These are both evidently private letters from John to two of his
intimate personal friends, of whose circumstances nothing whatever
being known, except what is therein contained, the notice of these
brief writings must necessarily be brief also. They are both honorably
referred to, as entertainers of the servants of Jesus Christ as they
travel from place to place, and seem to have been residents in some
of the Asian cities within John’s apostolic circuit, and probably
received him kindly and reverently into their houses on his tours of
duty; and them he was about to visit again shortly. The _second_
epistle is directed to a Christian female, who, being designated by
the very honorable title of “_lady_,” was evidently a person of rank;
and from the remark towards the conclusion, about the proper objects
of her hospitality, it is plain that she must have been also a person
of some property. Mention is made of her children as also objects
of warm affection to the aged apostle; and as no other member of
her family is noticed, it is reasonable to conclude that she was a
widow. The contents of this short letter are a mere transcript, almost
verbatim, of some important points in the first, inculcating Christian
love, and watchfulness against _deceivers_;――(no doubt the Gnostical
heretics,――the Cerinthians and Nicolaitans.) He apologizes for the
shortness of the letter, by saying that he hopes shortly to visit her;
and ends by communicating the affectionate greetings of her sister’s
children, then residents in Ephesus, or whatever city was then the home
of John. The _third_ epistle is directed to Gaius, (that is, Caius, a
Roman name,) whose hospitality is commemorated with great particularity
and gratitude in behalf of Christian strangers, probably preachers,
traveling in his region. Another person, named Diotrephes, (a Greek
by name, and probably one of the partizans of Cerinthus,) is mentioned
as maintaining a very different character, who, so far from receiving
the ministers of the gospel sent by the apostle, had even excluded
from Christian fellowship those who did exercise this hospitality to
the messengers of the apostle. John speaks threateningly of him, and
closes with the same apology for the shortness of the letter, as in the
former. There are several persons, named Gaius, or Caius, mentioned in
apostolic history; but there is no reason to suppose that any of them
was identified with this man.
For these lucid views of the objects of all these epistles, I am
mainly indebted to Hug’s Introduction, to whom belongs the merit
of expressing them in this distinctness, though others before
him have not been far from apprehending their simple force.
Michaelis, for instance, is very satisfactory, and much more
full on some points. In respect to the _place_ whence they were
written, Hug appears to be wholly in the wrong, in referring
them to Patmos, just before John’s return. Not the least glimmer
of a reason appears, why all the writings of John should be
huddled together in his exile. I can make nothing whatever of
the learned commentator’s reason about the deficiency of “pen,
ink and paper,” (mentioned in Epistle ii. 12, and iii. 13.) as
showing that John must still have been in “that miserable place,”
Patmos. The idea seems to require a great perversion of simple
words, which do not seem to be capable of any other sense than
that adopted in the above account.