All that has been said on the character and the objects of the gospel,
may be exactly applied to this very similar production. So completely
does it resemble John’s gospel, in style, language, doctrines
and tendencies, that even a superficial reader might be ready to
pronounce, on a common examination, that they were written in the same
circumstances and with the same object. This has been the conclusion at
which the most learned critics have arrived, after a full investigation
of the peculiarities of both, throughout; and the standard opinion
now is, that they were both written at the same time and for the same
persons. Some reasons have been given by high critical authority, for
supposing that they were both written at Patmos, and sent together
to Ephesus,――the epistle serving as a preface, dedication, and
accompaniment of the gospel, to those for whom it was intended, and
commending the prominent points in it to their particular attention.
This beautiful and satisfactory view of the _object_ and _occasion_ of
the epistle, may certainly be adopted with great propriety and justice;
but in regard to the _places_ of its composition and direction, a
different view is much more probable, as well as more consistent with
the notion, already presented above, of the date and place of the
gospel. It is very reasonable to suppose that the epistle was written
some years after John’s return to Ephesus,――that it was intended,
(along with the gospel, for the churches of Asia generally, to whom
John hoped to make an apostolic pastoral visit, shortly,) to confirm
them in the faith, as he announces in the conclusion. There is not
a single circumstance in gospel or epistle, which should lead any
one to believe that they were directed to Ephesus in particular. On
the contrary, the total absence of anything like a personal or local
direction to the epistle, shows the justice of its common title, that
it is a “general epistle,” a circular, in short, to all the churches
under his special apostolic supervision,――for whose particular dangers,
errors and necessities, he had written the gospel just sent forth, and
to whom he now minutely commended that work, in the very opening words
of his letter, referring as palpably and undeniably to his gospel,
as any words can express. “Of that which ‘was from the _beginning_,
of the _Word_,’ which I have heard, which I have seen with my eyes,
which I have looked upon, which my hands have handled,――of the _Word_
of _Life_” &c.; particularizing with all the minute verbosity of old
age, his exact knowledge of the facts which he gives in his gospel,
assuring them thus of the accuracy of his descriptions. The question
concerns his reputation for fidelity as a historian; and it is easy
to see therefore, why he should labor thus to impress on his readers
his important personal advantages for knowing exactly all the facts
he treats of, and all the doctrines which he gives at such length in
the discourses of Christ. Again and again he says, “I write,” and “I
have written,” recapitulating the sum of the doctrines which he has
designed to inculcate; and he particularizes still farther that he
has written to all classes and ages, from the oldest to the youngest,
intending his gospel for the benefit of all. “I have written to you,
_fathers_,”――“unto you, _young men_,”――“unto you, _little children_,”
&c. What else can this imply, than a dedication of the work concerning
“the WORD,” to all stations and ages,――to the whole of the Christian
communities, to whom he commits and recommends his writings;――as
he writes “to the fathers――because they know him _who was from
the beginning_,”――in the same way “to the young men, because they
are constant, and the _Word of God_ dwells in them,” and “that the
doctrine they have received may remain unchangeable in them,” and
“on account of THOSE WHO WOULD SEDUCE THEM.” He recapitulates all the
leading doctrines of his gospel,――the Messiahship, and the Divinity
of Jesus,――his Unity, and identity with the divine abstractions of the
Gnostic theology. Here too, he inculcates and renewedly urges the great
feeling of Christian brotherly love, which so decidedly characterizes
the discourses of Jesus, as reported in his gospel. So perfect was
the connection of origin and design, between the gospel and this
accompanying letter, that they were anciently placed together, the
epistle immediately following the gospel; as is indubitably proved by
certain marks in ancient manuscripts.
It was mentioned, in connection with a former part of John’s
life, that this epistle is quoted by Augustin and others,
under the title of the epistle to the Parthians. It seems
very probable that this may have been also addressed to those
churches in the east, about Babylon, which had certainly
suffered much under the attacks of these same mystical heretics.
It is explained, however, by some, that this was an accidental
corruption in the copying of the Greek.――The _second_ epistle
was quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus, under the title of “the
epistle to the _virgins_,” προς παρθενους, which, as some of
the modern critics say, must have been accidentally changed
to παρθους, by dropping some of the syllables, and afterwards
transferred to the _first_ (!) as more appropriate;――a perfectly
unauthorized conjecture, and directly in the face of all rules
of criticism.