[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 a.s.serting the truth of the incarnation of the Son of G.o.d, 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 a.s.serts the truth. He a.s.serts 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d within us. The moral and the religious life are summed up in the words "G.o.d" and "Love," and those who love one another are born of G.o.d. 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 G.o.d and man. Every one who, as a child of G.o.d, hopes to grow like G.o.d, 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 chastis.e.m.e.nt 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. G.o.d is _Love_ (iv. 8, 16), and has given us the greatest of all gifts (iv. 9); G.o.d is _Light_ (i. 5), and dispels all moral darkness (i. 6); G.o.d is _Life_ (v. 20), imparting His own existence to man (iii. 9); G.o.d 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).
a.n.a.lYSIS
A promise to impart knowledge of the incarnate Word; G.o.d is Light, fellowship with G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d (iii.).
Acknowledgment of the incarnation is the test of spirits, to love one another is to be like G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 t.i.tle "elder" or "presbyter" is by no means incompatible with apostolic authorship. St. Peter in 1 Pet. v. 1 expressly describes himself by this t.i.tle, nor does the t.i.tle 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 G.o.d."
{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.
a.n.a.lYSIS
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.
a.n.a.lYSIS
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 Lutzelberger (1840), Keim (1867), Bousset (1899).
{265}
CHAPTER XXIV
THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE