THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN
THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN
[Sidenote: The Author.]
The authenticity of this Epistle is bound up with the authenticity of
St. John's Gospel. Like the Gospel, it does not contain any statement
as to the name of the author. Like the Gospel, it is attributed by a
very ancient tradition to the nearest friend of Jesus Christ. The
external evidence is particularly good. We learn from the
unimpeachable testimony of Eusebius[1] that it was used by Papias, who
was a disciple of St. John. Polycarp, another disciple of St. John,
directly quotes 1 John iv. 3 in his still extant letter. It is quoted
by Irenaeus, the pupil of Polycarp, and was recognized as genuine in
widely distant Churches at the close of the 2nd century.
The internal evidence shows that the writer claims to be an eye-witness
and intimate personal friend of Jesus Christ (i. 1-3).[2] And this
eye-witness must be St. John, if the fourth Gospel was written by St.
John. The style is similar, and the ideas are the same. It is true
that Christ is not called our "propitiation" in the Gospel as in this
Epistle (ii. 2; iv. 10), that in the Gospel there is no mention of
"antichrists" (as in {256} ii. 8), and that the word "Paraclete" is in
the Gospel applied to the Holy Ghost, while it is here applied to our
Lord (ii. 1). But the idea of propitiation is expressed in the
description of our Lord as "the Lamb of God" (John i. 29), the mention
of antichrists is uncalled for in the Gospel, and by naming the Holy
Ghost "another Paraclete" our Lord gave St. John the best possible
reason for calling Christ Himself by the same title. The description
of our Lord as "the only begotten Son" (iv. 9) is an important point of
contact with John i. 14, 18. The language about "light" and
"darkness," "God" and "the world," the "new commandment," the "love" of
God, being "born of God," "eternal life," "abiding in Christ," recalls
the Gospel at every turn.
The Epistle, however, does contain some phrases and ideas which are not
to be found in the Gospel. Such are "love perfected," "a sin unto
death," "the lust of the eyes," "to come in the flesh," "to walk in the
light," "to do lawlessness," "to be from above." Yet they fit quite
naturally with the language and theology of the Gospel. Therefore
there does not seem to be any sufficient reason for holding that it was
the work of another writer. F. C. Baur and Hilgenfeld thought it to be
the work of a second forger of that mysterious band to which they
attributed such versatility and success. And several more recent
critics who have denied the authenticity of the Gospel, have maintained
with Baur that the Epistle is the work of a second forger. But these
negations have led to no assured result. They are seen to be fruitless
as soon as we realize that these critics have been quite unable to
agree whether the Epistle was composed before the Gospel or after it.
Some consider that it was a theological balloon sent to try the
credulity of Christian readers before the Gospel was despatched.
Others consider that there are "overwhelming indications" to prove that
the Epistle is only a poor imitation of the Gospel. Renan and Davidson
favoured the former view, F. C. Baur and C. Weizsäcker the latter. At
the present time the majority {257} of critics, both Christian and
non-Christian, believe that it was written by the writer of the fourth
Gospel.
[Sidenote: To whom written.]
It seems to be a pastoral letter addressed to all the members of the
apostle's flock, intended therefore for the Christians of Asia in and
around Ephesus. It is a strange fact that St. Augustine, in quoting
iii. 2, describes the passage as "said by John in his Epistle to the
_Parthians_." This statement is a riddle which no commentator has been
able to answer satisfactorily. As the Eastern Churches had little or
no knowledge of this title, we are compelled to regard it as a mistake.
It may have arisen from some scribe failing to read a partially
illegible manuscript in which St. John may have been given the title of
_parthenos_ or virgin. But it is most likely that it arose from a
confusion with the Second Epistle, which was thought in the time of
Clement of Alexandria to be addressed to _parthenoi_ or virgins. The
absence of quotations from the Old Testament, and the command "guard
yourselves from idols" (v. 21), solemnly given at the very end of the
Epistle, suggest that the recipients of the letter were converts from
heathenism. The Christians of Ephesus, the mother-city of Asiatic
idolatry, were peculiarly in need of such an exhortation.
[Sidenote: Where and when written.]
We can hardly doubt that it was written at Ephesus, where the apostle
spent his last years. The assertion that St. John did not live at
Ephesus is in direct contradiction with the best and earliest
traditions. But it has been repeated at intervals during the last
sixty years by several critics, who found that they would be compelled
to admit the genuineness of the Revelation if they granted that St.
John lived at Ephesus, where the Revelation was evidently published.[3]
Against such criticism we can confidently marshal the express and
independent statements of Apollonius of Ephesus (A.D. 196), Polycrates
of Ephesus (A.D. 190), {258} Irenaeus of Lyons (A.D. 185), Clement of
Alexandria (A.D. 190), Tertullian of Carthage (A.D. 200), not to
mention some valuable indirect evidence of earlier date. If we are to
reject such evidence as this, the science of history must be laid in
the tomb.
The question as to the exact date is very important for those who
believe that the Epistle was not written by the author of the Gospel.
They are involved in the most intricate questions about the
reproduction of the Gospel in the Epistle or of the Epistle in the
Gospel. For those who do not believe in a diversity of authorship the
problem is far less vital. The apostle was evidently advanced in
years. He includes all his people under the affectionate name "my
little children" (ii. 1). On the whole, it seems probable that it was
written rather later than the Gospel. This is suggested by the
teaching about the second coming of Christ. Both in the Gospel and in
the Epistle we find mentioned or implied a present and a future passing
from death to life, and a spiritual presence of Christ now and another
hereafter. But in the Epistle it is the future coming of Christ which
is more prominent (ii. 28; iii. 2; iv. 17). In the Revelation, A.D.
96, it is still more prominent. The Epistle suggests that St. John's
readers were already acquainted with the discourses in his Gospel. The
heresy described, and the fact that the heretics are already _outside_
the Church, point to a comparatively late date. We can hardly place it
before A.D. 85.
[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]
This Epistle contains no reference to any outward dangers. Domitian's
persecution had not yet affected the Church, and the controversy with
Judaism had closed. There is no trace of any conflict between Jew and
Gentile, and St. John, in asserting the truth of the incarnation of the
Son of God, is not opposing any heresy resembling that of those
semi-Christian Jews of the 2nd century who declared Christ to be
_merely_ the best of men. He is combating a form of error taught by
Cerinthus, who said that {259} Jesus was a man born of Joseph and Mary,
and that on this man there descended a divine element named Christ, who
left him before the crucifixion. Thus _Christ_ never suffered, though
the _Jesus_ who seemed to be Christ did suffer. In face of these false
views St. John asserts the truth. He asserts that One who is both
Jesus and Christ came in the flesh (iv. 2), and that He came, that is,
was manifested as Christ, both in the water of His baptism and the
blood of His cross (v. 6). By this blood He cleanses man from sin (i.
7). We may be sure of His help, for He lives as our Advocate with the
Father. To deny that Jesus is the Christ is to deny the Father, to
deny God altogether (ii. 22; iv. 3). St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp
inveigh in similar language against the Docetists, who flourished
between A.D. 110 and 120. It is important to notice that St. John's
opponents do not appear to have been Antinomian in conduct. He says,
"Every one that doeth sin, doeth also lawlessness; and sin is
lawlessness" (iii. 4). If he had been blaming Antinomianism it would
have been more natural to say, "Every one that doeth lawlessness, doeth
also sin."
The main theme of the Epistle is not controversial. It is to show that
in faith and love is the guarantee of our fellowship with God and of
our salvation. Since this fellowship implies that He abides in us, it
may be recognized by His Spirit being in us (iii. 24). This Spirit is
distinguished from the spirit of error by the confession of Christ; so
to hear the apostle's teaching about Christ is a sign of the presence
of God within us. The moral and the religious life are summed up in
the words "God" and "Love," and those who love one another are born of
God. Love in action corresponds with a confession of the incarnation
in the intellect (iv. 7-12). It is wholly incompatible with sin (iii.
6), and is therefore righteous towards God and man. Every one who, as
a child of God, hopes to grow like God, purifies himself as Christ is
pure. He cannot love the world, which is a system of selfishness. St.
John speaks of the possibility of committing a "sin unto death." This
{260} is an old Jewish expression for a sin deserving natural death.
But the apostle lifts the phrase to a higher level and slightly alters
it. His words literally mean "a sin tending unto death." It is any
sin which by its very nature excludes a man from fellowship with
Christians. It is a sin which requires chastisement before
forgiveness, and St. John does not enjoin, though he does not forbid,
prayer for those whose sin makes them unable to share in the privileges
of the common life of the Church.
Behind the practical teaching of the Epistle lies that great conception
of the Father which the writer had gained from intercourse with the
only-begotten Son. God is _Love_ (iv. 8, 16), and has given us the
greatest of all gifts (iv. 9); God is _Light_ (i. 5), and dispels all
moral darkness (i. 6); God is _Life_ (v. 20), imparting His own
existence to man (iii. 9); God is _Father_ (ii. 1; iii. 1)--though our
relationship with Him is forfeited by sin, perfect and fearless
intimacy may be gained through Christ (iv. 15, 18).
ANALYSIS
A promise to impart knowledge of the incarnate Word; God is Light,
fellowship with God and forgiveness of sin (i.).
Christ our propitiation, love of our brother a necessary condition of
walking in the light, messages to children, fathers, young men, the
love of the world, Antichrist and the denial of Christ, abiding in the
Son and in the Father (ii.).
The love of God in calling us His children, the manifestation of Christ
to take away sin, love of our brother the sign that we are spiritually
changed, to believe in Christ and love one another the commandment of
God (iii.).
Acknowledgment of the incarnation is the test of spirits, to love one
another is to be like God, perfect love loses fear (iv.).
Faith in the incarnation overcomes the world, the three {261} witnesses
to the incarnation, eternal life possessed if we have the Son, prayer,
freedom from sin, knowledge through Jesus, who is the true God and
eternal life (v.).
THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN
[Sidenote: The Author.]
The writer does not insert his name in the Epistle, but simply
describes himself as "the elder." Some writers have therefore supposed
that it was written by the presbyter named John, who lived at Ephesus
about the close of the apostolic age. But Irenaeus, who was not likely
to be mistaken in such a matter, certainly regarded it as the work of
the apostle, and the _Muratorian Fragment_ apparently so regards it.
Clement of Alexandria was certainly acquainted with more than one
Epistle by St. John, and a Latin translation of his _Hypotyposes_
definitely says, "the Second Epistle of John, written to virgins, is
very simple." Moreover, the title "elder" or "presbyter" is by no
means incompatible with apostolic authorship. St. Peter in 1 Pet. v. 1
expressly describes himself by this title, nor does the title appear to
have become confined to the presbyters or priests of the Church until
about A.D. 200. The similarity to the First Epistle is strong, seven
of the thirteen verses having parallels in the First Epistle. If the
Epistle were a forgery, it is probable that the writer would have
claimed to be an apostle in unmistakable language. And if the author
were not a forger, but the presbyter who was for some years a
contemporary of the apostle, it is hardly likely that he would have
been content to write this diminutive letter, which does little more
than sum up part of the First Epistle. The language of the Second
Epistle bears almost the same relation to that of the first as the
first bears to that of the Gospel. There is a fundamental likeness
combined with a few fresh expressions, such as "walk _according to_,"
"_coming_ in the flesh" instead of "come in the flesh," "to have God."
{262}
[Sidenote: To whom written.]
"Unto the elect lady and her children." The interpretation of these
words is a notorious difficulty. At first sight the "lady" would be
supposed to be a private individual. But if so, why is not the
individual's name mentioned, like the name of the recipient of the
Third Epistle? Perhaps it is mentioned, for the words translated "the
elect lady" may mean "the elect Kyria." The "house" of the lady (ver.
10) also suggests that the lady is an individual. On the other hand,
it has been supposed that the lady is a symbolical name for a local
_Church_. In favour of this interpretation is the fact that the writer
speaks, not only of the children of the lady who are with her, but also
of others whom he has met (ver. 4), and in a manner which suggests a
large number of persons. The same interpretation can be put upon the
"elect sister" mentioned in the last verse of the Epistle. Writers of
deserved repute accept this symbolical interpretation. But when a
literal meaning and a symbolical meaning are supported by equally good
arguments, it seems prudent to accept the simpler, _i.e._ the literal
interpretation. It is hard to believe that St. Jerome and Hilgenfeld
are right in thinking that it is addressed to the whole Catholic
Church. This is surely excluded by the mention of an "elect sister."
[Sidenote: Where and when written.]
Probably from Ephesus, and the contents suggest that it was written
later than the first Epistle.
[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]
The letter contains an affectionate expression of happiness due to the
steadfast Christianity of the children of the "elect lady." But its
main object is to utter a warning against the deceivers who deny that
Christ is "come in the flesh." These deceivers were evidently
Docetists. In order to appreciate the necessity for such a warning we
must remember the extraordinary attraction which many persons who liked
a _dilettante_ Christianity found in the theory that Christ was a
divine Spirit who clothed Himself with flesh in which He did not
suffer. At the close of the apostolic age, and {263} for many
generations afterwards, orthodox Christianity was often regarded as too
materialistic for advanced thinkers. They endeavoured to make
Christianity keep pace with the times by infusing into it the decadent
Greek or Oriental mysticism which depreciated our human body.
ANALYSIS
Salutation, thanksgiving for certain of the elect lady's children,
reminder of the commandments to love and obey, the deceivers who deny
the incarnation not to be welcomed; the writer, expecting to visit his
correspondents, closes his letter.
THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN
[Sidenote: The Author.]
It is generally admitted, both by those who deny and those who accept
the authenticity of the works of St. John, that this Epistle was
written by the author of 2 John. It presents several close parallels
both with 2 John and with the Gospel. Its obviously private character
accounts for the fact that it is seldom quoted in early literature. It
is found in the Old Latin version of the New Testament, though not in
the _Muratorian Fragment_. It was known to Origen and Dionysius of
Alexandria. Eusebius places it among the _Antilegomena_ (_H. E._ iii.
25), but it was generally accepted in the 4th century.
[Sidenote: To whom written.]
"Unto Gaius the beloved." The name was a common one, being a form of
the Latin "Caius." There is no reason for identifying this Gaius with
one of the persons of the same name who are mentioned as living in
Corinth, Macedonia, and Derbe respectively, all of whom may have been
dead at the late period when this letter was written. The Gaius of
this Epistle was evidently a faithful and hospitable Christian. Baur
displayed more than even his {264} usual powers of invention by
suggesting that Gaius was a Montanist of the latter part of the 2nd
century, and "Diotrephes" a symbolical name for one of the Catholic
bishops of Rome opposed to Montanism.
[Sidenote: Where and when written.]
Probably at Ephesus; subsequently to the First Epistle, and probably
very soon after the Second.
[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]
This little letter gives us a few brief glimpses of the life of the
Church near the end of the 1st century. The purpose of the letter is
to commend a Christian of good character, named Demetrius, to the
hospitable care of Gaius. It appears, therefore, to be one of those
"letters of commendation" which are mentioned by St. Paul in 2 Cor.
iii. 1, and were common in later times. By the side of this
pleasantness there is distress. Connected with the Church to which
Gaius belongs there is an ambitious schismatic named Diotrephes, who
refuses to admit the authority of the apostle. The fact that he was
guilty of casting the friends of the apostle out of the Church (ver.
10), suggests that Diotrephes was at least a presbyter, and perhaps a
bishop appointed by the apostle. We are told by Clement of Alexandria
that St. John appointed bishops in Asia, and there is no reason for
doubting that episcopacy dates back to this period. The apostle
evidently intends to punish Diotrephes for his malice when he visits
the district again. It is just possible that the letter to the Church
(ver. 9) which Diotrephes repudiated is our "Second Epistle" of St.
John. This theory will win acceptance with some of those who think
that the Second Epistle was not written to an individual, but to a
Church.
ANALYSIS
Salutations to Gaius, congratulations that he is walking in the truth,
his hospitality to travelling Christians, the tyranny of Diotrephes,
recommendation of Demetrius, personal matters.
[1] _H. E._ iii. 39.
[2] It is impossible to accept the recent Rationalist hypothesis that
these words were written by a pious Christian who had not seen Jesus,
but wished to emphasize the truth that the historical Church was
intimately connected with the historical Jesus.
[3] Among these critics must be numbered Lützelberger (1840), Keim
(1867), Bousset (1899).
{265}