christians to recognize that Christ came in the flesh, and pointing to one of the key distinctions between a genuine and heretical Christology, condemning those who show hospitality to heretics. On the other hand, Third John (like First John) points out the Christian obligations of love, including the demand of hospitality for godly ministers. Those who show hospitality share in either the good deeds or bad deeds of the ministers they support. We ought to remember that fact—if we follow ungodly leaders we will share in their condemnation, but if we genuinely follow godly leaders sometimes we have to stand up against the bullying hirelings among us who want to preserve power more than preach Christ (see 3 John :9). The message of 3 John in particular is very relevant to our times.

In my class on the History of the Christian Church, I decided to teach the General Epistles right after Acts and before the Epistles of Paul because Paul’s writings (though supremely deep in biblical truth) require a context in the “Jewish” Christian General Epistles to be properly understood. After all, Paul is (falsely) considered to speak against God’s law, and it is necessary to understand the proper Christian view of obedience before one wades into speculation about divine providence, election, and justification. We start with what is straightforward and easy and then move on to more challenging materials. Books seldom get more straightforward than the very blunt General Epistles, which if anything are too blunt for many. Not for me, though.

[1] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/book-review-the-seven-general-epistles/

[2] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/the-problem-with-partiality-a-musing-on-james-2-1-13/

[3] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/a-kingdom-of-priests/

[4] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/08/13/lese-majeste/