Comparative Theology
04 Comparative Theology
3 John 1:1–14 | Cross-Tradition Doctrine Interpretation for Destination Language Filipino
This document surveys how each of the nine doctrines identified for 3 John (matching assets/doctrine_risk_registry.json and analysis/11_doctrine_analysis.md) is understood across major religious and secular traditions, with a dedicated column for the destination culture’s dominant traditions — Filipino folk Catholicism and Filipino Protestant/evangelical Christianity, the two traditions the baseline Romans Language Package anchors to. The purpose is to surface agreement, divergence, translation-relevant misunderstandings, and sensitive terminology before Phase 2 segment translation begins. This document extends, and does not contradict, the baseline package’s cultural-risk findings (grace/utang na loob, Holy Spirit/anito, God/Bathala, power of God/anting-anting, saints/mga banal, intercession/pamamagitan).
1. Hospitality to Traveling Ministers
Primary passages: 3 John 1:5, 1:6, 1:8
| Tradition | Interpretation / Emphasis | Sensitive Terminology / Misunderstanding Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Protestant | Hospitality as gospel partnership; ordinary believers materially supporting itinerant preachers/missionaries as participation in “the work” (v.8, “fellow workers for the truth”). | Risk of moralizing into generic kindness, losing the missionary-support specificity. |
| Catholic | Rooted in the corporal works of mercy; historically tied to monastic hospitality (“receive all guests as Christ,” Rule of St. Benedict) and support of mendicant/missionary religious orders. | Risk of narrowing “traveling ministers” to ordained clergy/religious only, rather than any gospel worker. |
| Orthodox | Philoxenia (love of strangers) as a central ascetic-liturgical virtue; hospitality to monks, pilgrims, and bishops, typologically linked to Abraham’s welcome of the three visitors (Gen. 18). | Risk of over-liturgizing an act the text presents as a simple, direct household obligation. |
| Jewish | Hachnasat orchim (welcoming guests) is a foundational mitzvah rooted in Abraham’s example; a general, highly esteemed communal duty. | Risk of treating it as generic mitzvah observance rather than a duty specifically tied to advancing gospel proclamation. |
| Islamic | Diyafa (hospitality to the guest/traveler) is a highly esteemed virtue with defined customary obligations (e.g., the three-day guest right). | Risk of assuming shared theological grounding; diyafa is not tied to supporting proclamation of a message Islam regards as superseded. |
| Hindu | Atithi Devo Bhava (“the guest is God”) — hospitality treated as a near-sacred duty. | Strong surface resonance, but grounded in the guest as a manifestation of the divine rather than support for gospel proclamation; must not imply the traveling minister is himself an object of worshipful reverence. |
| Filipino Dominant Traditions (Folk Catholic / Evangelical) | Hospitality (pagpapatuloy, pakikisama) is a deeply embedded social value in both traditions; strong cultural resonance with the text’s surface content. | High risk of flattening propempō (“send forward”) into ordinary guest courtesy or triggering utang na loob reciprocal-obligation logic, rather than the specific, intentional act of material gospel-partnership the text commends. Requires explicit teaching distinction. |
| Buddhist | Dāna (generosity) to traveling monks (sangha) is a core structural practice — material support of itinerant religious teachers. | Structurally similar act, but tied to merit-making (puñña) for the giver’s own karmic benefit, not gospel partnership; must not import a merit-transaction framing into the Christian text. |
| Secular | Hospitality as a general human virtue or social ethic. | Risk of stripping the passage of its missionary/gospel content entirely, reducing it to “be kind to guests.” |
Agreement/divergence summary: Nearly every tradition surveyed has some strong hospitality-to-strangers/travelers value, making this doctrine’s surface content broadly recognizable. The translation-critical divergence is purpose: 3 John ties hospitality specifically to gospel proclamation and material partnership in ministry, not general guest-welcome, merit-making, or reciprocal social debt. Filipino teaching materials must make this specific purpose explicit rather than relying on the (real, but generic) cultural resonance of pagpapatuloy.
2. Missionary Financial Integrity and the Name
Primary passage: 3 John 1:7
| Tradition | Interpretation / Emphasis | Sensitive Terminology / Misunderstanding Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Protestant | Model for missionary financial accountability; refusing support from those who might compromise gospel witness; integrity in ministry finance. | Risk of reducing this to generic anti-corruption ethics, losing “for the sake of the Name” as the operative motivation. |
| Catholic | Resonates with vows of poverty among missionary orders and historic concern to avoid scandal in clerical finance. | Risk of over-institutionalizing a principle the text applies to ordinary itinerant gospel workers, not only vowed religious. |
| Orthodox | Resonates with the tradition of “unmercenary” ministry (cf. the “Unmercenary Physicians” among the saints); concern to avoid simony. | Risk of importing simony-specific canonical categories not present in the text. |
| Jewish | No direct doctrinal parallel, though broader wisdom teaching on gifts that create obligation (cf. Proverbs on bribes/favors) resonates loosely. | Minimal direct risk; care needed not to force a parallel that isn’t textually present. |
| Islamic | Loosely resonant with the principle that charitable giving should not compromise the integrity of da’wah (invitation to faith). | Risk of conflating “for the Name” with the formulaic invocation of divine names in Islamic devotional practice (asma al-husna); the two concepts are structurally different. |
| Hindu | Some resonance with the renunciation of worldly patronage among ascetics (sannyasi) for the sake of teaching purity. | Risk of framing “the Name” as an impersonal power source rather than a reference to Christ’s person and mission. |
| Filipino Dominant Traditions | Strong existing devotional vocabulary around invoking sacred names (novena prayers to saints, inscribed names on religious medals/amulets). | Highest risk in this doctrine: “Pangalan” (the Name) risks folk-devotional association with anting-anting-style name-invocation believed to carry supernatural power in itself, extending the baseline package’s already-flagged Holy-Spirit/anting-anting collision. Must anchor firmly to Christ’s person and mission, never to name-invocation as a power source. |
| Buddhist | Monastic vinaya rules traditionally restrict monks from directly handling money — a structural, though differently grounded, parallel concern for teacher/patron financial boundaries. | Risk of importing vinaya-style legalistic categories not present in the Johannine text. |
| Secular | Read as an ethics-of-independence or anti-corruption principle. | Risk of losing the specifically theological “for the sake of the Name” motivation entirely, reducing it to institutional transparency policy. |
Agreement/divergence summary: This doctrine carries the single sharpest syncretism risk in the curriculum for the Filipino context, compounding two separate collisions: the ethnikoi (pejorative “Gentiles/pagans,” distinct from Romans’ neutral “mga Hentil”) and “the Name,” which intersects directly with the baseline’s already-documented anting-anting/name-invocation folk practice. Every occurrence requires the theologian-review teaching note the doctrine risk registry specifies.
3. Imitating Good rather than Evil
Primary passage: 3 John 1:11
| Tradition | Interpretation / Emphasis | Sensitive Terminology / Misunderstanding Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Protestant | Emphasis on imitation of Christlike character evidenced in real, named believers (Gaius, Demetrius) as models for moral formation. | Risk of moralizing into bare self-help “be a good example” teaching, losing the God-knowledge connection in v.11b. |
| Catholic | Strong existing framework of imitatio sanctorum — imitation of canonized saints’ lives as a devotional discipline. | High risk: “tularan” collides directly with this established devotional category, which is typically directed toward a venerated, often intercessory figure. |
| Orthodox | Imitation of saints and monastic elders (startsy) as living spiritual mentors. | Same collision risk as Catholic tradition — imitation language attaches easily to veneration categories. |
| Jewish | Imitatio Dei and imitation of righteous teachers (tzadikim) is a well-established ethical framework. | Risk minimal; strong structural resonance, though grounding differs (Torah-observance model vs. Johannine God-knowledge model). |
| Islamic | Following the example (sunnah) of the Prophet and righteous companions is a foundational ethical-legal category. | Risk of assuming a Prophet-imitation model where the text instead points to imitation of ordinary lay believers’ visible conduct. |
| Hindu | Guru-shishya tradition emphasizes imitation of the guru’s conduct as spiritual practice. | Risk of importing a guru-veneration frame; 3 John’s models are ordinary church members, not gurus. |
| Filipino Dominant Traditions | Existing devotional practice: pagtularan sa buhay ng mga santo (imitating the life of the saints), often paired with intercessory prayer to the same figure. | High risk, requires theologian review: this doctrine calls for ethical imitation of ordinary, observable conduct of named individuals in the letter’s own narrative, not devotional veneration of a sanctified/intercessory figure. A clarifying teaching note is mandatory wherever “tularan” occurs. |
| Buddhist | Imitation of the Buddha’s path and virtuous monks/arhats as models toward enlightenment. | Risk of importing a liberation-from-samsara goal where the text’s goal is covenant fellowship and knowledge of a personal God. |
| Secular | General moral-exemplar theory (“follow good role models”). | Risk of stripping the transcendent grounding of v.11b (“whoever does evil has not seen God”), reducing it to social-modeling psychology. |
Agreement/divergence summary: Imitation-of-exemplars is a nearly universal ethical category, but the Filipino context carries the sharpest specific collision because of the established, devotionally loaded phrase pagtularan sa buhay ng mga santo. Translators must keep “tularan” tethered to the letter’s own named, ordinary believers, not the parallel devotional category.
4. Church Leadership and Pride (Diotrephes)
Primary passages: 3 John 1:9, 1:10
| Tradition | Interpretation / Emphasis | Sensitive Terminology / Misunderstanding Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Protestant | Paradigmatic warning against authoritarian, self-serving church leadership; frequently preached as a leadership-accountability text calling for servant leadership. | Risk of over-generalizing into anti-institutional rhetoric untethered from the specific abuse described. |
| Catholic | Read alongside teaching on legitimate ecclesial hierarchy and magisterial authority. | Risk of the critique being misread as opposition to hierarchical church structure itself rather than to abuse of a legitimate office. |
| Orthodox | Concerned with humility among clergy/bishops; monastic tradition stresses obedience and humility as the corrective virtue. | Same risk as Catholic — must distinguish critique of pride from critique of the eldership office. |
| Jewish | Parallels rabbinic warnings against communal leaders who pursue honor (rodef kavod) rather than communal service. | Minimal risk; strong structural resonance. |
| Islamic | Parallels warnings against leadership sought for status/riya’ (ostentation) rather than sincere service, contrasted with the ideal of the servant-leader (imam/amir). | Minimal risk; strong structural resonance. |
| Hindu | Less direct doctrinal parallel; some resonance with critique of ego (ahamkara) as a spiritual obstacle, including among religious authorities/gurus. | Risk of over-philosophizing a concrete pastoral-conduct problem into an abstract ego-metaphysics discussion. |
| Filipino Dominant Traditions | Cultural emphasis on hierarchical respect (paggalang sa nakatataas) and patron-client leadership loyalty (reinforced by utang na loob dynamics). | High risk, requires theologian review: legitimate cultural respect for church leaders/elders could be conflated with tolerating Diotrephes-style self-serving control. Philoprōteuōn must clearly name illegitimate, self-serving ambition, distinct from the legitimate office of matanda (elder) affirmed positively elsewhere in the same letter; ekballō (“cast out”) must be distinguished from any legitimate biblical church-discipline process. |
| Buddhist | Resonance with warnings against monks seeking status/reputation rather than practicing non-attachment; conceit (māna) is named among the fetters to be overcome. | Minimal risk; structural resonance without theological collision. |
| Secular | Read as a generic critique of institutional power abuse or narcissistic leadership. | Risk of losing theological grounding — accountability before God and within the church as God’s household, not merely an organizational-behavior problem. |
Agreement/divergence summary: Every tradition surveyed recognizes leadership-pride as a moral failing, giving broad cross-cultural intelligibility to the critique itself. The Filipino-specific risk is structural: hierarchical-respect and patron-client cultural norms make it easy to under-read Diotrephes’s behavior as merely strong leadership rather than the illegitimate abuse the text names it as.
5. Commendation of Faithful Witness (Demetrius)
Primary passage: 3 John 1:12
| Tradition | Interpretation / Emphasis | Sensitive Terminology / Misunderstanding Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Protestant | Model of a well-attested, doctrinally sound believer; public testimony/reputation matters for recognized ministry credibility. | Minimal risk; straightforward reading within Protestant ecclesiology. |
| Catholic | Some resonance with the process of gathering testimony of a person’s reputation for virtue (as in canonization causes). | Risk of over-reading Demetrius’s commendation as a canonization-like process; the text commends present conduct, not sainthood status. |
| Orthodox | Resonance with communal recognition of a person’s spiritual reputation prior to ordination or elevation to eldership. | Risk of importing formal ordination-vetting categories not present in the text. |
| Jewish | Parallel to the strong value placed on communal reputation — having a “good name” (shem tov). | Minimal risk; strong structural resonance. |
| Islamic | Parallels the concept of a trustworthy witness (shahid/‘adl) whose testimony is legally and morally reliable, and the broader emphasis on good character (akhlaq). | Risk of conflating this ordinary character commendation with the specific Islamic legal category of formal witness testimony. |
| Hindu | Some resonance with the assessment of a teacher’s or disciple’s character/reputation (dharma), though framed within a different soteriological system. | Minimal risk; loose structural resonance only. |
| Filipino Dominant Traditions | Strong cultural value on maintaining a “magandang pangalan” (good name/reputation) within the community, shared across Catholic and Evangelical Filipino culture. | High risk, requires theologian review: the deliberate positive/negative contrast with Diotrephes must not be softened. Also, alēthēs (true, simple factual-accuracy) must be kept distinct from alētheia (katotohanan, the letter’s thicker theological theme), so the two are not collapsed into one undifferentiated idea. |
| Buddhist | Resonance with communal verification of a monk’s conduct/reputation within the sangha prior to recognition or advancement. | Minimal risk; structural resonance without theological collision. |
| Secular | Read as a simple character reference or letter of recommendation. | Risk of losing the ecclesial-authentication function tied to truth itself “bearing witness” (v.12), reducing it to ordinary praise. |
Agreement/divergence summary: Reputation-based commendation is broadly intelligible across traditions. The translation-critical point specific to this curriculum is preserving Demetrius as Diotrephes’s deliberate narrative counterweight — softening either figure’s portrayal breaks the letter’s rhetorical structure.
6. Truth and Christian Fellowship
Primary passages: 3 John 1:1, 1:3–4, 1:6, 1:14
| Tradition | Interpretation / Emphasis | Sensitive Terminology / Misunderstanding Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Protestant | Truth as core gospel content binding believers in genuine fellowship (koinōnia), not merely social affection. | Minimal risk; consistent with the baseline package’s existing “fellowship” (pagsasamahan) entry. |
| Catholic | Truth linked to the deposit of faith safeguarded by the Church’s teaching authority (magisterium); fellowship expressed through sacramental communion. | Risk of narrowing “truth” to institutional/magisterial teaching authority rather than the gospel content the letter has in view. |
| Orthodox | Truth tied to right doctrine (orthodoxia) and fellowship expressed through liturgical communion; strong emphasis on unity in right belief and shared worship. | Risk of over-liturgizing a relationship the text presents in simple personal/pastoral terms. |
| Jewish | Truth (emet) as a core divine attribute and covenantal value binding the community (kehillah) through shared Torah observance. | Minimal risk; strong resonance, though the specifically Christ-centered content of “truth” in 3 John must remain clear. |
| Islamic | Truth (haqq) as a central divine attribute; brotherhood (ukhuwwah) among believers grounded in shared submission to Allah’s revealed truth. | Risk of assuming a shared theological referent for “truth”; 3 John’s truth is specifically the gospel concerning Christ. |
| Hindu | Truth (satya) as a cardinal virtue; fellowship/community (satsang, “company of truth”) gathered around a shared teacher or truth-pursuit. | Risk of reading “truth” as an impersonal ultimate reality (akin to Brahman) rather than a personal, revealed message about Christ. |
| Filipino Dominant Traditions | Both Catholic and Evangelical Filipino culture place strong value on relational bonds and truthful character (katapatan); “pag-ibig”/“minamahal” are everyday vocabulary. | High risk, requires theologian review: love language (agapē/agapaō) risks romantic-love connotations or reciprocal utang na loob framing, mirroring the baseline’s grace/utang-na-loob concern. The letter also distinguishes fictive kinship (“mga kapatid”) from personal friendship (“mga kaibigan,” v.14); flattening these loses a distinction the text itself draws. |
| Buddhist | Fellowship (sangha) bound by shared practice and teaching (dharma); truth (satya/dharma) understood impersonally as the nature of reality rather than a personal, revealed message. | Risk of importing an impersonal-truth framework where the text presents truth as inseparable from a personal relationship with Christ. |
| Secular | Truth reduced to factual accuracy or personal authenticity; fellowship reduced to social community or networking. | Risk of losing the theological grounding of truth and fellowship in shared participation in Christ. |
Agreement/divergence summary: “Truth” and “fellowship” as abstract values are recognized across every tradition surveyed, but the specifically Christ-centered, covenantal content 3 John gives both terms is not automatically supplied by any parallel tradition’s vocabulary. The Filipino-specific risk is the love-language collision already flagged at the baseline level for grace, now recurring here for agapē/agapaō.
7. Pastoral Authority and Spiritual Fatherhood
Primary passages: 3 John 1:1, 1:4
| Tradition | Interpretation / Emphasis | Sensitive Terminology / Misunderstanding Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Protestant | ”Elder” (presbyteros) recognized as a pastoral-oversight office distinct from Catholic/Orthodox sacramental clerical orders; spiritual fatherhood as pastoral relationship, not sacramental paternity. | Minimal risk within Protestant frameworks; risk arises mainly in cross-tradition comparison (see Catholic/Orthodox rows). |
| Catholic | Risk of conflating “elder” with ordained priesthood (pari) or clerical titles carrying sacramental authority (absolution, Eucharist). | ”Spiritual children” language resonates with godparent (ninong/ninang) or priest-parishioner relationships; must be distinguished from those sacramental categories. |
| Orthodox | Similar conflation risk with ordained priesthood and the monastic “spiritual father” (starets) tradition, which carries specific confession/direction functions beyond 3 John’s simpler pastoral-relational sense. | Risk of importing starets-level spiritual authority into a term the text uses more simply. |
| Jewish | Resonance with the rabbi-community relationship and mentorship; “elder” (zaken) carries specific communal/legal authority in Jewish tradition. | Minimal risk; structural resonance without major collision. |
| Islamic | Resonance with the sheikh/imam pastoral-teaching role, and the Sufi murid-murshid (disciple-spiritual guide) mentorship relationship. | Risk of importing tariqa-specific spiritual-authority structures not present in the text. |
| Hindu | Strong resonance with the guru as spiritual father figure. | Risk is significant: guru relationships often carry a more exalted, quasi-divine authority than 3 John’s collegial “elder” writing to a fellow believer as “beloved.” |
| Filipino Dominant Traditions | ”Matanda” (elder) names a recognized office of pastoral authority, not merely advanced age. | Medium risk, native speaker review: must not be confused with Catholic clerical titles (pari, obispo). “Mga anak” (spiritual children) must be kept distinct from the baseline’s pag-ampon (adoption into God’s family) doctrine — this names a pastor-to-disciple relationship, not legal sonship before God. |
| Buddhist | Resonance with the teacher-disciple (upajjhaya) relationship within monastic ordination lineage. | Minimal risk; structural resonance without theological collision. |
| Secular | ”Elder” read simply as an older or respected community member, without recognized doctrinal authority. | Risk of losing the specific pastoral-office sense the term carries in the text. |
Agreement/divergence summary: Every tradition surveyed has some teacher/elder-mentorship category, but the specific risk for Filipino translation is conflation with existing, well-defined clerical titles (pari, obispo) that carry sacramental functions 3 John’s “elder” does not.
8. Testimony and Reputation within the Church
Primary passages: 3 John 1:2, 1:3, 1:6
| Tradition | Interpretation / Emphasis | Sensitive Terminology / Misunderstanding Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Protestant | Emphasis on verifiable, public testimony of character/doctrine as the basis for ministry confidence. | Minimal risk; straightforward. |
| Catholic | Some resonance with formal ecclesial processes verifying reputation (seminary formation reports, canonization testimony). | Risk of over-formalizing a simple pastoral commendation into a quasi-canonical process. |
| Orthodox | Resonance with communal discernment of a person’s spiritual state before entrusting responsibility. | Risk of importing formal discernment-process categories not present in the text. |
| Jewish | Reputation (shem tov) as a valued communal asset; testimony carries legal weight (the two/three-witnesses principle, Deuteronomy 19:15), resonating with the letter’s testimony language. | Minimal risk; strong structural resonance. |
| Islamic | Testimony (shahada/shahid) carries strong legal and theological weight. | Risk of conflating ordinary character testimony with the specific Islamic legal/creedal concept of shahada (the confession of faith); the two are structurally different. |
| Hindu | Less direct parallel; some resonance with a disciple’s reputation within a guru-lineage community. | Minimal risk; loose structural resonance only. |
| Filipino Dominant Traditions | Reputation and testimony are highly socially significant, shared across Catholic and Evangelical Filipino culture. | Medium risk, native speaker review: “kaluluwa” (soul, v.2) carries a folk-associative risk of a wandering spirit or ghost (multo) rather than ongoing spiritual well-being; a clarifying note is needed that it refers to Gaius’s spiritual health, not a disembodied spirit. |
| Buddhist | Resonance with the sangha’s communal verification of a monk’s practice and conduct. | Minimal risk; structural resonance without theological collision. |
| Secular | Reputation reduced to social capital or personal branding. | Risk of losing the theological grounding of witness pointing to truth itself, not merely favorable opinion. |
Agreement/divergence summary: Public, verifiable testimony as a basis for communal trust is broadly recognized. The specific Filipino risk is narrower and more linguistic than doctrinal: “kaluluwa” needs a clarifying note to avoid folk-spirit associations, distinct from the doctrinal collisions found elsewhere in this document.
9. Spiritual Perception of God through Conduct
Primary passage: 3 John 1:11
| Tradition | Interpretation / Emphasis | Sensitive Terminology / Misunderstanding Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Protestant | Classic Johannine idiom: genuine relational knowledge of God is evidenced by conduct (cf. 1 John), not claims of vision or religious experience. | Minimal risk within Protestant frameworks; risk concentrates in cross-tradition rows below. |
| Catholic | Resonance with sacramental theology (encountering God through visible signs/sacraments), but must not be read as implying literal visual beholding of God is normally possible. | Risk of conflating “seeing God” with sacramental encounter categories not in view in this verse. |
| Orthodox | Strong resonance with theosis and apophatic theology — God is beheld in his energies/works, not his essence. | Risk of importing mystical theoria (contemplative vision) categories where the verse is making a simpler ethical-relational point. |
| Jewish | Resonance with the principle that no one can see God’s face and live (Exodus 33:20), and that God is known through obedience to Torah/right action. | Minimal risk; strong structural resonance. |
| Islamic | Strong resonance with tawhid theology, in which God is utterly transcendent and not visually perceivable in this life; right conduct evidences true submission (islam) to God. | Minimal risk; strong structural resonance. |
| Hindu | Many traditions affirm direct vision (darshan) of the divine through murtis/avatars as a central devotional practice. | Risk of the verse being read as contradicting or engaging that framework; 3 John’s idiom addresses relational knowledge evidenced by conduct, not the general possibility of divine visibility. |
| Filipino Dominant Traditions | Devotional culture emphasizing visual/tactile encounter with the divine through images (e.g., the Santo Niño) and reported apparitions. | Medium risk, native speaker review: risk of a literalistic reading given this devotional backdrop. A teaching note is needed clarifying this is an idiom for relational knowledge evidenced by conduct, not a statement about the possibility or impossibility of visionary/image-mediated encounter with the divine. |
| Buddhist | Many Buddhist traditions are non-theistic; the verse may be read through an ethical-consequentialist lens (right action reflects right understanding) without a personal-God dimension. | Risk of losing the verse’s personal-God referent if translated through a purely impersonal-ethics lens. |
| Secular | Read as a purely humanistic ethical claim (“actions speak louder than words”). | Risk of stripping the verse of its theological ground in actual relational knowledge of a personal God. |
Agreement/divergence summary: Most theistic traditions surveyed (Jewish, Islamic, Orthodox) already affirm God’s fundamental invisibility/transcendence, giving this idiom broad theological compatibility. The specific Filipino risk is devotional-cultural rather than doctrinal: a culture accustomed to visually and tactilely mediated encounters with the sacred (images, apparitions) needs an explicit note that this verse is about conduct-evidenced relational knowledge, not a claim about visionary experience generally.
Summary Table: Doctrines Requiring Highest Translation Vigilance for Filipino
| Doctrine | Primary Filipino-Specific Collision | Registry Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Missionary Financial Integrity and the Name | ”Pangalan” ↔ folk name-invocation (anting-anting parallel) | High |
| Imitating Good rather than Evil | ”Tularan” ↔ saint-veneration devotional practice | High |
| Truth and Christian Fellowship | Agapē/agapaō ↔ romantic love / utang na loob | High |
| Hospitality to Traveling Ministers | Propempō ↔ generic pakikisama courtesy | High |
| Church Leadership and Pride | Philoprōteuōn/ekballō ↔ hierarchical-respect and patron-client norms | High |
| Commendation of Faithful Witness | Positive/negative contrast with Diotrephes must not soften | High |
This document must be loaded alongside analysis/08_core_glossary.md, analysis/11_doctrine_analysis.md, assets/doctrine_risk_registry.json, and the baseline Romans Language Package before any Phase 2 translation of 3 John curriculum materials.