THE CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
1. Seven epistles, that of James and the six that follow, are called
_Catholic_, that is, _general_ or _universal_, as not being directed to
any particular church. They were not all, however, addressed originally
to believers generally, but some of them to particular classes of
believers, or even to individuals, as the introductory words show.
I. EPISTLE OF JAMES.
2. The question respecting the _person_ of James who wrote this epistle
is one of great difficulty. That "James the Lord's brother," whom Paul
names as one of the apostles (Gal. 1:19), is identical with the James
mentioned by Luke in Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18, and is the author of the
present epistle, is admitted by most writers, though not by all. That
this James of Gal. 1:19 was the James who is named with Joses, Simon,
and Judas, as one of our Lord's brethren (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3), must
be received as certain. But whether he was identical with "James the son
of Alpheus," who was one of the twelve (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke
6:15; Acts 1:13), is a question which has been much discussed and on
which eminent biblical scholars are found arrayed on opposite sides. The
question turns very much on the interpretation of the words "brother,"
and "brethren" and "sisters," in the passages above referred to. If we
take them in their literal sense, as some do, then James the son of
Alpheus and James the Lord's brother are different persons. But others
understand them in the general sense of kindred or cousins, believing
that our Saviour was the only child of Mary. A statement at length of
the arguments and objections that are urged on both sides does not come
within the compass of the present work. Nor is it necessary. The author
of the present epistle is beyond all reasonable doubt the James who gave
the final opinion in the assembly of the apostles and elders at
Jerusalem (Acts 15:13-21), whom Paul names with Cephas and John as one
of the "pillars" there (Gal. 2:9), and who elsewhere appears as a man of
commanding influence in the church at Jerusalem (Acts 21:18; Gal. 2:12).
If any one doubts his identity with James the son of Alpheus, who was
one of the twelve, this cannot affect the canonical authority of the
epistle. The position of this James in the church at Jerusalem and his
relation to the apostolic college is such that, even upon the
supposition that he did not belong to the number of the twelve, his
writings must have to us the full weight of apostolic authority. See
above chap. 30, No. 42.
3. The _place_ where this epistle was written was manifestly Jerusalem,
where James always resided; and the _persons addressed_ are "the twelve
tribes who are in the dispersion" (chap. 1:1); that is, as the nature of
the case and the tenor of the epistle make manifest, that part of them
who had embraced Christianity. There is no allusion in the epistle to
Gentile believers.
_The dispersion_ is a technical term for the Jews living out of
Palestine among the Gentiles. We need not hesitate to understand
it here literally. The apostle _wrote_ to his Jewish brethren of
the dispersion because he could not visit them and superintend
their affairs as he could those of the Jewish Christians in and
around Jerusalem. Some take the term in a wider sense of the
Jewish Christians scattered abroad in and out of Palestine, but
this is not necessary.
4. With regard to the _date_ of this epistle also different opinions are
held. Some place it early in the history of the church--earlier, in
fact, than any other of the apostolic epistles--_before_ the origin of
the controversy respecting circumcision and the Mosaic law recorded in
Acts, chap. 15; others quite _late_, not long before the destruction of
Jerusalem by the Romans. The latter view best agrees with the contents
of the epistle. The doctrine of justification by faith, for which Paul
had contended, would naturally be abused precisely in the way here
indicated, by the substitution of a barren speculative faith, for the
true faith that works by love and purifies the heart and life from sin.
The age preceding the destruction of Jerusalem was one of abounding
wickedness, especially in the form of strife and faction. It had been
predicted by our Lord that the effect of this would be to chill the love
of many of his visible followers and withdraw them from his service. In
truth the descriptions of these unworthy members of the Jewish Christian
community which we find in this epistle, in the second of Peter, and in
that of Jude, are but the realization, in most particulars, of the state
of things foretold in the following remarkable words of the Saviour:
"And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and
shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall arise and shall
deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound the love of many shall
wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be
saved." Matt. 24:10-13.
5. For the _genuineness_ and _canonical_ authority of the present
epistle we have a very important testimony in the Old Syriac version
(Peshito), which represents the judgment of the Eastern churches where
the epistle was originally circulated. The remaining testimonies prior
to the fourth century are scanty and some of them not very decisive.
They may be all seen in Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament,
and in the critical commentaries generally.
It cannot be reasonably doubted that the words of Irenæus,
"Abraham himself, without circumcision and without the
observance of Sabbaths, believed in God, and it was counted to
him for righteousness, and he was called the friend of God"
(Against Heresies, 4.30), refer to James 2:23. Origen quotes the
epistle as "current under the name of James," and intimates that
some did not acknowledge its apostolic authority. But he
elsewhere cites it as that of "James the Lord's brother," "the
apostle James," "the apostle," and simply "James." See in
Kirchhofer Quellensamlung, pp. 263, 264. Eusebius reckons the
epistle among the books that were "disputed, but known
nevertheless to many." Hist. Eccl., 3, 25. Elsewhere he says:
"It is regarded as spurious; at least not many of the ancients
have made mention of it." Hist. Eccl., 2. 23. But these words
cannot be regarded as expressing Eusebius' own opinion; for he
himself quotes him as "the holy apostle," and his words as
"Scripture." See in Davidson's Introduction to the New
Testament, vol. 3, p. 336; Kirchhofer Quellensamlung, p. 264.
In the course of the fourth century the canonical authority of this
epistle was gradually more and more acknowledged, and in the fifth its
reception in the churches of both the East and the West became
universal.
"This is just what we might expect: a writing little known at
first, obtains a more general circulation, and the knowledge of
the writing and its reception go almost together. The contents
entirely befit the antiquity which the writing claims; no
_evidence_ could be given for rejecting it; it differs in its
whole nature from the foolish and spurious writings put forth in
the name of this James; and thus its gradual reception is to be
accounted for from its having, from early times, been known by
some to be genuine (as shown by the Syraic version), and this
knowledge being afterwards spread more widely." Tregelles in
Horne, vol. 4, chap. 25. Davidson suggests that differences of
opinion and perplexities respecting the number of the persons
called James in the apostolic period, and the relation they bore
to one another, and also the fact that the epistle was addressed
solely to Jewish Christians, may have made its early circulation
comparatively limited. Perhaps we may also add, as he does, its
apparent contrariety to the Pauline doctrine of justification by
faith, but this is by no means certain.
6. This epistle is eminently practical. If any part of it can be called
argumentative, it is that in which the apostle shows that "faith without
works is dead." Chap. 2:14-26. The sins which he rebukes with such
graphic vividness and power were all preëminently the sins of his
countrymen at that age--hearing God's word without doing it, resting in
an empty faith that does not influence the life, inordinate love of
worldly possessions and a self-confident spirit in the pursuit of them,
wanton revelling in worldly pleasures, partiality towards the rich and
contempt of the poor, defrauding the poor of their wages, ambition to
assume the office of teaching, censoriousness, a lawless and slanderous
tongue, bitter envying and strife, mutual grudging and murmuring, wars
and fightings; all these with an unbelieving and complaining spirit
towards God. But these are not merely Jewish vices. They are deeply
rooted in man's fallen nature, and many a nominal Christian community of
our day may see its own image by looking into the mirror of this
epistle.
The alleged disagreement between Paul and James is unfounded. Paul's
object is to show that the ground of men's justification is faith in
Christ, and not the merit of their good works. The object of James is to
show that faith without good works, like the body without the spirit, is
dead. Paul argues against dead works; James against dead faith. Here we
have no contradiction, but only two different views of truth that are in
entire harmony with each other, and both of which are essential to true
godliness.
II. EPISTLES OF PETER.
7. The First Epistle of Peter was unanimously received by the primitive
church as the genuine work of the man whose name it bears. Polycarp, in
his epistle to the Philippians, made numerous citations from it. It was
also referred to by Papias, according to the testimony of Eusebius.
Hist. Eccl. 3. 39. Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen,
etc. all quote it expressly. It is found in the Syriac Peshito version
which contains but three of the catholic epistles. It is wanting in the
Muratorian canon, but to this circumstance much weight cannot be
attached when we consider how dark and confused is the passage referring
to the catholic epistles.
8. _The readers_ addressed in the epistle are "the elect sojourners of
the dispersion, of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," all
provinces of Asia Minor. The words "sojourners"--or "strangers" as
rendered in our English version--and "dispersion" are both the
appropriate terms for the Jews living in dispersion. That the apostle,
in an introduction of this kind, should have used the word "sojourners"
in a simply figurative sense, to describe Christians as "pilgrims and
strangers on the earth," is very improbable, especially in immediate
connection with the word "dispersion," which must be understood
literally. We must rather understand the apostle as recognizing in the
Christian churches scattered throughout the world the true "Israel of
God," having for its framework the believing portion of the covenant
people, into which the Gentile Christians had been introduced through
faith, and thus made the children of Abraham. Compare Rom. 4:12-17; Gal.
3:7-9; and especially Rom. 11:17-24. Hence it comes to pass that while
Peter addresses them as the ancient people of God, he yet includes
Gentile Christians in his exhortations, as is manifest from various
passages, especially from chap. 4:3.
9. According to chap. 5:13 the _place_ from which this epistle was
written was Babylon. No valid reason exists why we should not understand
here the literal Babylon. The old opinion that the apostle used the word
enigmatically to signify Rome is nothing more than a conjecture in
itself improbable. It has been urged not without reason that Peter names
the provinces of Asia Minor in the order which would be natural to one
writing from Babylon; naming Pontus first, which lay nearest to Babylon,
and Asia and Bithynia, which were the most remote, last. The question of
the _date_ of this epistle is connected with that of its _occasion_.
This seems to have been a "fiery trial" of persecution that had already
begun to come upon the Christians of the provinces named in the
introductory address. Chaps. 1:6, 7; 2:12, 19, 20; 3:14, 16, 17; 4:1,
12-19; 5:9, 10. The exact date and character of this persecution cannot
be determined. The majority of commentators assign it to the latter
years of Nero's reign, which ended A.D. 68. The second epistle of Peter
was written not long before the apostle's death, and after the epistles
of Paul had become generally known in Asia Minor. As we cannot
reasonably separate the two epistles by a great space of time (see
below, No. 11), we infer that the first was written after Paul's first
imprisonment in Rome, say somewhere between A.D. 63 and 67.
10. The general tone of the first epistle is in harmony with its
occasion. The apostle seeks to animate and strengthen his brethren in
view of the "fiery trial" of persecution that had already begun to come
upon them. To this end he sets before them in glowing language the
greatness and glory of the heavenly inheritance in reserve for them,
which was purchased by the precious blood of Christ, and the dignity and
blessedness of suffering for Christ's sake, with the assurance of God's
faithful presence and protection. With these encouragements he
intermingles admonitions suited to their circumstances. He exhorts them
as strangers and pilgrims to abstain from fleshly lusts and all the
other vices of their former life in ignorance; to commend their religion
by a holy deportment which shall put to shame the calumnies of their
adversaries; to perform faithfully all the duties of their several
stations in life; to be humble, sober, vigilant, and ready always to
give a reason of their Christian hope; and above all things to have
fervent charity among themselves. The fervent spirit of the great
apostle of the circumcision, chastened and mellowed by age, shines forth
conspicuously in this epistle. The closing chapter, where he addresses
first the elders, then the younger, then the whole body of believers,
charms the reader by the holy tranquillity which pervades it
throughout--a tranquillity deeply grounded in that faith which is "the
substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
11. THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. The _address_ of this epistle is
general (chap. 1:1); yet the reference which it contains to the first
(chap. 3:1) shows that the apostle had in mind primarily the same circle
of churches. The character of this reference--"This second epistle,
beloved, I now write unto you, in which [two epistles] I stir up your
pure minds by way of reminding [you]"--indicates that the second was not
separated from the first by a very great space of _time_, certainly not
many years. The apostle wrote with the conviction that his decease was
near at hand (chap. 1:13-15). There is a tradition, the correctness of
which, however, is doubted by many, that he suffered martyrdom at Rome
under the persecution raised by Nero against the Christians. This would
be about A.D. 67. As to the _place_ from which the epistle was written
we have no information.
12. The present epistle is one of the _disputed_ books. Chap. 5, No. 7,
and Chap. 6. The question respecting its genuineness may be conveniently
considered under the two heads of _external_ and _internal_ evidence.
The _external_ testimony to the present epistle is scanty.
Passing by some doubtful references we come first to Origen who
says (in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., 6. 25): "But Peter, upon whom is
built the church of Christ, against which the gates of hell
shall not prevail, has left one acknowledged epistle; a second
also, if you will, for it is doubted of." In those of his works
which are extant only in the Latin version of Rufinus, Origen in
a number of passages quotes the present epistle as Scripture. It
has been suspected that these passages were interpolated by
Rufinus, who took many liberties with the text of Origen; but
one of them, which occurs at the beginning of his seventh homily
on Joshua, is so peculiar that we cannot well doubt that Origen
himself was its author. In allusion to the procession of priests
blowing with trumpets when the Israelites compassed the walls of
Jericho (Josh. chap. 6), he compares the writers of the New
Testament to so many sacerdotal trumpeters, assigning to them
trumpets for each book, and mentioning _every book_, as well the
disputed as the acknowledged: "First Matthew in his gospel, gave
a blast with his sacerdotal trumpet. Mark also, Luke, and John,
sounded with their single sacerdotal trumpets. Peter also sounds
aloud with the two trumpets of his epistles; James also, and
Jude. But John adds yet again to blow with the trumpet through
his epistles and Apocalypse; Luke, also, narrating the Acts of
the Apostles. But last of all that man came, who said: 'I think
that God has set forth us apostles last,' and thundering with
the fourteen trumpets of his epistles, overthrew to their
foundations the walls of Jericho, and all the engines of
idolatry and dogmas of philosophers." The "epistles" through
which the apostle John sounds are obviously his three epistles.
The "fourteen trumpets" upon which Paul blows include the
epistle to the Hebrews. In this remarkable passage, then, we
have an _exhaustive list_ of our present canonical books; and
there is no ground for imputing any interpolation to the
translator. It may be said, indeed, that this enumeration of the
books of the New Testament is made in a popular way, and does
not imply Origen's deliberate judgment that they were all of
apostolic authority. If this be granted, it still remains
evident from the form of the passage that _all the books of our
present canon were in current ecclesiastical use_ in Origen's
day, whatever doubts he may have had respecting some of them,
and that they constituted, along with the writings of the Old
Testament, that whole of divine revelation which the Christian
churches employed in assaulting the kingdom of Satan.
The testimony of Eusebius himself is of the same general import
as that of Origen--that the first epistle of Peter has been
universally acknowledged; but that the one current as the second
has not been received as a part of the New Testament; but yet,
appearing useful to many, has been studied with the other
Scriptures (Hist. Eccl., 3. 3); that among the writings which
are disputed, yet known to many, are the epistles current as
those of James and Jude, and the second epistle of Peter (Hist.
Eccl., 3. 25).
Jerome says that Peter "wrote two epistles that are called
catholic, of which the second is denied by most persons on
account of its disagreement in style with the first." Scrip.
Eccl., 1. But he himself received the epistle, and explained the
difference in style and character and structure of words by the
assumption that Peter used _different interpreters_ in the
composition of the two epistles (Epist. 120 ad Hedib., chap.
11); and from his time onward the epistle was generally regarded
as a part of the New Testament.
The reader who wishes to investigate farther the question of
external testimonies will find them all given in Davidson's
Introduct. to New Test.; and Alford's Commentary, Introduction
to 2 Peter. We simply repeat the remark already made (Chap. 6,
No. 3) that although the universal and undisputed reception of a
book by all the early churches cannot be explained except on the
assumption of its genuineness, its non-reception by some is no
conclusive argument against it. It may have remained (as seems
to have been peculiarly the case with some of the catholic
epistles) for a considerable period in obscurity. When it began
to be more extensively known, the general reception and use of
it would be a slow process both from the difficulty of
communication in ancient as compared with modern times, and
especially from the slowness and hesitancy with which the
churches of one region received anything new that came from
another region. Chap. 2, No. 5. Jerome does indeed mention the
objection from the difference of style between this epistle and
the first of Peter; but it is doubtful whether in this matter he
speaks for the early churches generally. The obscurity in which
the epistle had remained, partly at least because it was not
addressed to the guardianship of any particular church, seems to
have been the chief ground of doubt.
The _internal_ testimony for and against the genuineness of this
epistle has been discussed at great length by many writers. The
reader will find good summaries of them in the two works above
referred to, also in the critical commentaries generally and the
modern Bible dictionaries. If one would come to true results in
this field of investigation it is important that he begin with
true principles. There are what may be called _staple
peculiarities_, which mark the style of one writer as compared
with that of another--that of John, for example, in contrast
with that of Paul. We cannot conceive of these as being wanting.
But then we must allow to one and the same writer a considerable
range of variation in style and diction, dependent partly on
difference of subject matter, and partly on varying frames of
mind of which no definite account can be given. If one would be
convinced of this, he has only to read side by side the epistle
of Paul to the Romans and his second to the Corinthians.
Reserving now the second chapter of the present epistle for
separate consideration, we do not find in the two remaining
chapters, as compared with the first epistle, any such
fundamental differences of style and diction as can constitute a
just ground for denying the common authorship of the two
epistles. For the particulars, as well as for the examination of
other objections of an internal character, the reader must be
referred to the sources above named. It is certainly remarkable
that Peter should refer to the writings of Paul in such terms as
to class them with the "Scriptures" of the Old Testament. Chap.
3:16. But, as Alford remarks, this implies not that the canon of
the New Testament had been settled when the present epistle was
written, but only that "there were certain writings by Christian
teachers, which were reckoned on a level with the Old Testament
Scriptures, and called by the same name. And that that was not
the case, even in the traditional lifetime of Peter, it would be
surely unreasonable to deny." We close this part of the
discussion with the following words from the same author: "Our
general conclusion from all that has preceded must be in favor
of the genuineness and canonicity of this second epistle;
acknowledging at the same time, that the subject is not without
considerable difficulty. That difficulty however is lightened
for us by observing that on the one hand, it is common to this
epistle with some others of those called catholic, and several
of the later writings of the New Testament; and on the other,
that no difference can be imagined more markedly distinctive,
than that which separates all those writings from even the
earliest and best of the post-apostolic period. Our epistle is
one of those latter fruits of the great outpouring of the Spirit
on the apostles, which, not being intrusted to the custody of
any one church or individual, required some considerable time to
become generally known; which when known, were suspected,
bearing, as they necessarily did traces of their late origin,
and notes of polemical argument; but of which as apostolic and
inspired writings, there never was, when once they became known,
any general doubt; and which, as the sacred canon became fixed,
acquired, and have since maintained, their due and providential
place among the books of the New Testament."
13. The _object_ of the present epistle is to warn believers against
being led away with the error of the wicked so as to fall from their own
steadfastness. Chap. 3:17. It contains accordingly extended notices of
the gross errors in doctrine and morals which, as we know from the New
Testament, abounded in the Christian church near the close of the
apostolic period. The second chapter, which is occupied with a vivid
description of the false teachers that had "crept in unawares" (chap.
2:1; Jude 4), is very peculiar in its contents; and its agreement with
the epistle of Jude is of such a character as leads to the inference
that the two writings are somehow connected with each other. It has been
supposed that both writers drew from a common source unknown to us. More
probable is the opinion that one of them had in view the words of the
other. A comparison of the two writings will perhaps lead to the belief
that Jude's was the original, though on this point biblical scholars
differ. It matters not to us whether, under the guidance of the Holy
Spirit, Peter employed, in a free and independent way, the words of
Jude, or Jude those of Peter. Upon either supposition his writing is as
much inspired as if he had written independently. The most prominent
idea of Peter's first epistle is patience and steadfastness in the
endurance of suffering for Christ's sake; that of this second epistle is
caution against the seductions of false teachers. Thus each epistle
fills an important place in the entire economy of revelation.
III. EPISTLES OF JOHN.
14. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN bears throughout the impress of its
_authorship_. That it was written by the same man who wrote the fourth
gospel is too evident to be reasonably controverted. On this ground
alone its genuineness and authenticity may be regarded as established on
a firm basis. But the external testimonies to its authorship are also
abundant from Polycarp, the disciple of the apostle, and onward. It is
unnecessary to enumerate them. In respect to the _date_ of this epistle
we have no certain knowledge. The common opinion is that it was written
after the gospel, and towards the close of the first century. With this
supposition the contents agree. It contains the affectionate counsel of
an aged apostle to his younger brethren, whom he addresses as his
"little children." He writes, moreover, in "the last time," when,
according to the prediction of our Lord and his apostles, many
antichrists and false prophets are abroad in the world (chaps. 2:18;
4:1-3), and there are some who deny that Jesus Christ is come in the
flesh (chap. 4:2, 3). As to the _place_ of the apostle's writing, if we
follow ancient tradition, which makes Ephesus his home in his old age,
we may well believe that he wrote from that city, and that the epistle
was addressed primarily to the circle of churches which had Ephesus for
a centre.
Some of the ancients refer to the present epistle as written to
the _Parthians_. But this is a very improbable assumption, and
rests apparently on some mistake. The apostle evidently writes
to those who are under his spiritual care; and these are not the
Parthians, but the Christians of Asia, to whom also the seven
letters of the Apocalypse are addressed.
15. The epistle has unity throughout, but not the unity of systematic
logical arrangement. Its unity consists rather in the fact that all its
thoughts revolve around one great central truth, _the incarnation of the
Son of God in the person of Jesus Christ for the salvation of the
world_. With this truth he begins, and he affirms it authoritatively, as
one of the primitive apostolic witnesses: "That which we have seen and
heard declare we unto you." Chaps. 1:3; 4:6. He guards it also against
perversion, when he insists upon the reality of our Lord's incarnation:
"Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is
of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come
in the flesh, is not of God" (chap. 4:2, 3), words which are with good
reason understood as referring to a very ancient form of error, that of
the _Docet[oe]_, who maintained that the Son of God had not a real, but
only an apparent body. The reception through faith of this great truth,
that the Son of God has come in the flesh for man's salvation, brings us
into blissful union and communion with the Father and the Son, and thus
into the possession of sonship and eternal life. Chaps. 1:3; 3:1, 2;
4:15; 5:1, 13, 20. The rejection of this truth is the rejection of God's
own testimony concerning his Son (chaps. 2:22; 5:9, 10), and thus the
rejection of eternal life; for out of Christ, the Son of God, there is
no life (chap. 5:11, 12). But this reception of Christ is not a matter
of mere theoretic belief. It is a practical coming to the Father and the
Son, and a holy union with them. The proof of such union with God and
Christ is likeness to God and obedience to God's commandments. They who
profess to know God and to be in him, while they walk in darkness and
allow themselves in sin, are liars and the truth is not in them. Chaps.
1:5-7; 2:4-6; 3:5-10, 24; 5:4, 5, 18. The sum of all God's attributes is
love; and the sum of Christian character is love also. Chap. 4:16. But
there can be no true love towards God where there is none towards the
brethren; and such love must manifest itself "not in word, neither in
tongue; but in deed and in truth." Chaps. 3:11-18; 4:7-11, 20, 21; 5:1.
He that loves his brother abides in the light; but he that hates him
abides in darkness and death. Chaps. 2:9-11; 3:14, 15. All believers
have an abiding unction of the Spirit, which enables them to distinguish
between truth and falsehood, and keeps them from the seductions of the
many antichrists that are abroad. Chap. 2:18-27. Such true believers,
whose hearts are filled with love, are raised above fear, and have
confidence in prayer, and may look forward with joyful confidence to the
day of judgment. Chaps. 2:28; 3:18-20; 4:17, 18; 5:14, 15. These
fundamental truths the apostle reiterates in various forms and
connections, intermingling with them various admonitions and promises of
a more particular character. He dwells with especial fulness on the
evidences of discipleship as manifested in the daily spirit and life.
There is perhaps no part of God's word so directly available to the
anxious inquirer who wishes to know what true religion is, and whether
he possesses it. He who, in humble reliance on the illumination of the
divine Spirit, applies to himself this touchstone of Christian
character, will know whether he is of God, or of the world that lies in
wickedness.
16. SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN. These two short epistles are so
closely related to each other in style and manner that they have always
been regarded as written by one and the same person. In considering,
therefore, the question of their authorship we take them both together.
Though reckoned by Origen (in Eusebius' Hist. Eccl., 6. 25) and by
Eusebius himself (Hist. Eccl., 3. 25; Demonstratio Evangel. 3. 5) among
the disputed writings, the external testimony to their apostolic
authorship is upon the whole satisfactory, embracing the names of
Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, Dionysius of Alexandria, Jerome, etc.
When we take into account the small extent of these epistles it is plain
that no unfavorable inference can be drawn from the silence of
Tertullian and others. Nor is there any internal evidence against them.
That the man who, in his gospel, studiously avoids the mention of his
own name, describing himself as "the disciple whom Jesus loved," and, in
his first epistle, simply classes himself with the other apostles--"that
which _we_ have seen and heard," etc.--should in these epistles, where
some designation of himself was necessary, speak of himself as "the
elder" is not surprising. Compare 1 Peter 5:1.
17. Concerning the date of these two epistles we know nothing. The
object of the first seems to have been to set before the lady to whom it
was addressed the importance of a discriminating love, which
distinguishes between truth and falsehood, and does not allow itself to
aid and abet error by misplaced kindness towards its teachers.
In the second the apostle, writing to Gaius, commends to his
hospitality, certain missionary brethren, who were strangers in the
place where this disciple lived. It would seem that the design of these
brethren was to preach the gospel to the Gentiles without charge; that
he had in a former letter, commended them to the church where Gaius
resided; but that Diotrephes had hindered their reception, and
persecuted those who favored them.
Short as these epistles are, then, each of them contains weighty
instruction--the first, in reference to ill-timed kindness and
liberality towards the teachers of error; the second, concerning the
character and conduct of those who love to have the preeminence, and the
abhorrence in which they ought to be held by all who love the purity and
peace of the churches.
IV. EPISTLE OF JUDE.
18. The writer of this epistle styles himself "the servant of Jesus
Christ, and brother of James." Chap. 1:1. This James is undoubtedly the
same man who held so conspicuous a place in the church at Jerusalem, and
was the author of the epistle which bears his name. Whether Jude was an
apostle, or an apostolic man, like Mark and Luke, depends upon the
question respecting the relation which his brother James held to Christ,
concerning which see the introduction to the epistle of James. In either
case the canonical authority of the epistle holds good. The close
relation between this epistle and the second chapter of Peter's second
epistle has already been noticed. See above, No. 13. It was probably
anterior in time to that epistle, but not separated from it by a great
number of years. If we may infer anything from the abundant use made by
the writer of Jewish history and tradition, the persons addressed are
Jewish Christians.
19. Eusebius classes this epistle also among the disputed writings
(Hist. Eccl., 2. 23; 3. 25), yet the testimonies to its genuineness are
ample--the Muratorian canon, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen,
Jerome, etc.
It was objected to this epistle in ancient times that the writer
quotes from the apocryphal book of Enoch (verses 14, 15). To
this it may be answered--(1) that, if this be the case, Jude
does not sanction the book of Enoch as a whole, but only this
particular tradition embodied in it; (2) that the writer of the
book of Enoch manifestly made use of a current tradition, and
that, for anything that appears to the contrary, Jude may have
availed himself of the same tradition, independently of the book
of Enoch. That an inspired writer should refer to a traditional
history not recorded in the Old Testament ought not to give
offence. The apostle Paul does the same (2 Tim. 3:8, 9); and
Jude himself in another passage (verse 9).
20. The _design_ of the epistle Jude himself gives in explicit terms
(verses 3, 4). It is to guard believers against the seductions of false
teachers, corrupt in practice as well as doctrine; whose selfishness,
sensuality, and avarice; whose vain-glorious, abusive, and schismatic
spirit, he describes in vivid language, denouncing upon them at the same
time the awful judgment of God. The apostolic portraiture has not yet
become antiquated in the history of Christ's church.