Vol, ii

a6 the one hand and Pauline universalism on the other, were in- ensifled bv Marcionitic anti-Judaisni on ""■ °"-= »'?,« """i,,"","; tenistic revolt against the Episcopate on tlie other In the writings of liauT the further speculation was haiu.r.lcrt tl^t towards the close of the 2n<l cent, a tendency towards co- op n on began ; that the Epp to Col, Eph.Ti and l^t He and the Bk of Ac, were tabrirjted to bnng about a fusion of the hostile parties': that this .

>ospel was a part of the sysUm of forgeries bv which the Cath. Church was onginattd. It u Bumiosed that an unknown writer cunningly siig^-ested that he wTuie behoved friend of Jesus and knew "■« ■n"'"!,''?, ' • His belief in the theocracy, that ■ salvation was »' 'he J'ws but that Uod was 'a spirit'; that among Greeks i^ »•'> " •!£»» te buried com of wheat would bring forth much fruit. pii» extraordinary writer was ready to Justify the Mon am.

t 0 rSlTz^tion of the grace of the Paraclete, and also, by a dehcata Jl^efof modincalions of the Synoptic tradilioii, to nmk« I'f uassover of the Jews reach its climax at Oie hour of the cnici- E- and he sought, moreover, to ""k the Chnst with the AOro'l of a popular philosophy. Every hne J-f the Gospel wa. searched for coiifinnition of some portion of the hypothesis I'ldXree element were cleverly =°."'rived W sprea^ out the occasion for the publication of the spiritual Gospel.

The strife b^ween the Eas em and WesUm Churches as to the ceehration „l the Easter festival had broken out, and it was a masterslroke t show totoiie of the Jerus. apostles ^vho ^ tr'»l'J'"™N.L'n" I^rt«l to have followed the Jew sh celebration on the 14th N isan. rhe^fpi^eding the crucifixion, had actually si^t orth the identilicati'^ of the cmciaxion of Jesus with the sacnUce of the ,S aUamb. Baur fixed i.D.

170 as the date when this "tonish- fng (eat Tforgery, concealed polemic, and spiritual mamfesW, n™t saw the light The question of this dale w.is discussed with ereatTumIn Ebrard (Introd. to Comm.), Thiersch, Hilgenfeld Cwo sS in numerous articles in German journa s, with iSkmaS^reptos from Baur. who die4 in 18(i0, kept the con- 'TI"Le°lTady\hoCrea»on to believe that the date assigned bv liiur viz A D. 170, is quite untenable, and that step by step theX^lSice it the Oosp"' T"^.''^ '","?

,'i'''nif o Talen'^^ forty years and pushed bact to the time of Ba^ilides or \alen ' ^' .^^ 'r^^';^.::i::^rr^d"iiL;p"rr;s;;t,'^s: able that Tatian, hU conUiUiuorary and disciple, lu-tuallv con Ss^^Se"G"^7o?Vr.^'°^n^;«it^^^^^^ u erkhirV) Weiss and Weizsiicker discussed, m J<^rbJ- rf^f«rV 7'V<i(o7i>, the relation of the Logos doctrine of John t^U sourees.%t«uss and Hilgenfeld j" '^f ..-l^/ J^SS^ ' .V,,^,. the Mur Canon and on minor defences of tne uospei Vommar Uenan.

TRiTville thought to rehabiliUite the »^- ment "hit it the Fourth Gospel Tiad been in use "nAO- >50; of • the Lor^ • oi OT? the Creator of aU things, with the God and ^"i^ml van"?o.ter»e'. Life of Christ, Hengstenber^ Comm. on Co^cl favoured, while Echthal's Let iV'Oiwi/M attacked the V t J^l ii^TCtt de la m«r-all three mainloiniiig the authcnUclt,^iZe enconnlered by Keim, Qe^ichte J«u von A'^arn eli" whoannied (18«7) thit the Gospel was publ shed atthe beg o ^^nd cSlit.

under the name o the Apo«Ue John I wVo nevertheless had never been >" EphMU^ Taylor^J .. Mempt to ascertain the Character <^ (V ^T^'* ?<^ " r/;arton (o the three ftrtt. was rtrongly opposed to the »<jtl>"- rf^^r/v ToMer attempted to cut out the original kernel, and Elf 'on (»70) he reduced It to 81 ver.es. Oost«rx« jnd , . Ti„t« l>nL-lish Stanley 1-eathes' Boyle Lecture 0870) on l,n»pei , ;■■•';'» |.„,,f,n Kitai/i. Theoloijical and Litrram.

''■'""^■fuuiw^lh great fore, the historicity of the liMpel lans irurLdhUMlower^u lloltxn.ann om-^iore took up Bgiunsl '"'"',"'' , i.„,i,v(,r In I8TS appeared the Import- I of reply The anonj-inuu. writer wa. vehMueutl,- ad>er« to U» J 722 JOHX, GOSPEL OF JOHN, G015PEL OP nithcntlcItT of this Gospel (vol. il. 2S1-470) on cver>- (rroiind ami every 8i(ie issue. I.,ii;htfoot in tile VonUmp. Hfv. (afler- wanls republislwl) ; Saniliiy in the (Jotprlnlurin;! Ihfimt CnU.; Kow.

The Jeitui of the t'vaiujelUts ; Luthanlt, DerJohan. CrMp. da 4(.ii Evatiij. (tr. into V.ng. \n- C. It. lire^-orv, 1S7.'>),— replied very successtullv. Furrar'e Life of Chrint (1874) «u»Uine<l the aulliciitiiity ; liiit Hil(,'en(eld, iu 1876, in tlut.-Krit. EiiUnt. in dax A"/"., determined the Iiniit3 of production between a.d. 132 anil 140. Miincold (Blcek'a EiiUeit.) was again adverse, but Mat thew Arnold. Review of Ohjeetiom to Literature and Doijma, (Cont.

Remrw, afterwards republished In Qod and the ISiliU), defended the authenticity with high lit«rary tact, but by fallinit baclc in part on some special partition Iheor}' of his own. In ISS:; the remarkable work appeare<i of Albrcoht Tlioma, Dit Qenesie dee Johan. Evang. : ein Be%tra>j zu $einer Atuleg,^ Getch., u. A' rid*, in which the author endeavoured to Und an Alex.

-Philonio orii,'iti for the entire Gospel, which is dealt with as Philo handled the I'ent, and which, on this hypothesis, could have had no meaning save among the Neopliitonic schools, where supposed forecasts and sumraaries of hi.^tory were only cr^iito- granis of philosophical theory, e.g. ch. 9 is regarded as a cipher of the position and career of St. Paul, and ch. 21 an outline of the history of the Acta of Apostles. With ingenuity the theorv was carried through 879 napes. In 1882 (Kng. tr.

1883) appeared B. Weiss. Life of Chrwt. The chajilers on the * Johannine ' sources are singularly impressive, and vindicate the historii^ity of the Gospel against the speculations of various cflshoots'of the Tiibingen School. The theory of the reminis- cence of one who hod fathomed the deep secret of the Incarnate lA>go3 in Jesus, Interprets the author's 'ideal elevation and spiritual form, but also his historical trustworthiness.

If It be regarded RS the invention of a semi-Gnostic philosopher of the lind cent., it is a delusive will-o'-the-wiap — in truth, a ^gantic lie.' In the same sense Godet's invaluable Introd. to his Coin- mtntary touches and illumines every part of this great subject (Eng. tr. 1887). In 1886 Salmon's llitt. Introd. to the Sttidii of yv gave ample space and great freshness to the maintenance of the authenticity. Edward Reuss in his HiM. of Sac. Scrip. OJf yr, tr. into Eng.

by Houghton from the 5th Germ, ed., with additional bibliographical details, minimized the value of the external endence, and left it as only barely possible that jn was the work of the apostle. The introducton- discussions of Uengstenberg are scattered througliout bis Cotnmt'ntart/. Bpecial excursuses on the Paschal and other questions are to be found in srClellan's great work on the Gosjpels. Against I-Mvvin Abbott's lew in his article 'Gospels' in Encye. Brit.

9 may be put Ezra Abbot's Extertial Ecidence of the Fourth GoS]>et, and WcStcott's Introd. to his invaluable Comm. on the Go.stnl in Speaker's Commentartj (and published separately) ; also Milli..'an and Miulton, Introd. totheirComm.inSchafT's Popular Comjneti' (ar>,andWatkiii3' Introd. to Comm. in KUicott's Com irt. /or ii'H</. headers, as well as his very important discussion of the history of criticism in Hampton Lectures for 1890; Reynolds' Introd. to his Comm.

on Jn in the Pulpit Commentary. Keim in his voluminous Life of Jesus of Nazara settled down to the date A.D. l:iO and to a repudiation of St. John's residence in Ephesus. He decided that early antiquity w.as grievously misled by Irenffius in this and other respects, just as Riggenbach, Farrar, and others think that the very personality of 'John the Pres- byter' has been created by an ill-starred guess of Eusebius. In liandkom. z. A'7'(' Job.

Evangeliura '), Holtzmann, 1890, argues tiiat the most extreme critical view which he adopts doubles the value of the Gosi>el. Edersheim's Life and Timet of Jesus the Messiah (1SS3) throws \ivid light upon the Johan. as well as other sources of the great biography by his intimate acquaint- ance with Heb. literature. In 1890 IIu^o Delff, Das 4 Evan- gelium, and (188:^) in his Grundziige des Entwick.-Geschichte d.

Religion, advocated a special view which creates many fresh ditticulties, that 'John' was neither the son of Zebedee, nor John the Presbyter, nor the author of the Apoc., but a well- to-do pbilnsophical disciple of Jesus, whom He loved and who was Bjiecially acquainted with the ministry in Jerus., who was subsequently confounded with the John of Acts and Apocalv-pse. P. Ewald, in 1890, Das Uauptproblem der Evangelienfratje, strove to bring out the original Johan.

nucleus of the entWe evangelical tradition, of which John has given the richest an- thology. In 1891 Gloag issued Introd. to the Johan. Writings. This is one of the most complete r^suinis of the entire question in the light of modern criticism, embracing not only the Gospel but the Epp. and the Apocalypse. Hamack in his History of Dogma, vol. i.

9&-98, admits that the oricrin of the Johan, writings is 'a marvellous enigma,' that therein a Christ clothes the indrscribable with words, that a Pauline Christ walks on the earth * far more human than the Christ of Paul, yet far more divine.' He seems to a<bnitthat Christ Himself is the author of oh. 17, but all is suffused in a bright cloud of the supra-historical.

He repudiates the dependence on Philo and Hellenism, with which John lias little =n common but the word /*/«, and he regards the author ,»s a bom Jew. Important articles have appeared at various times in the Expositor by Lightfoot, Sandav, and others. In 1891 Willibald Beyschlag of Halle Eublished his AT Theol. (Eng. tr. 1895). In vol. i. pp. 216-221 e avows his firm con\'iction of the genuineness of the Gospel, that it rests on historic facts and is superior to the Synoptists in m.

any iiii)>ortanl details, that ' the Logos Romance ' is a criti- cal failure, and, notwithstanding great difficulties, he imagines that the subjective element necessary- to a character formed and trained by the Master Himself may solve them. VIII. The Teaching of the Fourth Gospel. — A. Thenlngy and diristolorftj. — The teaching of Jesus cannot be satisfactorily discriminated from tliat of the evangelist, e.xcept in [il.

aces wliere the latter speaks in pronriA person/I, or offers his in- terpretation of the Slaster's words. Alike in the Epistle and Prol. to (Gospel, the apostle sums up or generalizes the teaching of Christ or of His mighty deeds, and for the ideas, thouglit by thought, fact by fact, he brings out a justification in the narrative itself. As to the Abbrechungcn and Ineongrnenzen on which Wendt insists as imlicating dillerent strains of thought and purpose, e.g.

in the dillerent estimate of tpr/a, arip.e7a, and )>i\naTa in the great plan of the Supreme Teacher, the reconciliation is not far to seek, and is to be found in the divine- human majesty of the Lord, whose Personality gives unity to all his representation. The con- sciousness of the Lord Jesus, as brought out in the fourfold revelation, provides the fact upon which the constructive intelligence of later cen- turies has founded its doctrine of the GODIIEAD.

To put it in a word, the Doctrine of the Divinity is simplj' an endeavour to stal*" without explana- tion the various elements of chat tinique con- sciousness. The most fundamental element in the entire teaching is the absolute oneness of the Deity. Christ never taught the existence of two or three Gods, thongh the unity or solity embraced the divine indwelling in the entire univcr.

se, an infinite transcendence involving the internal rela- tions of Fatherhood and Sonship, and all the mighty operations of the Spirit in the world and in the minds of men. There is only one veritable God, nbvot dX-nSiyit SeSi (17'), although the Lord was self-conscious of the nearest possible approach of the eentri'S of the spheres, both of His divine .and human nature, to the Centre of the all-includ- ing and embracing Unity.

The theoph;uiies of the or are outshone bj' the eternal knowledge of tlie Only-begotten (1'* and 6"), and the adeiiuate sufficing power of the human life and con.scious- ness of Jesus to disclose the secrets of the divine bosom. This revelation differs widely from the Gnostic or Oriental or modern inipersonalitj-, ' the Absolute.' Here the ineffable is clothed in forms not incompatible with the Eternal Unity.

'Father,' 'Son,' 'Word,' 'Love,' 'Life,' 'Light,' 'Spirit' are terras which make no schism of the one Deity, but are each necess.ary concepts in it. This is so complete and thoroughgoing that Fair- bairn has skilfully pressed the position that the Lord .lesus was in fact the first monotheist in the history of the world. A few of the elements of this great synthesis must be specified. (1) In 4-*''- the spirituality of the One who is called ' the Father ' is insisted npon.

The spirit of man leads the way to the most direct realization of the Eternal. (2) He is the livinj' and life-giving One, or even Life itself. In the Logos — who is God — there is Life. The mystery of 'life' was not solved, or a definition given, by Jesus or the evangelists ; nor is the mystery reduced, but intensilied, by tlie widest and latest researches of science ; Imt St.

John may at least be credited with seeing behind the inexplicable phenomena of ' life ' — pliysieal, ethical, spiritual, and eternal — nothing less than the personal activity of the Lord God, the Living One. (3) In this life is Nght. In 1 Jn 1» God is (not luminous, but) ' Light, and in him is no darkness at all,' no evil, no imperfection, absolute purity, goodness, righteousness, and illumination (Jn 17" 1«'). (4) The most characteristic doctrine of God which we must attrihf.

te to the evangelist is that God is Love (1 Jn 4*). or that the most essential quality JOHN, GOSPEL OF JOIIX, GOSPEL OF 723 anil absiiliitc essence of God is that which freely lavishes Himself on tlie ohjeots of His love.

The moral perfections which our Lord attributes to this living and loving One are truth (8*), right- eousness (17^), and holiness (17")- (5) I'ut the most characteristic name and function U tliatof ' I'ather,' 'my Father,' 'your Father,' the 'living Father' who has life in Himself (5"), who seeks for sjiiritual worshiiipers (4'^, where the vital internal relation between God as Father and God as Sjiirit is made very e\'ideiit).

This fatlierly love is, hrst of all, lavished on the Son and on those who are given to Him. lie becomes tlie source of life to otliers, and in Him God loves the world (S'"-" 10" n", " and 3'"). Preparation for this revelation of Fatherhood is found in OT and Hel. thought and in the Synop. te.iching, hut the Fourth Gospel is peculiarly saturated with the ennoblin" and uplifting thought. Here we come face to face with one who could speak of the Almighty as 'my Father.'

He was the 'wisdom' and the ' power ' of God, not only (as St. Paul represented it) as the 'image,' but as 'the Son of His love.' The relation of Logos to Theos is warmed into the deeper relation of Son to Fatlier, the Only-begotten to the Kternal. The Father- hood is essential to God, and therefore eternal.

If the Father be thought of as the Sui)reme Giver evermore lavishing upon an adequate object His own fulness of being, then the Son also is eternal, and from the relation between the giver and re- ceiver, between tlie Father and Son, does the very conception of Deity emerge.

From before all time and worlds, and independently of time or space, the writer saw the inlinite giving and receiving of Eternal Love ; and he saw in the completeness of the mutual relation the moral and spiritual dpx^ of tlie universe. This is not the monad of the Platonic schools or the Gnostic sects, but the living fulness of an infinite Personalitj-, within which there is the reciprocal interchange of gra- cious and everla.sting relations. St.

Fohn is alive to the ])rimordial rank ami supremacy of the Father, and tells us by the lips of the Divine Son that the leather is the source of all power, and of the self-dependence of the Son. 'He gave to the Son to have life »» himself,' He is 'greater' than the Son, 'gives the Spirit' to the Son without measure, He 'sent the Son into the world' to le.vrn and fulfil all His will (5" 10"-" 14-'''). Yet the unity and the .

solity of the Eternal turns upon tliis very relation ; and so identical is the substance and will of the Father and Son, that 'all things,' wivra, flow out of the mutual relation (1'"'), the monarchy of the Father com- patible with unity of the Father and Son. (6) The relation of Lot/os to T/icvs, as conceived by the evangelist, is sustained bj' the successive words and deeds of >Iesus which had slowly broken on the mind of the writer.

The majestic words of the Prologue which are repeated in the opening sentences of the Eji. are the necessary antecedents of the events, the twofold meaning and ambigu- ity of the term Lngis, connoting the .ir/f-ronscious- ness and the necessarily connected utterance of the Eternal Theos. This Logos so interpreted is both 'God 'and 'with God' at once. He is the or^an of divine activity and the great image of His glory.

Heyschlng, in his attempt to reduce all the eubsequeiit narrative to the ordinarj' human con- sciousness of .lesus, appears to ignore or minimize the supra-historic basis which precedes the historic narrative. Heforo the manifestation in the flesh of Christ, the Logos was the divine agent of crea- tion. No element of matter, no thrill of force, no harmony or beauty of the cosmos was excluded. The life and light of t!

<Ml Htreanied forth from Him The divine immanence in nature and man was His function. The darkness was not in har- mony with the Light, and did not apprehend it. He came age after age to His own, to those w ho were prepared by conscience, providence, and pro- phecy, and His own received Iliiu not. The Lugo.s, even to the present hour, is working in events, lavs, and forces, designing and forecasting and evolvinjj the eternal jjurpo.se ; j-et the world and even His own know it not, nay.

He is rejected and despised. An element of deep tragedy has entered into human nature which has ever resisted Omni]iotence, but never exhausted the resources of divine love. Conscience, even the 'light which lighteth every man,' was reinforced by prophetic voices, of which the Baptist was the highest type, and the conflict between the Spirit and the fle.-li, the light and the darkness, the Logos and human- ity, is always in progress.

The victory over the world and the flesh has made still greater demand upon an infinite compassion, and so we are led on to believe in a higher and more convincing contact of the Logos with human nature. The indwelling of the Lotos with the cosmos falls immeasurably short of the Incarnation, i.e. of an event which is described in the assurance (v.") that the Word became flesli.

The Logos did not become ' all things,' but became adpk, to heal the source of human corruption, and consummate the plan of God. (7) The entire Johannine conception turns on what is meant by these words. Is the .synthesis of the divine and human such as obliterates either of the two elements in the Christ : or is it one which, while pre.sen-ing both in their coiii])lete- ness, stretches the vinculum between them, so that it snaps, and there is left no other than a human Saviour, after all?

Beyschlag objects to the ecclesiastical orthodoxy, and wisely dl.seounts the Kenotic theories of Gess, Thomasius, Godet, Pressensd, and others, on the ground that if our Lord never adopted phraseologj' intompatibie with ' mere humanitj',' the idea of a divine conscious- ness and the hypothesis of a true incarnation could never have arisen.

Putting aside the two extremes of Ncstorian and Monoiihysite interpretation, and shrinking from the Catholic acceptance of what is true in both, Beyschlag falls bac-k upon the hare human consciousness and historical surroundings of .lesus.

He reviews the great sayings of our Lord which atlinn a remembrance of ' the glory which he had with the Father before the world was' (17°"), or which assert a conscious existence before Abraham (8°), or which indicate a realiza- tion of beinic; ' in heaven' while yet on earth (3'"), or which refer to His descent from heaven and return thither (C*"-"), and alBrm conscious unity with the Father.

In doing this the critic is content with a purel}' Ebionitic interpretation which leaves the mystery of the greatest fact in the history of the moral world entirely unsolved. He falls back upon a method of interpreting Christ's own pre-existence, corresjionding with the Rabbin, method of regarding things of high value, such as the ark of the covenant, as 'eternally pre- existent in God.'

By the use of metaphor, or feriid imagination, or intense prophetic or mystic realization of the divine indwelling, ond full re- conciliation with God, even absorption into the divine fulness, the expressions arose from which he supposes the Christian faitli to have li.id its origin. A similar interjiretation of the words anil the consciousness of^ .

lesus is advocated in Drummond's Uibbert Lecture, Via Veritas Vita, where we seem called upon to forgive our Lord the use of phrases which, after all, are only tlic commonplaces of the religious life. The statement, A \iyoi oa^ lyirrro, does not.

in John's nsage, mean a transubstantiation uf X^oi 724 JOHN, GOSPEL OF JOHX, GOSPEL OF into fipi, 80 that henceforth there U no longer ^47o^ but only ffipi, Beeing that the evangelist (2*) UBes a precisely similar phrase to denote ' the water wliicu hatl oocome wine.' As the water took up inco itself elements not previously in it, BO the eternal Logos took up human nature into Himself, and this is enough for humiliation of the Infinite Love.

The metliod of the consciousness can only occasionally (if ever) be given its fulness, but the three axes of rovohition in succession suggest the entire mysterj-. These are ' the Son of God,' ' the Son of Man, and the 'Christ' ; and these remarkable terms are found in the Synoptic Gospels in much the same sense as in the Fourth. The first, SON OF GOD, is an honorific ascription when used by the disciples or by the Jews, and it is nearly if not perfectly identical with ■ Messiah.'

It is paralleled by the extraordinary prevalence of like terms among surrounding re- ligions and nations. In Ej.'j-pt the same king is often set forth on monuments as 'the son' and ' beloved ' of many diflVrent personages of the Pan- theon. God-bom was the highest superlative to denote glorv and authority. Nathanael (l""") identifies ' tlie Son of God with the tlieocratic king. Martha (11-'') anticipates the advent of one so near to and beloved of God as to have power over death and Hades.

Still, the Synoptic citation of the adjuration of Caiaphas shows tliat he re- garded the title, not only as an honorific term for Messiah, but as one which it was blasphemy to assume. The claim to be ' Son of God ' in a unique sense, a sense that associated Him with God and enthroned Him as supreme Judge, was tlie specific charge on which Jesus was condemned by the Satihedrin.

Not merely is He the human otl- spring of the eternal God, but, as He spake of Him- self, pre-eminently the Son, the highest expression of the relation of Son to Father, the archetype of Sonship in itself. Doubtless He is 'sent into the world,' to reveal the Father because He is the eternal spectator and companion of the Father, the object or eternal love, the conscious exposition of the Father's character and grace. The entire term is chastened and exalted by the ordered sequence of events.

In 3=»- ^ 4™- ^ 6" the expected ' Prophet ' rather than the triumphant 'King' comes into view, and Simon Peter's confession (6"'- RV) shows that he had grasped the richer aspect of Messiah- ship which Jesus now permits to become His self- revelation. 12'-"' **■" convey the most explicit acceptance of the term by Him, and He actually uses it in the intercessory prayer (17^).

The entire progress of the thought ciuminating in 20^' shows that the evangelist blended into one the correlated ideas of ' Logos made flesh,' ' the Son of God,' and ' the Christ.' The other term SoN OF MAN is a mode of ex- pression which, with only two exceptions (Ac 7", Kev 1'*;, is never used by any of the disciples, but is confined to His own self-designation.

It is being more and more conceded oy criticism that the expression is not a euphemism for ' jnnn ' as in the prophecies of Ezekiel, or a translation of the Aram. ' bar-enosh,' but a reflection of the transcendent meaning assijjned to it in Dn 7. The ideal man there is litted into the highest gloiy, and receives an eternal kingdom. It is as Son of Man that Jesus claims to be Lord of the Sabbath, the forgiver of sin, the judire of quick and dead.

In the Synoptic representations and in this Gospel He calls himself Son of Man, because of the divine nature wliich is the substratum and explanation of the human. In 3" S-'' and else- where we find in this title a revelation of the highest glory and the most perfect sympathj', not a lertium quid, neither God nor man, but at once both fioi and man. He was known to be Sou of Man, tlie highest, holiest man, by the experience ol those who knew Him best.

He did not hesitate to use the title of Himself. The inference was, and still is, that He is ' Son of God,' i.e. that the divine will and indwelling must be presupposed to justify such a term. (8) The relation oi the Father and the Son, or of Theos and Logos, does not exhaust the Johannine conception of 'the only true God.'

Indeed the OT wiilrrs speak of t/ie Spirit of God as the agent of the Eternal in creation, as the primal source ol the human Ego, and as discriminating I lie living soul of man from that of the animal. With them Spirit is the cause of all beauty or genius, of all pro- phitic gift, and all sanctifying grace. The Spirit of God is by the Synoptists set forth as the occa- sion of the numanity and formation of the person of the Lord Jesus.

The divine personal Spirit perfects the human character and coiiii)letes the ollicial equipment of the Son of Man to be the Saviour of the world. So completely is He domi- nated by the Sjurit, that He claims to communicate the Holy Spirit to others (Mt 3", cf .

Lk 1 1'»), while the Pauline teaching identifies the Spirit of Christ with that of the Father (Ho 8»-")- I'I'e NT yearns after the unity of the self-conscious Father and the self-conscious Son — the unity of the divine nature as self-conscious in the Christ, together with the conscience of human nature, the unity of all believers in one body by the One all co-ordinating Head. These unities find their best explanation in tlie Lord's own teaoliing concerning the Spirit. In the Synop.

(Mt 12-''-'" and parallel passages) the dispensation of the Son of JIan is contrasted with tlie dispensation of the Spirit ; and in the Fourth (Jospel Christ claims to give the Sjiirit to the Church, that the u-orld niaj- be con- vinced 'of sin, rij,'hteousness, and judgment.' The Lord so states tlie relation of the Holy Spirit to His own consciousness, that He identifies the coming of the Comforter with His own return.

The indwelling of the Father and of the Son in human souls is ell'ectuated by nothing less than the Spirit, i.e. by the activitj' and personality of all the fulness of the Godhead. His advent was an inenniiiig to souls both of the Father and of the Son, for the one cannot be without the other. I'eysehlag, Reuss, and others seem anxious lest they find anything like Trinitarian doctrine in these numberless references to the Ego of the Father, of the Son, of the Spirit, of the Christ.

The Uni- tarian development of the 4th to the 6tli cent, is not homogeneous, because encumbered by the attempt to reiiudiate the philosophical explanations of the so-called heretics. The Gospels, and particularly the Fourth, like the greatest symbols of the faith, are content to say (a) that Jesus was Son of Man ; to show that He was Man in body, soul, spirit, will — Man, i.e.

in all respects, in birth, frailty, limitations, suflerings, and death ; (b) that the mind of Jesus sounded also the depth of the divine consciousness, so that in His full personality He had dwelt in the bosom of the Father and was able to reveal Him (1'*); (c) that in the completing and glorifying of the Son of Man, in the resurrection and ascension of tlie Christ, the God-man shared finally in the very glory of the Eternal. li. The Johannine Teaching concerning the Cosmos.

— (a) The evangelist, following his Rtaster, discriminates the -woxXa oi things irova that of men. Everywhere the cosmos is created, not self-origin- ated. It is the platform of the entire representa- tion, and consists both of heaven and earth. It is not evil in its origin or essence, though it is the theatre of both moral perversity and divine redemp- tion. (6) The Gospel and Epp.use/ciff/iO!

for humanity considered apart from grace, just as they use aip^ for human nature apart from the spiritual life. JOHN, GOSPEL OF JOHN, GOSPEL OF 723 This may include humanity in its pride, power, civilization, and refinement. To this is not given the faculty of knowing the Eternal Father (' The world hath not known thee '), or of discerning the pre-incarnate Logos, or even of seeing the I'ather in the Son of His love.

The world of men strangely hates the higliest light and shrinks from it (3'"), neither comes to it. The Father loves the world in its need (3") ; Jesus eomes into it to ' save,' to • draw it,' and to be a way for it unto the Father.

There is vivid contrast between those who see the light, who live the heavenly life, who are ' con- vinced of sin, righteousness, and judgment,' who overcome the darkness and the tlesli, who follow tlie Good Shepherd, who feed on the bread of God, with whom tiie Father and Son take up their abode, who are ' of the truth ' and hear the voice of the Son of God ; and, on the other hand, those who do not come, are not drawn, nor convinced, who are in danger of perishing, are ' sons of perdition,' are veritably 'lost.'

The ultimate cause of the contrast cannot be explained away, nor can any good or bad name which is assigned to it modify the issue. The intense severity of onr Lord's judgment (7. 8) is not due to a Gnostic twist given by this evangelist to the teaching of Jesus, nut to the historic accuracy with which the tendencies and liostility of the classes in Jems, were known and set forth. Yet the human will, and no ine.

xorable fate, is (throughout the Johan- nine theology) the critical element in the question of light or darknes.s. The activity of the will is not the absolute solution of the puzzle, but it is the proximate occasion of all moral issues. The duaUsm of the Fourth Gospel is not more explicit than the dualism of other parts of NT, such as St. Paul or the Synoptists. (r) St. John and St. Paul, and the Synoptists also, recognize a moral centre of the evil in humanity. Though St.

Jolin makes no reference to demoniacs, he refers to ' the Prince of this world ' as tlie source and occasion of the trials of the Lord, between whom and Christ there is irreconcilable antagonism. The designs of the enemies of Je.sus are alfiliated to tlie father of lies and manalRviiig, and the phra.se la akin to the use by our Lord and the Baptist of the terrible term 'ye brood of vipers.' Tlioma {lib. cit.

'202-205) regards the circumscription of the operations of the Evil One to the mind of humanity a-s strong!}' ditlerentiating the Fourth Gospel from the rest of NT. True, there is no reference to ' pos.session ' in St. John ; but neither is there to leprosj-, or fever, or other forms of disease on whicli, as we hear (2^ 3' 4" 5" 20*"), Jesus wrought marvellous 8ij,'ns. The statement that St. lohn ignores the \nsiljlo works of the devil is excejwive (see I Jn 3' and Jn 12").

Thoma does not agree with Hilgenfeld in finding the Valentininn Demiurge in St. lohn's doctrine of the dpxw- It is refuted by the teaching of thetJospel and Epistle on the expulsion of the devil and the consecration of the world. C. The ,/iihnnnine Soteriolngi/.—\n grasping the Johan. ideal of salvation, Heysdilng finds the same thought* as in the Sj-nop. teaching concerning 'the kingdom,' which pliriLse, when he finds it in ch.

3, he regards as the simple equivalent of ' the life ' and ' the eternal life ' given bv the great Teacher and Revealerof the Father. The kingdom and the life are closely allied in the teaching of Christ, and found in l>otli sources ; but they must be discrimin- ated. The kingilom of (!<k1 is the region within men and coinniunities and the world iu which the will of Go<l operiites thrnngh the free powers of the individual.

The metlio<ls of discovering it, of enti'ring it, of finding in it hidden |K)tencies and of bringing forth its countles-s signs, whether acts or fr'iit8, are always in evi<lence. It is originated as life is in new forms, by seed chLrged with its future. It has iuternaJ intensive for;e and extensive evolutionary energj-, embracing every form of divine indwelling and spiritutJ frowth. In St. Jolin's Gospel, Salvation is Life, ight in its es.se r.o?

, and Truth and Love in method, instrument, or form. But the verj- idea of salvation, which was appreciated, to begin with, by John the Baptist (1^) and by the Samaritans (Jn 4", 1 Jn 4"), implies from OT times the CTeat need of man and the greatest work of God.

It denotes the rectification or reiustitution of all the relations which had been shattered by sin, — all that Ls else- where covered by such Pauline {)hrascs as pardon, justification, sanctification, adoption, — all such divine experiences as faith, hope, love, life eternal, — in fine, all the work wrought/or us by the Christ, the Son of God.^all the internal transformation which is etl'ected in us, in the fabric of our being, by the Spirit of the Father and of the Son.

Christ in the Fourth Gospel makes provision for abolishing the shame and curse, and indicates the hojielessness involved in dyin" in sins. Tlie most damning sin is a steady retusal to admit His own claim. F'aith in Him is the condition of deliverance, not merely by its remoter ethical importance or its stimulus to obedience, but by the very nature of the case ; moral surrender to the highest revelatiou of God is salvation and eternal life.

Christ is that in human nature, and does that in it and through it which can stanch the wound and arrest the spell of sin. He had always been coming into the world — a fact testified by the prophets {V"-). The great Lawgiver spoke of Ilim (.')■"'); Abraham desired a fuller revela- tion (8^^) ; all the Scriptures testified to Him (5'"). Nevertheless, the.

se operations of the Logos, so long as con<lucted along these lines, were in- sufficient to secure conviction until He came into closer contact with humanity, was more obviously manifest in human tlesh, and came into actual living personal union with the disturbed and im- perilled roots of our mind, heart, and will. He thus provides a tanij^ble object of faith. He renews the eye of faitii, and .supplies the motive of search.

He is the shield from condemnation, the deliverance from ^^Tath, the emanciiiation from boudaj;;e. He can ' save ' from the malicious de- struction of alien powers (10'"), from the deadly pangs of unsatisfied hunger (6*"); and He can give the food of which if a man eats he shall never die. Lhider the three often quoted metaphors, salva- tion covered all the need of man and all the capaci- ties of the Infinite— Like, Lioiit, and Love.

There is no salvation if we do not consciously possess another LIFE than this ever -vanish- ing, always -threatened earthly existence. The heavenly life is not menaced by the million perils of earth and the organized hate of hell, by the cruel temptations of time and sense, and will bo finally emanciiiated from the fear which hath torment. Life in its per|>etuity is independent of the conditions of death, it is vrritiihU (answering, i.e., to its ideal and archetype), it is eternal.

The purport of the Fourth (Jospel was to give concrete proof that Jesus ha* the power to establish the indispensable conditions and execute the initial stages of this everla.sting life. Jesus began by declaring that He would build up the temple of His iKxly after men lunl destroyed it (ch. 2), and that those who l>elieved In Him should receive this life at His hands (3"- "•").

Heselected the l>aUied man as an imiige of the metluxl ami need of the conferring of life, and He exercised the function along the lines of the divine Father's life-giving work (r)-'"). He sustained human life by creative forces ngninst various perils of hunger and storm, with ex|ireiia parabolic instruction aa to the de- JOHN, GO?PEL OF JOHN, GOSPEL OF liveiaricea of the inner life from greater peril, and tlml by Ui3 own imperial niaiulate. The whole of ch.

C is one continuous illustration of how the In- carnate One could give eternal life, how those who would feed on Uim (on His flesh and blood) should die no more for ever. The whole lesson of His unique relation to life, and His power over death, is once more given in ch. 11, where no barriers block the access of His eternal power and (Joilliead as the Son of the Father's love, and as working out the will of the Eternal. He unriddles death and takes away its sting.

In the night of the passion He says, ' because I live, ye shall live ' ; and the evangelist tells us that all that has been written by huiiself was to make evident to us, that by believing we might have life through His name (20='). A second analogue and interpretation of vumjpta pervading the Fourth Gospel is LIGHT. It is the antithesis of darkness, both moral and in- tellectual.

Darkness is dependent on two con- ditions, absence of illumination and deficiency or destitution of the power of vision, and in both respects He fuUils the functions of light. He is 'the li^'ht of the world' (8", and cf. 9°), the forth- atreaniing of the Divine Glory ( 12'- •), the image of His substance, 'the truth' (aXrideio.)

concerning God, the full expression of the archetypal man, the embodiment of the normal relations between God and man ('for I do always those things that please him ' ; ' my meat is to do,' etc. 4**) ; ' I knew that thou liearest me always' (11''^). Thus salva- tion and eternal life is a knowledge of this truth (17'), an acceptance of the light.

Moral con- tamination occasions mental and spiritual blindness — a doctrine inverting the Platonic dictum, which charges all moral contamination on mental inca- pacity. Inthesoteriolo^y of St.

John the subjective c/)ndition is so hopelessly imperfect, and the need of visual faculty has become so imperative, that Christ is represented as restoring a man 'blind from birth' to the exercise of sight, and as commenting on the analogy between this imperial act and what He would do for humanity (9''"*').

The glory into which the light of the full revelation of God has ushered His own human nature is the very same light and glory which He supplicates for aU His own, and into which He will bring them. But in close association with Life and Light appears the highest conception of the nature of God which has ever dawned on human intelli- gence, n God is love, the central essence is absolute self-surrender to the well-being of others.

That 'God is Love,' and Love is of God, are the final outcome of the irradiation of St. John's mind with ' the light of the knowledge of the glory (the essential beauty) of God in the face of Jesus Christ.' The Prologue commences the sublime details by declaring that the incarnate and only-be- gotten was full of grace and truth. He had been ' in the bosom of the Father,' and declared that which no other had seen.

He said, ' the Father loveth me, because I am laying down my life — not as if that were to be the final end, as so many seem resolved to have it, but — that I maj- take it again' (10"). The revelation of the principle of sacrificial love in the eternal heart of God, as the motive of the heavenly giving, sendin", and equipping of the Son, receives its triumpliant expression in the human life, which adequately revealed the eternal. A large portion of the Gospel is interfused with this thought.

In the conversation with Nicodemus the keynote was the eternal self-sacrificing love of God, of which He had become the expression (V"-). To the Samaritans He made it clear that He was leeking the salvation of men, ' of the world ' (431 43)^ Ijj, ti,g sacrifice of Himself. The discoune* of ch. C indicate the fountain of self-abnegating love, by which He was giving life to the world. The excited scenes of chs. 7 and 8 combine sternest condemnation of sin with love to sinners Chs. 9. 10.

11 are the apotheosis of love and sacri- fice. Ch. 12 is the record of the response of love to Himself, the fragrance of which has filled ' the whole world.' The evangelist himself sliows in 13'*- how he had personally felt the pulsation of divine love in the breast of Jesus, and how the Lord loveil His own unto the uttermost.

Every jiaragraph of the ' Discourse ' and ' Prayer ' is a fresh variation of the great revelation ; and the scenes of the arrest, the magnanimous self- surrender, intensify the teaching.

The record of His relations with His mother, with the other Marys, with the beloved disciple, with Thomas and Simon, give a perfectly unique revelation of the fundamental essence of Deity, and the forecast of the fulfilment of the high-priestly prayer, ' tliat the love wherewith thou lovest me may be in them, and I in them.' We have further to state the significance assigned in the J ohannine writings to the death of the great Sacrifice.

In the first Epistle the author regards the blood of Christ as the propitiation for the sin of the world, and as that which cleanses from all sin, and that God 'laid down his life for us.' In the Apoc. in various ways and many degrees of intensity the saved are the purchase of the blood of a high-priestly sacrifice, are souls redeemed by ' the blood of the Lamb which was slain ' ; while a right to the final privileges of the saved, acce.

ss to the Tree of Life, is secured by washing the robes (RV). St. Paul had laid the greatest emphasis on the expiation of sin, the redemption, the propitiation for sin, tlie ransom, and the rigliteousness of men through faith in the blood of CTirist. The bjTioptists, by the record of the institu- tion of the Lord's Supper, refer to the lips of Jesus Himself the sublime declaration that His blood was being 'shed for the remission of sin.'

Mark refers to our Lord the weighty saying, that He had come to give His life a ransom for many [olvtI t?o\\C)v). The Avay in which St. John handles thii momentous teaching differs from these familiar re- presentations, but is not incompatible with them. Reuss (Thiol. Ckrit.), Beyschlag, and others em- phasize the contrast, and try to exclude from the Fourth Gospel all reference to or implication of the expiatory worth of the death of Christ.

We admit, of course, that the glorious dignity of the incarnate Son of God has ci vered even the humiliation of His death with a mantle of lustre. The 'lifting up of the Son of Man' (12'-), and the bursting of abundant fruit from the dying of the com of wheat, give a character to the awful tragedy somewhat different from that of the Synoptists. Weiss, against the whole of the Tiibingen school, rightly emphasizes those elemenl,a where the same truth appears in altered form, e.g.

where John the Baptist (1-') indicates the Lord Jesus in His essential character and function as fulfillini; the oracle of Is 53. The chief signifi- cance of tnis is, that the whole passage is fre- quently quoted by NT writers and s]>eakers as descriptive of the very heart of the work of Christ. By the use thus made of it by Peter, Philip, John, Matthew, Clemens Komanus, it becomes a chapter of NT doctrine, and the quota- tions of portions practically cover the whole oracle.

Now with these citations John the Baptist's words, 'Behold the Lamb of God,' must be placed. Continual anticipations of Calvary and the Cross JOHN, GOSPEL OF JOHN, GOSPEL OF 727 »ccur. In the record of the first cleansing of the temple, in the prolon^jation of 'the hour,' and in the arrest of murderous hands in act to strike, the whole of the Saviour's holy life becomes a continuous sacrifice.

The double • eference by the evangelist to the prophecy of Caiaphas is specially charged with the same idea (II-""'- 18"). In the discourse at Capernaum (G"), the eating His llesh and drinking II is blood, in other words the moral surrender to His violent death, is life.

The moral assimilation of the stupendous fact of the divine-human person of the Lord, eating of the flesh, and the acceiitance of the sacrilice of that nivsterious life of His for the life of the world, ' drinking his blood,' utterly transcends a purely and simi)ly human consciousness. Dej'schlag here wonders at Weiss, but does not reply to him or to thousands who have come to the same conclusion before him.

A full interpretation which does not emasculate the reference by our Lord Himself to the 'brazen serpent' (3"), leaves the sacrificial meaning of the conquest of sin and death by the Son of Man still glittering with meaning, and calling with undiminished force for faith, love, and obedience. We have already drawn attention to ch. 10, where our Lord, by sacrificing Himself as the Good Shepherd for the Hock, does not relinquish His saving work. Indeed He renews, by resuming His life.

His power to deliver men as a shepherd of the sheep, and then His arms become idcntilied with the everlasting arras, and His hands with the almighty hands of the Father. If the Jews had taken the Tiibingen view, surely they would not have lifted stones to stone their Saviour-shepherd for His presumption and blasphemj-. The whole tone of the final discourse (14. 15.

16) U that Christ's very method of departure from this world, amid the exultation of the world and the lamentation of His disciples, unveils the nature of His heavenly work, and the fact that His way of returning to the Father (viz. death and resurrec- tion) is the ground on which He calls Himself their ' way,' and says that no man cometh unto the Father but by Him.

The entire method by which, in this Gospel, he conveyed the fact of the resur- rection to different classes of mankind is charged with the highest order of revelation, for He bare in His risen form the signs of His fearful agony and shame, and yet wielded all authority in heaven and earth. (a) The method of appropriating the great sal- vation. Faith is as e.xjilicitly pressed in the Fourth Gospel as by the Synoptists and St. Paul.

Believing in His name is the condition of beioiiiini; ' sons of God.' In great variety of connexion, faith is made the foundation and condition of eternal life (:!'»■", cf. " and 5-). Coming to Him is the physical analogue of mental and moral surrender to Him (6"). This is the part of man in the synthesis, the condition which God demands. He whom God hath sent is indeed the power by which the Father draws men to Himself (0", cf. 12-' 14'). Belief in His name was it.

-^elf conilitioned bv moral willingness to do the Fiitlier'a will, and was it-self the iriilispen.sable antecedent of receiving the Holy Spirit (T^**). (Ij) The following of .lesus. All progress in the divine life is a prolongation of the act of faith. The abiding of Christ in the soul, and of the soul in Christ (the chief theme of ch.

15), are essential to any conception of the eflicacy of faith, and ein(iliiusize the mutual relations ol the human and divine will, the growth and continu- ance both of grace and faith. ' Following .lesus' and 'abiding in him' are frequently iilentilied with such organic union as to ensure final [Mirtici- : pation with Him in eternal life and glory.

He who sows and they who reap rejoice together (4"); 'He that ealeth me shall live by me (G") ; ' He that receiveth whomsoever I shall send receiveth me'; 'He that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me ' ; ' 1 am in my Father, and j'e in me, and I in you'; 'My Father will love you, and we will come and make our abode with you.'

Union will be life-giving ; and thou>;h separation between the Lord and His disciples is an obvious matter of fact, yet in the power of the spiritual presence after His ascension His disciple may be enabled to ' touch him ' (20"). The ' peace,' the 'joy,' the 'love,' the 'glory' will pass from the central heart of Jesus to 'whosoever wills' or ' comes ' (14-'' 15" 16-"- IT, '- -«). D. The Johnnnine Esrhatolorjy.

— The teaching of the Fourth Gospel dillers from the rest of NT in its bearing on the future life and eternal judg- ment. If, however, the truths in the parables are stripped of their imaginative clothing, and the great arguments and implications of St. Paul deprived of their metaphor, and the nucleus of the ajiocalyptic visions laid bare, it is probable that we shall find nothing more than, nay, not so much as, -we find in the Fourth Gospel.

The latter has no festival rejoicing, no exclusion of the guest who does not wear the wedding garment, no scene of final judgment and everlasting life and punishment ; yet there is jtulnment ever ripening in tlie ' loving of darkness, and there is freedom from condemnation and even from death in any form ; and these are shown to be essentially equivalent to the moral rupture with God on the one side, or to ethical harmony with the highest concept of God as 'Light' and 'Love' on the other.

The future, like the past, is lost in an eternal now. In 5^- •* the resurrection, the final consummation, are doubtless involved, but in 15' the process w-hich burns up the fruitless prunings w-ould seem to be eternal.

The blinding of the foolish heart, the abiding of the divine w-rath upon the disobedient, the judgment that is always being enacted and evolved, the terror of d> in<^ in sins, the judgment that is inevitable and just (8"), and the crisis, the ex- pulsion of the world and its prince, all bring the reader into more vivid realization of the objective fact of judgment than do the parables of the Rich Man, the Marriage, the Talents, or the final unveiling of the great white throne.

The momentous events of Heb. history had thrown a lurid light on the prophetic meta- phors of the popular discourse ; but as the apostle ponders and reports the principle of the eternal judgment upon men and nations and on the entire world, we get closer to the heart and mind of Jesus than by any other medium of com- munication. In 1 Jn 2J'-" and 4" the writer anticipates the con.summation and the parousia, of which the whole NT speaks.

It is tlie perversity of criticism which endeavours to separate the two documents on this very ground, or which cannot disceni the harmony between them. The kingdom of God upon earth (ch. :t), the multitudes who are ' of the truth ' and ' hear his voice,' who come to the light and yield to His control, the underlying theocracy, or Cliristocracy, identify the teadiing of the Fourth Gospel with that of the Synoptists.

'These things arc written that ye may lielieve that Jesus is the ClIRLST, the Sim vfGml. and that believing ye might have life through His name.* In these words the beloved disciple sums up the teaching of all the (iospels. I.X. LlTlHATCRB.— Tile litcntura of UiU <u))Ject ii In |>u1 ooouioed tn the fort-troiti|( lUt of works iMued during the Ust T28 JOHN, EPISTLES OF JOHN, EPISTLES OF ?h"nM^Am I- ^<>™%<' "««« "hich no«- follow einbrnce the thTOlosryotthi- I-W. am Apoc. as well as the Gospel.

Bcysdii « whose woik on M' Tlu-ul. i» the last on our previoui list h^ Ukeu each seiiurattly, though he has given the theologV Si the Lospcl ani the Lpistles with son>e deliberate esuS 0} the r agreement as well as their allegeil .liverj-cnces. The lollowing works are oucupieU with the entire subtect •_ Neandcr, Uut. 0/ I'lanlimj. etc., 0/ CA rii"c/.«rf A k{^ iT his Ihtoi. Johan. Baur, in his Bib. Theot.

, emphasized the details m which the author ot the Gospel ' roTaC-e he lU-l r:i,c and Pauline Christianity. Schmidt ond van Oostirwe U. heir works 01, U,l,. Theol. 0/ At. have separate,! the ?..S,g of Uinst in Synop. from that of the Prologue and the Mi^itlcs of exhaustive trea.n,ent.;'we„dl!-"Ji-„'7nA„/'i,1-2M^7!?«J' 1890 .8 largely occui.ied «ith the peculiarities and (notwilh t^^f",^''""-'"'"f' ,'^« '"»'«ri<-^l value of the mMeral which ^^^^L , ','■ ?

>»"""»"<"> o'the teaching of Jesus as gathered out manv „f°''l''''"^"'",'^"°"'- U<^y'";''lH-critici.e»th ough- out many of the conclusions of Wendt. and everywhere S.™„"'fL"'' ""ir-'",' °' r^""'"'^ ^ tnuli'tional vfew?if the ^I^L ^1,.\ i'i"';r' "■?"'°' '-■'"■'"'• »<-«Pted by Weiss and n^ k™ ,-^ "" "1'5' '""'•"■nent^lly differ from Hilgenfeld Jr^n'f r„J?

„T JIarcus Dods, m the Hxponfor'a Bible, on St Johns Gospel covere much of the ground in practical and force ful manner and the MnnorabUia of Jam, by Vevton wi h much Ttvocity and mystic extravagance, yet brings out tkrheart of the teaching of Jesus. The same may be slid of Sears Xart <4Chnst, and of a vast number of comm. «.,». WeVtL-ott in Sfok. Comm.)on the Gospel, of which no list is here atte^uptei JOHN, EPISTLES OF- "' ^^ ^"'^«"S- Intro(iuction. 1. Order of Thought. 2. Character. 8.

Ideas. i. Form and StnictuM, 6. Independence. J. Purpose and Occasion. 7. Authorship. 8. Place and Date. 0. Deatination, Literature, A>005D EfLSTLB. 1. Contents. 2. Authorship. 8. Time, Place, and Destination. Literature. THIED EriSTLE. 1. Contents. 2. Time, Place, and Destination. 8. Occasion. 4. AffiniLies and Authorship. 6. Peculiar Interest. Literature. Of the twenty-one Epp. now included in the flS • '''"^?' "'"='' f°™> «• «'^"'^« by theiu- Be ves, are associated with the name of St.

Jolin Historical testimony shows then, to have been in existence in certain parts of the Cluirch and at a very early period ; in the case of the lon-est L tlTr.^^ tie middle of tlie 2nd cent., and, the r.al.nf'"T'^^'^°'5'^V ?''^^'^ conne.xion with anthni? °^ John, and their «ide recofe-nition as authontative writings, are also thin-.? of very far bTckl'V v^'""^ "^'? *''« '='^^« of^the firslas o^fht^ff ^ ^^P','"'" ""'' I'-en^is, and. in theca.se and Ori "' P"'-"?'

^ Clement of Alexandria and Origen, certainly to Dionysius, the puinl ?Lv hf^i ^'^"'^ ">« '='''^« °f "'6 4th cent IvZ r ^^''"T- '° generally accepted that they o^^n century, their claims have been disnuted their connexion with the name of Jolin Tein,'- denied or another John than the son of Zebede? being thought to be the writer. But Tt has been th^y^'arTa 1",^.''"^' "^"'i'- '''^ «'''- «'"- '"at cney are ail three apostolic writings and nart of T rr? r' "!

'"'"'"^ '''•^<^'I''« to'-the Chu'i'h. very IrhT dr.^i V " ^"""P °f. ^P^' ^^hi'^b from a very earij date have occupied a position of their own in the NT Canon, and have been known by a distinct title. This group, which in most ancient Mbb ol the A i (with occasional exceptions, as in the case of N) is placed between Acts and the 1 auhne Kjip., did not appear as a separate collec- tion at one and the same iieriod all over the Uiurch, nor did it include all these three Epp from the beginning.

It had neither the sanie name nor the same compass at all times or iu ail tlie diiierent sections of the Christian com- munion. In tiie Eastern Church the Epp. embraced in it received the title of Catholic or GmcnU (*atfo\.«ai) In the Western Church, in which the collection was of later formation, tliey were known, at least from tlie 0th cent., as Canonical (Canoniae) In one imiiortant section of the Church, the Syrian the group consisted only of three Epp.

, and among these only the longest of the Johannine letters found a place. In other parts of the Church, and in tiie Eastern division at least by the beginning of tlie 4th cent., it embraced seven Epistles" lliese included our three, the longest of the three being, along witli 1 Peter, the earliest accepted of tiie Avhole collection, and the two shorter bein- added at a later period. {See the article Catholic Epistles). By their inclusion in the peculiar circle of the Catlioiic Epp.

these three are marked oil' in one particular respect both from the Pauline Epp. and from other Epp. which were held in a measure of honour in the Church but not ultimately accepted as canonical. In other resjiects they also form a class by themselves. They have a character which cannot be mistaken. They are so obviously dis- tinguished from the other members of the group to which they belong and from the NT Epp. generally, that the least discerning eye must recognize theii ajiartness.

The ijeculiar character is most evident, of course in the largest of tlie three, but it discovers itself also in the smaller two. The latter are Epp of extremest brevity, the shortest citings in the Canon. They are writings, too. of incidental interest, and nersonal or ecclesiastical, not to say congregational, concern; while the former looks more like a studied composition, and deals with the weightiest questions of doctrine and the iargest concerns of practice.

Yet they are so much of tlie same stamn that in all ages the prevailing, if not absolutely universal, opinion has been that they come from the same mint and are by tlie same hand. They are writings in wliich tlie profound and the simple kiss each other, great and inexhaustible thoughts being wedded to the clearest and least ambitious terms. They combine the qualities of majesty, maturity, authority, and serenity with occasional fire and vehement utter- ance.

They are almost impersonal as regards the mind to which we owe them. The first gives ao hint of the author beyond the fact that he classes liimseif in an unstudied and informal way \vith those who had seen Christ in the fiesh. and indi- cates a measure of acquaintance with the circum- stances of those whom he addresses.

The second and third give only the intimations contained in tiie use of the designation of ' the presbyter,' and in the mention of certain individuals whom we have no means of identifying with any confidence, vet. devoid as they are of tangible, nersonal notes, tlie writer s individuality makes itself felt through- out. I hey move within a circle of ideas wliich. wlule not without points of affinity with the thought of the other NT Epp..

especially the gieater Pauline letters, are for the most part theii own. I hey have a diction which also belongs in a marked degree to themselves. Their wrrds are JOHN, EPISTLES OF JOHX, EPISTLES OF 729 words of calmest dignity, yet instinct with emociou —words which might be those of the philosopher, but yet are those of the common Ciiristian in- telligence. A Targe literature has CTOwn up around these Epj).

, which has always found something new to saj- in expounding their teaching and in grappling with the problems of their history. The alUuence of their thought, the fruitfulness of their doctrine, the spell of their spirituality and their deep tranquillity, have attracted the richest and do- voutest minds, the most practical and the most speculative intellects in every age. Their charac- teristic contents, the forms in which they present the essential message of the gospel, the e.

xpression which they give to some of the cardinal Christiiin doctrines, the insight which they all'ord into the condition of the early Christian societies, the liglit which they shed upon the operation and the intlu- ence of certain kinds of error, make them Epp. of singular interest. Even in the few verses of the Third Ep. disclosures are found which are of far- reaching signiticance for the story of the life and the theory of the constitntion of the primitive Church.

Questions of various interest and of no small dithculty are connected with them. They present some problems in exegesis (I 2" 3, •■ '" S"'*- '"), and some curious points in textual criticism (I 3' 2=8 43. -.^o 57^ II », 1II»). Most things touching their literary history have been the subject of dispute, and some of them are far from easy to determine.

The old debate is prolonged as to the where and the by whom of their com- position; whether thej' were written in Ephesus, in I'atmos, or elsewhere ; whether by one hand or more ; whether by one John or two Johns or three. The destination of tlie first two; the way in which the second and the third came to rank as Coth'^'- Epp.

and to have a position in the Canon ; the source and the explanation of their special form of doctrine ; whether a place can be found within the apostolic age for the type of thought and the ecclesiastical conditions which they ex- hibit,— these are questions which are still under discussion. Of these questions, that of their origin and author- ship is of primary importance. The answer which comes readiest to hand when one reads them to- gether is that all three are products of the same mind.

The answer that is suggested both by historical testimony and by their contents is that that mind is the mind to which we also owe the Foiirth Gospel and the Apocalypse. And in point of fact these are the views which prevailed in the ancient Church, and which have been generally acquiesced in since then. l?\it they were not left unchallenged even in ancient times, while in modem tunes they have been disavowed by a succession of thinkers of distinguished rank among NT critics.

In our own centnry, in particular, their claims to apostolic date and worth have been strongly contested, and judgments of the most diverse kind have been pronounced upon them by the critical schools. There are those who iind no dithculty in attributing all three Epp., as well as the (.Josiiel, to the Apostle John, but dbcover another hand in the Apocjilypse. HIeek, e.g., admits the existence of clear points of contact between all the writings assigned to St. Jolin.

But he is of opinion, at the same time, tliat the atlinity between the Epp. and Gospel on the one hand, and the Bk. of Kevelation on the other, is limited and occasional, while the dillerence is great and pervading. That dill'erence is lielil to extend not only to tlie diction and the style, ot wliich in the ca.Ho of the Apoc.

the one is confes»cilly peculiar and the other is pronounced rough and broken, but to the whole genius of the books, their attitude to the Jewish people, city, and temple, their teaching on the PciTuuiui, and other things. It is thought to amount to so much that, if the Epp. are ascribed to St. John, the Apoc.

must either oe allowed to be a forgery by a much later hand or be explained as the work of another John, ' the presbyter,' re- ferred to by Papias in a way interpreted by many as distinguLshing him from the apostle (Euseb. HE iii. 39). There are others, again, who read the story of these writings in the re- verse way, Uxing the stigma of the spurious on the Epp. alone, or on the Epp. and the Gospel together. S. G. Lan™ regarded the Gospel and the Apoc. as the real writings of St.

John, but took tlie First Ep. to be the work of an imitator a centurj- later. Tlie Tiibingen critics agree in claim- ing the Apoc. for St. John, and in repudiating the other writings, though they dill'er with regard to the order of tie latter. Baur himself (in 1S57) held the First Ep. to be an imitation of the Gos- pel by a dill'erent hand, while HUgenfeld places the Ep. earlier than the Gospel.

Among those, too, who hold by the common Johannine authorship, certain ditl'erences appear, some regarding the First Ep. as the middle term between the Gospel and the Aiioc. (Godet), others giving the Ep. a position in time between the Apoc. and the Gospel. The historical case, as it has been understood by the great majority of students, so far as concerns the main questions, is this : that, while certain doubts overhung for a time the recognition of the shorter Epp.

, we tind them, so far back as we can trace them, bearing the name of John and never any other, when the author's name is given ; and that, while certain dili'erences of view appeared iu the early Church regarding the particular John, all three were regarded by most as writings of the apostle, and had an a-ssured position as such before the close of the 4th cent.

Whether the case can be accepted as it has thus been put, and what the probabilities are with the critical theories referred to, will best appear as the tinal result of a study of the writings. We shall take each Ep. therelore by itself, and shall look at its order of thought and the various questions which have been raised with respect to its occasion, its i)urpose, its mes- sage, etc.

Having done this, we shall take up anew the problem of its origin and authorship, en- deavouring to estimate the worth of the traditional view on the one hand and the counter-theories on the other. The First Epistle. — 1. Order of Thought. — The Ep. opens with some calm and lofty sentences, not ciust in the form of epistolary introuuction with which we are most familiar in tlie NT, but more in that of the Ep. to the Hebrews.

In these, without indicating eitlier himself or his readers except in an indirect and general way, the writer states at once the great fact on which all that he has to say rests, viz. the historical manifcstjition in Jesus Christ of the life that is behind all life, the eternal life that was with the Father. He declares at the outset, too, in this Introduction, the great object wliich ho has in view in addressing his readers, viz.

tliat his joy in them might be perfected by seeing them one with him in that fellowship with God iu which he and the brethren with whom he chusses himself are coiisiiuus of stnndiii" (I''*). He enters then at oiue upon bis specific suiiject, giving as the ba.sis of his counsel and the fundamental apostolic message the truth that ' God is light' ; from which the immediate inference is that a walk in the light is indispensable on our part to this fellow- ship with Go«l.

This inference, however, from which there can be no esi'apo, is declared, not in it« logical directness, but lu the form that to pro- 730 JOHN, EPISTLES OF JOHN, EPISTLES OF fuss to be in fellowsliip with God and to continue to wale in darkness, is to commit ourselves to a lie iind to all unreality. This walk in the light is not , '■3 be thus dealt with.

Too much depends on it — not unly fellowship with God, but fellowsliip with other members of Christ's body, and also the purgation of sin by Christ's blood, 'flie cleansing which every Christian needs and wliich he also olitains coming > thus into view, the explanation follows that on the one hand, if we claim to have no sin, we deceive our- selves and put God Himself to the lie, whUe ou the other hand real confession of sin brings with it the divine forgiveness and the divine cleansing (1°"'°).

The same thought is put in another form before the writer passes to his next subject, when he jiro- ceeds to remind his readers that all that he writes to them of the revelation of life, the fellowship with God, the i)ardon and purification of sin, is written with the practical purpose of instructing them not to sin, and then, recognizing the sin of which the true Christian cannot but be conscious, he points to the certainty of its forgiveness in V irtue of what Christ is as Paraclete and Propitia- tion (2'- »).

The thought of the new fellowship which has come by the Gospel leads to another near akin to it — that of the knowledqe which the same Gospel requires and makes possible. The position in which those addressed were at the time, furnishes the occasion for speaking with emphasis and decision of the knowledge with which alone the believer is concerned, and of spurious forms with lofty preten- sions.

So the writer declares the knowledge of God in its reality to be possible only where the humble way of practical ooedience to God's com- mandments is followed ; in which connexion lie urges the necessity of walking as Christ walked.

In further illustration of the kind of life which befits the Christian, he identifies the walk in the light with the walk in brotherly love, and holds before his readers the duty of loving the brethren as the commandment of commandments, one at once old and new (3''").

He warns these Christians also against the love of the world and the seduc- tions of false teachers, which are contrary to the love of the brethren, and presses this warning with the greater insistence because the world's oppor- tunity is now short. It is the last time with it and all things, as is witnessed by the fact that many antichrists have appeared. These antichrists .

ire described, and the description is pointed by an I'xhortation to these believers to abide in that know- ledge which they have by the Holy Ghost, a know- ledge which cannot deceive, so that they may not be put to shame in the great day of the Lord's Parousia (2"-«). The thought of God as light passes over next into the thought of God as righteous.

Following out this new idea, the writer proceeds to say that cinly he who is righteous can be the child of God ; that the man who has the hope of being like God or Christ must purify himself ; and that, as Christ is sinless, he who is in Christ cannot sin.

But he adds, with an eye to the subtle deception of the false teachers, that to be righteous means to do righteousness, and in sharp and decisive terms dis- tinguishes those who sin as the children of the ievil, from those wlio do not and cannot sin as the children of God.

He identifies this righteousness also, which is the note of the son of God, as he had previously done in the case of the walk in light, with the love of the brethren, and again warns his readers against the love of the world, which, as was seen in the instance of Cain, means hatred of the children of God (2=»-3'=).

At this point he sets Christ before them again as the supreme pattern of Christian love — a love which must be in deed and truth, and which carries \\-ith it these two blessings — the consciousness of being of the truth and the confidence that our prayeri shall be heard. Touching again on God s com- mandment, he shows that it, too, means twg things, viz.

belief in Christ and love of one another, and explains that he who keeps the divine com- mandments not only is in fellowship with God, but lias tlirough the Spirit the consciousness of tha* fellowship (3'-'-").

Keturninjj to the question of the inimcJiata dangers which tlireatened his readers, the writer speaks again of the false projjhets ; and his words oi warning on that subject become the occasion for taking up anew the two great themes — the law of love and the keeping of God's commandments, which are so niucli in his view.

He repeats his cautions against the seductions of misleading teachers, and indicates the marks of distinction between the spirit of God and the spirit of Anti- christ, between the spirit of truth and the spirit of error (4'"'). He urges a^ain the supreme duty of love — love to God indeed in the first instance, but also, and more particularly in this case, love to man.

He reminds those for whom he is so solicitous, that the man who is of God is of love, called to love Him who Himself is love, and who has given the last proof of that in the mission and propitiatory death of His Son. To love God, he tells them, is to be in God, and to have God in them, and to be delivered from the torment of fear. It is all this, but it is also a love that gives proof of itself in the obvious practical duties of loving the brethren and keeping the divine commandments.

And these commandments, he adds, wliatever they may be to otliers, cannot be grievous to those who are begotten of God (4''-5'). The mention of this new relation to God, expressed by the term ' begotten of God,' forms a natural point of transition to the idea of the new mental attitude that goes with the new birth. So the writer comes to speak of faith, — of what it is as belief in Jesus as the Son of God, and of the w .

tness which it carries with it to His being that; of the victorious might that is in that belief, and of the witness as something more than any external testimony — a witness which the believer has in himself (5'"). As the letter approaches its con- clusion he states again the great object with which it has been written. He refers once more to what prayer is to the children of God, the confidence in it which is their prerogative, and the things they are entitled to ask (S"'").

He brings the Epistle to an end by proclaiming anew the separation of the Christian from sin and from the wicked one ; the privilege which is the Chris- tian's both in understanding and in possession ; and the necessity that is laid upon those who know the true God and have fellowship with Him to keep themselves from idols (5'*"^'). 2. Character. — It appears, therefore, that the argument of the Epistle, if such a term can be applied to it, turns on a few large and simple ideas.

It unfolds itself mostly in terms of cer- tain broad antagonisms — those between Christ and Antichrist, believers and the world, the children of God and the children of the devil, the love of God and tlie love of the world, righteousness and unrighteousness, confidence and fear, love and hate, sins and a sin unto death, walking in the light and walking in darkness, being begotten of God and being touched by 'that wicked one.'

In connexion with these fundamental and recur- ring antitheses we have a series of statements of what the message of the gospel is ; of what fellow- ship with God is, how it comes, and what it implies ; of what Christ is, and what His mission into this world means ; of what the believer is, and what the Christian vocation involves.

JOHN, EPISTLES OF JOHN, EPISTLES OF J3\ The message of the gospel is that God is light ; tliat we are to love one another ; that in Clirist (Jod has given us eternal life. The fellowship with tJoii w hich is in view is made possible by two things — the liistorieal manifestation of Uod in Christ and tlie believer's faith, the former being the objective pound of this new and gracious relation, the latter its subjective condition.

This fellowship brings with it the graces of joj', for^'iveness, knowledge, the cleansing of the life, the liberty of intercession, the answer to prayer, the assurance and fearlessness of children. It involves a walking in the liglit, the doing of righteousness, the purify- ing of ourselves, love to God and love to tlie brulliren, lilial obedience, practical benevolence, the observance of the divine commandments, the forswearing of idols.

Christ is the Son of God, the only-begotten Son, the manifestation of the Father and of that eternal life wiiicli was with the Father ; preexistent as being sent by God into the world : true man, righteous, sinless, the Paraclete with the Father, the propitiation for the sin of the world. His mission is to destroy the works of the devil, to bring us back to God, to give us eternal life, to put away our sin, and to be the Saviour of the world.

\nd tlie Christian is one who lias fellowship with God ; who confesses his sin and is cleansed and forgiven ; wlio is begotten of God and sins not; who bus the ;'iftof knowledge and can distinguish good from evil, the children of God from the world, truth from error, the false prophet or the false spirit from the true ; who walks in the light and does the truth, loWng God and the bretliren, imitating Christ, and finding no grievousness in the divine commandments; who has passed out of death into life ; who knows that his prayers are heard, and looks with holj- con- fidence to the coming of his Lord and the judg- ment, and has the consciousness of eternal life in him.

Alike in the matter of its thought and in the way in which its ideas are expressed, this Epistle has a character wholl}' its own. The only E]>p. of the NT which are of the same stamp are the two smaller letters wliicli are a.ssociated with it. It dill'ers most of all from the Fpp. which bear St. I'aul's name. It liaa nothing of the formal structure, the systematic course, the dialeeticiil movement of these. The logical particles which abound in the Pauline writings are strange to this Epistle.

Its thought moves on, but not in an obvious progress to a goal. It takes the form of a succession of ideas which seem to have no logical relation, and which fall only now and again into a connected series. They are delivered, iiol in the way of reasoned statements, but as a series of rellcc- t ions and declarations given in meditative, aphor- istic fa.shion. This lack of the constructive quality gives the teacbinf; of tlie Epistle a pecidiar direct- ness and simplicity. But it is the directne».

s of authority, the simplicity of truths which are felt to be seffattesting. These characteristics add to the vigour, tlic originality, the attractiveness of the Epistle. They have strangely been reganlcd by some as tokens of weakness, and have been reckoned among the things which are 8upi>o.sed to speak of the 'feebleness of old age' (S. G. I.ange). Even 15iiiir discovered a certain ' indetinitencss,' a tendency to repetition, a want of ' logicjil force,' ill the tenor of the Ep.

which gave it a 'tone of childlike fecblene.-^s. liut those critics show a b'tter insight — and they are of Uaur's school as wcil as of others — who find a peculiar beauty, rich- ness, anil originality in the Epistle, a special fresh- ness ami vividnes.s, particularly in what it says of the 'subjective, inner life of Ciiristianity ' (Hilgen- fold). If the characteristic ideo* nf the Ep. are few and simple, they are of large signilicance, and the}' are presented in new a.

spects and relations as often as they recur. They belong to the region of primary principles, realities of the intuition, certainties of the e.xperience, absolute truths. And they are given lu their absoluteness. The regenerate man is one who cannot sin ; Christi.an faith is presented in its ideal character and completeness; the revela- tion of life is exhibited in its tinality, not in the stages of its historical realization.

They are ideas which take us into the inner and essential nature of things, into the real that is behind the phe- nomenal, the inward that is the heart of the out- ward, the permanent that is the ground of the transitory, the future that is in the bosom of the present. They are mystical in the sense that thej' are given as truths of immediate certitude, abso- lute reality, inward vision.

But they are not mystical in the sense of being the jiure products of intuition, things only of the subjective world. or superior to the common experience of life. Tlu-y are given in practical relation to the ordinary course of Christian life and conduct. They have their roots, too, in the great facts of the objective revelation of God in Christ, in that which 'we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of tlie word of life' (1'). 3.

Ideas. — The doctrinal and ethical ideas which meet us in the other NT Epp. appear also in this letter. But they are presented in a special light, and with distinctive notes. The Thevlogy of the Ep. has its own points of interest. God is seen in this Ep., as elsewhere, in His Fatherhood, His truth, liis righteousness. His forgiving grace, and in the fulness of His life as expressed in His triune Being.

But, above all else, He is 'light' (1°) and He is 'love,' loving us before we loved Him, and so imparting Himself to us that He dwells in us (4''' '"• "). The ChrUtology also has its peculiar features. Christ is the Son, ' the Son of God,' ' the Only-begotten,' who was with the Father before He appeared in the world. He is the explanation of all things. F'or in Him we see the eternal life that is behind all things, and from Hira we have the life that is life indeed.

His divine and jire-temporal relations are not left with- out expression or intimation. But it is especiallj- in His numan nature and relations that He forms the great subject of this Epistle.

He is never called ' the Son of Man,' it is true, yet it is the integrity of His humanity that is especially allirmea— the fact that He appeared on earth in the full reality of the ' liesh,' neither in phantasmal form nor in divided being, neither as mere spirit nor yet with the divine and the human in any loose or temporary connexion, but as at once 'Jesus' and ' the Chri.st,' — Jesus Christ come in the llesh, and ' not by water only, but by water and blood ' (2^ 4^-' 5"). His sinle.

ssness is a-sserted (3°), as it is in the Pauline and Petrine writings, and He is said to have been 'sent' by God (4"), as St. Paul also speaks of His appearance on earth. But Ilia entrance into our world, and His a-ssumption of our nature and estate, are not given, as they are in St. Paul, under the aspect of a humitittlivn.

The designation 'the Paraclete,' which occurs in the NT only in the Joliannine writings, and is used in the Fourth (Jospcl directly of the Holy Spirit and only imidicitly of Chri.st, is applied here to the Son Iliniself directly and delinitcly [i'). Further, in tliis E|). Christ is presented less in re.spect of what He was and is, and more in respect of what pro- ceeds from Him and is done by Him. It is a (juestion whether the term 'the Word' is used ilirectly and personally of llim.

The form which the sentence takes in which that great term ia used is indirect, and its subject is neuter and im- 732 JOHX, EPISTLES OF JOHN. I'TISTLES OF fersonal (!'"') It is specifically as 'the life' that le is set before us here, and the more general term is chosen to express His appearance on earth. It is a (pavepovaSai.

It is not wiid of Him that ' the Word was made flush'; and though the idea that His entrance into our world was a real incania- tion is implied in the description of Him as ' come in the llesh,' that event is exhibited rather as a manifcstntion, and in particular the manifesta- tion of life. Tlie Uuly Spirit, again, is spoken of especially as given by God and as bearing witness to Christ (3^5").

Sin is 'unrighteousness' (1» S"-' 5") and ' lawlessness ' (S) ; but itisalst ' darkness' (1) and •death' (3"). The believer is the 'child' of God {HKyov, not vl6s), ' bom ' or ' begotten of God,' the special relation in which he is introduced being ttiat of the new life rather than the new standing (3'' '). Larije expression is given also to the forces of evil which are opposed to Christ and the children of God. They are the de\'il and his works (3"), the spirit of deceit (4' rvev^a. ttj!

vXdviii), seducing spirits that have to be tried {4'), the many 'anti- christs' who have separated themselves from the Church or been cast out of it, and in whom the antichrist of prophecy is seen (2'- " 4'). Among these forces is mentioned also 'the world,' an ex- pression which in this Epistle conveys the largest and most complex conception of immediate, en- circling evil (2'»-" 3" 4'-5'>-'9). Faith, too, has its special aspect and compass here.

It is the great subjective condition of the Christian life and Btandiii", but it is not presented here either in the broad idea of it which is expressed in the Epistle to the Hebrews (11'), or in the definite character given to it in the great Pauline Epistles. It is neither generally ' the assurance of things hoped for, the proving of things not seen,' tliougli it comes near to that, nor distinctively the faith that J'uslifies and gives peace with God.

It is belief in esus Christ, the belief that comes with regenera- tion, that is of the new life, that is the character- istic note of the man who is born of God. As such it is power, it is victory, it is its own witness (51-.. 10). The Ep. also has its doctrine of the Inst things. Its theology, indeed, is not distinctively an eschato- logical theology. Its fundamental idea is rather that of life, and that ' life ' not as a thing wholly or specifically of the future.

It is a ' life ' that has been with the Father from the beginning, and that has been historically revealed in Christ (!''') It is in Christ, and it becomes our possession ncnp in virtue of our belief in Him and attitude to Him (5"- ").

It is ' eternal ' life, and that not in respect of its perpetuity merely, or its changelessness, but distinctively in respect of its quality — as essential life, a new ethical order of being, not a certain duration of existence, but the kind of life that means the ideal good of life, the perfection of life, its satisfaction in God.

This great conception of life as ' eternal life,' which bulks so largely in the Fourth Gospel, occurring there some seventeen times, has an equally prominent place in this Ep., meeting us here six times in the forms fan; aliivios (316 511.78.20) and t; f w^j ^ aMi-ios (P 2»). I5ut while this (jualitative or ethical conception of life, which lifts It above distinctions of present and future, is the prevailing idea, it does not exclude the escha- tological.

The ' life ' which is essential, and which is ours now in Christ, also looks to a fuller com- pleteness, a future perfection. The Ep. speaks of a manifestation of what the children of God are destined to be (3'). It has its word of hope, its vision of a blessedness still prospective, its antici- pation of a manifestation in which we shall see Christ as He is, its doctrine of an advent of Christ which it expresses, as St. Paul also expresses it, as a Parousia (3'- ' 2™).

There is no express mention, it is true, of the Ilcsun-ection. But it is impUtd in what is said of the J'ltroiiA-in and the Judijincnt, the fact of a great .Judgment in the future being stated in express terms (4"). The tilings of the End may occupy a sm.aller place in this En. than in the writings of St. Peter and St. Paul.

Itiit alongside the present conditions which are expressed by the same words, the 'coming' of Christ, the 'judg- ment,' the ' life eternal' appear also as events of tlie end and as final conditions. These are, in brief, the main ideas of the Epistle. They have an important bearing, as will be seen, on the (luestion of the authorship of the writing. See also art JoH.v (Life and Theology of). 4. Form and Structure.

— There are certain ques- tions relating to the form and construction of the Epistle. They are matters of subordinate im- portance, which have had a consideration given them that is much beyond their merits. One of these is the question whether this writing is really an Epistle or something else. The fact that it has neither an introduction nor a conclusion, such as we find in other NT Epp., neither a greeting nor a lienediction nor a doxology, such as we get in tlio Pauline Epp.

, together witli the circumstance that in much of its matter it does not run in terms of direct address, has led some to deny it the char- acter of a letter, and to speak of it as a homiletical essay or a pastoral (Reuss, Westcott), a lihdliu rather than an Epistle (Bengel), a manual of doctrine (Heidegger), a treatise (.Micliaelis), a prac- tical or polemical composition meant to form part of the Gospel (Berger, Storr).

But if it wants the usual form of superscription and greeting, it has an equivalent resembling the opening of the Ep. to the Hebrews. If it has not the liind of con- clusion, or the doxology, with which we are familiar in the Pauline Epp., that is the case also with the Ep. of Janiea.

The freedom of the style, the use of sucli direct terms as ' I write unto you,' 'I wrote unto you,' and the footing on which writer and readers stand to each other all through its contents, show it to be no formal composition or didactic treatise, but an Epistle in the proper sense of the word. Nor is anything to be gained by applying to 1 Ju such ingenious distinctions as are attempted to lie drawn (e.g.

by Deissmann, Bibelstudien) be- tween 'letter' and 'epistle,' and denying it the former designation. If the term ' letter ' were to be restricted, indeed, in common speech to a piece of private correspondence not meant for the public, it might be necessary to speak only of 3 J n as a 'letter,' and to describe 1 Jn and (on a particular interpretation of its address) 2 Jn as ' Ejiistles.' And so some would hold St. Paul's letters to be the only 'letters' in the proper sense in the NT.

But there are ' open ' letters as well as closed, encyclical letters as well as personal, letters to communities as well as to individuals. What gives to a composition the character of a letter is its style and contents. And though there is not a little in 1 Jn that might suit an address or dis- course, there is more that fits a letter, especially such a letter as one might write who had both age and honour on his side, and who could write lioth freely and authoritatively.

The relations which the writing indicates between writer and readers are not distant, but familiar. They are the near relations of those who know each other well. The question of the structure of the Ep. haa also been much debated. Some have pronounced the writing to be wholly without a plan, and to consist simply of a number of reflections, counsels, or deliverances loosely put together, without con- tinuity or logical connexion (Calvin, cf. his Argu- mentum Epist. IJoh.

; Flacius lilyricus, Episcopus) JOHN, EPISTLES OF JOliX, EPISTLES OF 733 Others have regarded it as a systematic composi- tion, on a dogmatic plan, and with a niethodical arrangement of ideas in all its parts. Bengel, e.g., asserted for it an elaborate contextual plan on a basis mainly Trinitarian. These are e.xtreme opinions, and the truth lies somewhere between tliem. It is impossible to claim for this Ep. the strict logical sequence of thought which some imagine they find in it.

But it is at the same time more than a series uf unrelated ideas, a collection of unconnected maxims or aphorisms. There is a certain order in the Ep., due to the object with whiih it is declared to have been written. But it is an order that can be taken only in a broad and general way. Attempts have been made to carry it out in detail ; but they have been only partially successful. Some have distributed the contents of the Ep.

into something like eight groups of ideas (Liicke) ; others have fonnd jive main divisions in it, viz. l''-2" 2""" 2^-3-' Z'-'0- 4-' 5'""' ( Hofmann, cf. Srhri/lbeiceis ; Luthardt) ; others four, viz. l''-2" 2'3-»' 2'='-32-'' 3=»-5", dealing respectively with the danger of moral inditt'erence, the love of the world and Antichrist, the necessity of a life of brotherly love, and faith as the founda- tion of the Christian life (Uuther). Some, again, have arranged the matter of the Ep.

on tlie plan of thrte great exhortations, viz. l'-2^ 2^-4' 4'-5'', with Introduction and Conclusion (de Wette). Others have regarded it as consisting of Introduc- tion, Conclusion, and two great connected sections, vi?..

l'-2^ 2^-5', both parts setting fortli the same subject of fellowship with God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ ; but each in its own way — the former havinj^ for its special theme the proposition that God is light, the latter the iiroposition that God is Wj7/(<eoi« (Diisterdieck, Alford). Divisions of a somewhat dillerent kind are also suggested, as, e.g.

, into three main sections, each with three or four sub-sections, the subjects for these sections being taken to be the ' problem of life and those to whom it is pro[Xjsed,' the 'conflict of truth and falsehood without and within,' and the ' Christian life : the victory of faith ' (Westcott). There is more or less trutli in these different readings of the plan of the Ep., and there is a certain measure of agreement among them. But even the simplest schemes do not admit of precise application.

One can see that there are certain primary thoughts, especially the great ideas that (iod is light, that God is righteous, that God is love, to which much of the matter of the Ep. naturally relates itself ; and that there are certam paragraphs or series of verses that have on the whole distinct subjects. But the ideas which give a special character to some particular section of the Ep. are not conlined to that section. They meet us again and again, thou''h it may not be 3uite in the same form.

The Ep. has its intro- uction, its boily, and its conclusion. It has its ruling thoughts, and it pa^ises from one thought to another by points of transition which can often, if not always, Ix; recognized. In its main contents it has a certain order and succession of ideas. Hut it is an order that follows the way of suggestion, not that of logical connexion. It is not system- atically cjirricd out, neither does it show itself upon the surface.

It ha-s the freedom that is juoper to a letter, the unstudied, non-constructive character that belongs to a series of meditations or practical counsels. 5. Indrpendcnce. — This is a question of greater imjiortance. Among the NT writings there is one, though only one, that is at once seen to be of the snnio character as this Epistle. That IB the Fourth Gospel. The reseniuliuice is so great and unmistakable as at once to luggeat ilia question, how the two are related to each other.

In the Epistle we get the same general style as in the Gospel, the same simplicity of l.

Tnguage with the same profoundness and ex- altation of thought, the same lofty serenity, the same peculiar structure, the same sententious oi aphoristic tone, the same habit of giving a state- ment both in the alhrmative form and in the nega- tive, and of taking up, repeating, and extending an idea already expressed ; the same way of conveying truth by the use of contrasts, like that between light and darkness, life and death, love and hate ; the same methods of forming sentences and carry- ing the thought forward.

There are the same fundamental conceptions, too, of God, Christ, the purpose of the Son's mission, the nature of Hi- work, His relations to God and to man, the chai acter and standing of His disciples, the world, life, death, the present and the future. Many of the terms which are characteristic of the one arc characteristic of the other.

Of this class are the following : — a\-i)di)^, dXTj^eta, dfULfyriav ^fiv, dvdpwirOK- t6vo^, yeyftj&ijvai ix, ivroKiri Kaivq, ^urfj, fwr; a/u>ftos, ^edff^at, Kitaixos, /xafrrvpeTv, ^cra^aivuv {k tov davarov ets TTjv i^un/v, fiovoyevris (of Christ), vatdia, wapdKXrjro^, irepf.ira.Tiiv iv t^ ffKori^, irnrrevftf et's, Tra^/ytjtria, ri TTveOfjJi riji a\i]Oeia^, irotetv Trjv aX'^Oeiav, iroteiv TTjif duaprlav, d wovijpus, (TKorla, irwrijp tou Kixrp^ov, t^kvo.

6eov, TtKvla, Ttdivai Trjv \pvxTiv airrov, (paf^poOv, ipu>s, Xapo ireirXiipu/n^n;. Other terms distinctive of the Gospel and the Apocalypse together meet us also in the Ep. ; e.g. dyaw^v, dydinj, dyyi^eiv ^auriic, d\7jdiv6^, yiVihaKCiv, eli/at iK, Beupeiy, fJXipTupia, ^Uvav, viK^v, irXav^v, TT)p(Lv rds ivroXds, rijpelv riiv \i/yov, ipalfeiv. Peculiar syntactical forms, or peculiar uses of familiar foriuulie, which occur in the Gospel, occur also in the Ep., as in the case of tfa, dXX' IVa, etc.

There are also many obvions paral- lelisms of thought and expression. Examples of these may be seen in such i)assages of tlie Ep. as — 2" 2" 3" 3' 3-'' S 4« 4" 4" b 5» 5 when com- pared respectively with those pas.sagcs of the Gospel— 58" 8« 15>« 8- 13" 8" d" 6'' 10'' 5*" 17'. In view of all this some have denied the char- acter of independence to the Ep., and have spoken of it as a copy of the Gospel which shows all through the imitative hand (Baur).

Others, who have not been disposed to go so far as that, have regarded it as a 'companion' to the Gospel, the second part of the Gospel (Michaelis, Storr, Eich- hom), a kind of dedicatory writing meant to go with the (Jospel (Hug, Thiersch, Hausrath, Hof- mann, Ebrard, Ilaupt), a summary or recasting and practical setting of the contents of the Gosjiel (Hoekstra, Holtzmann), a covering letter designed to serve as a kind of introduction to the Gospel (Lightfoot), etc. Hut there are clear and .

signilicant differences between the two writings, notwithstanding this remarkable general similarity. There is no such local colouring in the Ep. as we have in the Gospel. There is no such Hebrew stam|> in the Ep. as there is in the Gosiiel. There is not a single quotation from the OT in the former, while in the hitter we have both citations from the (tT and references to the OT. These diH'erence.s, in- deed, are not conclusive.

They may be duo to the natural dill'erence between narrative and let ter, or to the dillerent circumstances and objects of the writings. Hut there is iiiiuli more than tlie.se. The ideas which arc common to both are, in not a few ca.ses, differently put, and have a different aspect. In the Ep., e.g., Christ's appearance on earth is pre.senteif, aa wo have seen, in the broad light of a vmnifrstittii'ti. The specilic functiim of niivocnry OT intercession is ascribed to Him.

The qualities oi fnilhfulnas and righleviisnets on the side of (iod, and the grace of conftMion on tb« 734 JOHN, EPISTLES OF JOHN, EPISTLES OF side of man, are {,'iven in a particular connexion witli tlie forj;ivenuss anil tlie cleaiisiiig of sin ; and faith appears iu the delinite cliaiaetur of a power of overconiinj; In tlie ease of certain ideas of tlio Ep., the atlinities are rather with the teaching of^ the "jreat I'auline Epp. than with the Fourth Gospel.

This is true, not only of what is said of tiod or of Christ as Suoios {cf; V 2= with Ko 3="), but also of the description of Christ as Waanot (cf. 2= 4"' with Ro :{==), the desi^'iiation of His Second Coming as a irapovvla (cf. 2'^ with 1 Co 15-^, I Th •_"» etc.), etc. But, besides this, the Ep. has not a few ideas which it does not share with the Gospel. Such ideas are those, e.g.

, of a 'fellow- ship (koij-wi'io) with the Father and with Hia Son Jesus Christ,' a 'love perfected' (dydwjj T-rreXfiw- fU^);) an 'Antichrist' and 'Antichrists,' a 'sin unto death' (d^iopria irpis Sifarof), a ' Divine seed' (attipim oi'roD), an ' unction from the Holy One ' (Xp'<^A'a airJ tov dylou).

Such terms as a'77e\(a and TrXdi'os, such phrases as ^inOi'fila tuiv dtpOaX^Qv, i-m- Oufila T^5 aapKis, iv capKl (pxiffOai, iv rtp (puni Trepi- n-txTuv, TToifiv T^v avop-lav, iroietc rfji' SLKoioavvtjv, belong to the Ep. and not to the Gospel. Such ideas, again, as those of the ' wrath of God ' {-q 6pyri toS 6ioO), to ' be from above ' (eli-ai ix tuv dvu), ' to be from beneath ' {etfat (k tCiv k6.

tui), and such desig- nations as 'the Hi)ly Spirit' (t6 wevna rb dyiov), which are in the Gospel (3^ 8^ \^ etc.), do not recur in the Epistle. And to these things others might be added. Where the Gospel, e.g., declares God to be ' Spirit ' (iri-f C/io, 4^), the Ep. declares Him to be 'love' (dyivri, 4'°); where the Gospel speaks of the Son being ' in the Father ' and the 'Father in the Son' (U'"'" etc.), the Ep.

speaks of us as being 'in God' and God 'in us (Vf's tv TV 9fV 2' 4S i eV V'" 2' 4^). There are also certain minuter differences in usage, as in the preference of the Ep. for the preposition ctiri after such verbs as alre^v, inoveiv, Xa/ifidfeiv, where the Gospel has irapd. To which must be added the fact that no clear reference to the (Jospel is discovered in the Epistle. There is enough, therefore, to sliow that the Ep.

is not de|)endent on the Gospel, not a second part of it, nor a remodelling of its contents, whetner for practical or for polemical purposes, but an inde- pendent composition having its own particular occasion, purpose, and character. 6. Purpose and Occasiori.

— Its purpose is that the readers may have fellowship with the waiter and his associates who have been eye-witnesses of the Word of life, and whose fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ ; that the joy which the writer and his brethren have in them may be made complete by seeing that fellowship realized in their case ; and that those addressed may have the comfortable conscions- ne.ss of possessing eternal life (1', ' 5").

The WTiter's object, therefore, is to be taken in the breadth which he himself gives it. It is not to be limited to the combating of certain errors, the refutation of certain false teachers, or the reproof of certain shortcomings. The Ep. does deal with certain faults in life, certain errorists and defective doctrines. But its primary purpose is to help these Christians to be partakers with the writer and his fellow-witnesses in the com- fleteness and satisfactisn of the Christian life.

t is with a view to this that other subjects are introduced, that certain instructions are ^ven, and that counsels are offered against certain in- firmities and perils. The Ep., nevertheless, may have had a particular occasiim. That is found iij' some in a certain critical condition of the Church or Churches ad- dressed (Liicke, etc.); and there are, no doubt, things in the Ep. whicli point to shortcomings, especially in the matter of brotherlj' love.

But there is -lotliing to indicate that those addressca were in a peculiarly <langerous or faulty condition, or that the moral life liad sunk very low among them. The Ep. is not one of reproof. It is rather written umlcr the sense that writer and readers are living in 'the la.st time," and that the Coming of the Lord is expected. Its particular occa.-'ion, therefore, may rather be sought in what it swys of the appearance of certain fal.

se teachers, ni which event the writer sees the token of ' the last time.' Who were those errorists that are here si)()ken of as 'Antichrists'? To this (juestion many dill'erent answers have been given. Some of them may be at once dismissed as too large and indelinite. To say, e.g. (with Bleek), that the men in view are Christi'ins, men who had lost their faith or had pr.

actised it unworthily, or that they are men who had fallen into Antinoniian licence, is inconsistent both with the fact tliat the 'Antichrists' are described as outside the Cliurch, and with the kind of fault that is attributed to them here.

Further, if Antinoniian error liad been specially in view, we should have expected (so Neander), not such a declaration as ' Every one that doeth sin, doeth also lawlessness ; and sin is la^^lessness' (S* IIV), but rather 'Every one that doeth lawlessness, doeth also sin ; and law- lessness is sin.' To say that they were Jpavs (Lotller), or that they were Ehionitc.

i, is equally wide of the mark, nothing being found to imply that the error in question was merely a denial of the Messiahship of Jesus, or a reduction of Christ to the rank of a second Mo.ses. There is as little to support the idea that the Ep. has in view more than one class of errorists, Ebionites and Sabians (Storr), or Ebionite and Doeetic teachers (Sander). It is more reasonable to identify them with Doeetic teachers of the Gnostic type.

They are described as denying that 'Jesus is the Christ,' as denying ' the Fattier and the Son ' (2'-''-'- '^■'), and as confessing ' not Jesus ' (4^). They are con- trasted with those who are of the spirit that 'confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh' (4-) ; and, toward the close of the Ep., thou^'h they are not mentioned, the note that, is still insisted on is belief 'that Jesus is the Christ' (5'). These terms do not carry us to the p.

articular refinenicnts of (Jnosticism that are connected with the name of BasUides, as some think (I'fleiderer). There is no point of contact with the strange Basilidean theories of a tripartite sonship, the division of the world into the Ogdoad and the Hebdomad, and the destiny of Jesus to be the 'first-fruits of the sorting of the things confused.' Nor is there any real analogy b<;tween tlie doctrine of the Son in the Ep.

and tiie vague speculations of these Gnostics about the descent of a light from the Hebdomad upon Jesus the Son of Mary at the Annunciation. There might seem mure, perhajis, that resembles the Valentinian doctrine, in wliich the idea of aw^pixara has a large and prominent place. But the Christology of the Ep. is far removed from any one or all of the three views of the origin of Jesus which are ascribed to Valentinus by IrenaMis (i. 11. 15, etc. ).

The terms point to something more specific, however, than the ordinarj' Doeetic doc- trine which liore that our Lord had only an appnr- cut body all through His life on earth, and until His Ascension.

They best suit the teachings of the Gnostic Cerinthus, in which Oriental, Jewish, and Christian ideas seem to have been mixed up, and which distinguished between the man 'Jesus' and 'Chrifst' the heavenlj' Being, and affirmed that 'the Christ' united Himself \\nth 'Jesus' only at the baptism of the latter, and continued with Him only till His Passion. Beyond this the terms do not seem to warrant ns to go. It \t JOHN, EPISTLES OF JOHN, EPISTLES OF 7Si probably too much to say {e.g.

with Holtzniann) that tlie error in view all through the Ln. is the dualistic form of Gnosis which was Chnstologicall v Uocetic and practically Antinonuan, or (with Lipsius, etc.) that both Docetisra and Antinomi- anism are intend.-d. It is doubtful whether we can say {e.g. with Weiss, Harnack, etc. ) that the hp. is directed also against men within the Church who misunderstood and perverted St. Paul's doctrine. Such statements as ' he tliat doeth rightej Ducn statemc..., ^ ... »-»- ■ .^.iteou.

sncfls is righteous' (3'), are not enough to bear the weight of such inferences. 7 Authorship.— W\\o, then, is the author of an En which speaks of a form of Gnostic doctrine like that associated with the name of the tra- ditional opponent of the Apostle .lohn in his old age' The general answer, as has been said, has been: the Apostle John himself. This was the almost universal belief of the early Church, the exceptions being few, of small account, and easily understood.

The sect of the Alogi may have rejected the Ep., as they did the Gospel and the Apocalypse. But the statement m Epiplianius (Acer. tom. i. c. 34) amounts only to a perhaps, and the rejection, if it was the fact, would have been, as in the case of the Gospel, for doctrinal reasons.

Marcion, we know, refused it a place in his very limited Canon; hut his exclusion of it and of so much else in the NT turned, not upon the question of historical testimony, but on that of harmony with his own special views. At a much later period an obscure statement is made by Cosinas Tndicopleustes in the 6th cent. (Tnpngr. tAm<. I vii ) to the ell'ect that some maintained that all the Catholic Epp. were written by presbyters, not , by apostles.

And Leontius of Byzantium (conir i Nestor, et Eutych. iii. 14) .speaks of Theodore of ; Mopsuestia as 'abrogating' the Ep. of James and the other Catholic Epp.—' Epistolam Jacobi et alias deinceps aliorum catholicas abrogat et anti- Quat ' This is all. And so the case stood, as far as we know, till late in the 16th cent., when Joseph Scali"er declared all three Epp. not to be by the apostle. Then S. G.

Lan^e, with strange taste, pronounced the first unworthy of an apostle, though he felt the force of the historical testimony for its apostolic origin. Others tried to prove it to be the w-ork of a Jewish Christian author and aC.nostic reviser (Clau<lius), or ascribed it to the presbyter John (Bretschneider, Paulus). But the severest assault made upon the Eii. in ancient or in modern times is that of Baur and his school. I he 1 uhingen criticism has not been at one in all thmgs.

borne of its adherents have held the Gospel and the I'.p. to be by the same author (K. R. Kostlin, Georgii) ; others have hold them to be by dillerent hands (Baur, Hilgenfeld, etc.) But the school has been at one in denying the apostolic origin of the bp., and in a.scribing it to a writer of the 2nd cent. The reasons u'iven for this view of the bp. are such a.

s the following :— The circumstances, the forms of thought, and the condition of the Church which aiipear in it, it is said, point to a later pcno<l than the apostolic. Dillerent critics hx on dillerent thint's in sui>port of this contention. Some hx umn the doctrine of the L"gos as they suppose it to be expressed here (Bretschneider); of which it is enough to say that in Hebrew thcnght and in (.reek there was a soil prepared for it before the ch.se of the 1st cent, at any rate.

Others ar<;ue from the acquaintance whicli it betrays with Docetic error. But it is too much to assert that that type of error does not emerge till the i.ost-aj.ostotic age, and the particular form in view here is. as we liave seen, like the .loctrine attrihute.l to Cennthus. Others (Hih'enfcld, etc.) reason from its reference to Gnostic doctrine.

Hut while the riper an<l more complicated forms of Gnostieimn helonR to a lat«r time, it is not made historically good that there was not or could not he at the earlier date Gnostic ideas of a simpler and mure rudiinentarv kind, and it is acknowledged (e.g. by Hilgenfeld) that it is only an undeveloped form that appears in this Epistle. But hesides that, it has to be said that the things in the Ep. which are supposed to betray the inlluence of Gnostic thought are not sullicient for the purpose.

Of the doctrine ascribed to the ' Antichrists' we have already spoken. But much is made of the use of the terms airipixa. and xpfff^o, and of the idea that we should only love and not fear God. But the terms atrippia and Yp(<rMa have a totally different application here from what they have in the far-fetched and iiniiracticahle speculations of the Gnostic sects. Nor do we require to go to Gnostic sources for their origin.

They have their explanation in the ideivs of Uevelation— the one in the OT idea of an anointing, the other in the NT idea of a birth or a being /icgollen of God. And that there should be, not''tlie fear that hath torment, hut pure love to God, is surely a most Christian idea. It is further argued that the Ep. cannot be an apo.stolic cuniposition, liecause it shows the presence of Montanistic doctrine (I'lanck, Baur).

Traces of Montanism are thought to be found especially in what is said of the moral condi- tion of the believer, of the uncliim, and of sins 'not unto d<'ath' and 'a sin unto death.' With respect to the first, the Ep. speaks, it is true, of the moral condition of the believer in its ideal perfection. But it is not an absolute sinlessness that it ascribes to him, nor does it speak of his perfection at all in the Montanist way. For the !

Montanists claimed a spiritual perfection above other Christians. The idea of the rhri.mi or ' iinc- ! tion,' as it appears here, is as little Montanistic as it is Gnostic. It rests upon biblical ideas and I biblical employments of the act of anointing with oil. Neither does the distinction between two kinds of sin necessarily bear the sense which Baur puts upon it. Even if we were to grant this, it 1 would not carry the late date with it.

Hilgenfeld 1 has pointed out that the idea of special mortal sins is found in the Pcrindi Petri, a. part of the pseudo- /~i\ — ii i:»...-nt-ii*-n nrti-1 ir» Ilia niiinwiTl. it. I! Clementine literature, and, in his opinion, it is therefore earlier than Montanism. Much more, too, would surely have been made of the doctrine of the Paraclete, i'f the Ep. had been written by a Montanist or under Montanistic inllueiices.

Other arguments adverse to its apostolic origin and its connexion with John the evangeli.st are of even less importance. The brevity of the reference to the false teachers and the limited refutation of them have been held to be inconsistent with the claims preferred on behalf of the Epistle. But this is to overlook tlie melliod of the Ep., which is to present the truth, ami to do that authoritatively, rather than to expose error.

The va'-ueness of the introduction, and the want of anything in it to iilcniify the writer with John tln' ajiostle, are also addiKcd. Uut it isc\i3tomary with St. lohn not to name himself directly, and "the author as-sociates himself at least with "the eyewitnes.ses of Christ's life, and speaks all through in a tone belitting one conscious of apostolic dignity. Once more the apostolic authorship is contested on the ground that the Ei>. is so ilillerent from the Apocalypse.

This is, of course, an important argu- ment with those of the Tiihingen school, and it is perhaps liest put by those of that school who, like Hilgenfeld. hold' the Ep. to he older than the Gosi)cl. The Apoc. being by .lohn the aiK.stle, j the remarkable way in which it differs from the Ep. in language and conception makes it impossible, it is argued, for the latter to 1>« hy I the same hand.

The dill'erences, indeed, are grea*' 736 JOHN, EPISTLES OF JOHN, EPISTLES OF and extend not only to vocabulary, grammar, and phraseology, but to attitude, spirit, and idea. They may be explained so far, however, by dill'erence in circumstance, time of composition, subject, and so far also by the fact that the one writmg is an Ep., while the other belongs to the peculiar order of apocalyptic literature which has a form and a method of its own.

The dill'erence in idea, too, is in important cases much less than tlie Tiibingen critics are inclined to make it. There is no such antagonism, e.g. , as thev .suppose between the God of \^Tatn in the Apoc. ana the God of love in the Ep., or between the view of the divine righteousness as judging e\'il in the Apoc. and the view of the same righteousness as forj^iving sin in the Epistle. That there are many points of affinity, too, between Gospel, Ep.

, and Anoc, is admitted by critics like Hilgenfeld. But tlie question of the Apoc. is one by itself. See art. Revelation (Book of). The arguments in favour of the non-apostolic origin of the Ep. are far from convincing. Even were they much more so than they are, they could not prevail against the historical evidence. For that is peculiarly strong. The entire witness of antiquity (with the solitary exceptions already referred to in the cases of Cosmas and I.

,eontius) from the time of Eusebius is for the Johannine authorship. Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, and others attest it. Jerome, speak- ing of the Apostle John, in his Oitalnr/ue of Ecclesiastical Writers (ch. 9), says of him : ' Scripsit autem et unam epistolam, cujus exordium est, Quod fuit ah initio . . quie ab universis ecclesi- asticis et eruditis viris probatur.' Eusebius him- self places it among the Homologoumena (HE iii. 25), and ascribes it to John (HE iii. 24, 25).

Travelling back from these declarations, we find Dionysius, the scholar of Origen, citing the words of the Ep. as those of the evangelist, and reason- ing against the Johannine origin of the Apoc. from its unlikeness to the Ep. in style and language (Euseb. HE vii. 25). We find Origen himself repeatedly quoting it or referring to it as by John (e.g. Ev. Joh. toni. xiii. 21).

It is in the Peshitta, and in the Muratorian Fragment, the latter quot- ing the words ' Qute vidimus oculis nostris et auri- bus audivimus et manus nostrae palpaverunt haec seripsimus vobis' as John's. Similar testimony is borne to it by Cyprian (Ep. 25), who quotes 2- , by Tertullian (adv. Marc. v. 16 ; adv. Prax. ch. 13, 28: adv. Gnost. 12, etc.), and by Clem. Alex. (Strom. ii. 15, iii. 4, 5, iv. 16). Irena?us, too, quotes the Ep.

several times, and ascribes it to John, the Lord's disciple, who also WTote the Gospel (de Heer. iii. 16 ; Euseb. HE v. 8). Further, Papias (who is described by Irenoeus as 'luawov nkv dKoi'aT7)s, YloXv- ndpvov 5' eraTpoi) is reported by Eusebius (HE iii. 39) to have ' used testimonies from Jolin's former Ep.' (k^xPV^^*- 5' ^ avrits fiaprvplats diri ttJs 'ludvvov TrpoT^pas iT!-i(TTo\rji). And Polycarp, the disciple of St. John (ad Philipp. ch.

7), has the sentence irds 7ip is hv /it; ifioKoy-Q 'Itjitow XpiffT&f Iv aapKl {KtjXv- Bivai, ivTlxpt<rr6s (anv ; wliich BO closely resembles 1 Jn 4' that few (though Scholten is of the number) have refused to see in it an eWdence of Polycarp's acqiiaintance with the Epistle. Whether we can carry the chain of witness further back even than Polycarp's letter, is doubtful. It depends chiefly on the date to which the DidacfU is referred, and on the view taken of certain sentences in it. The Ep.

appears to be known, indeed, to the WTJterof the Ep. to Dioioietus ; but the date of that writing, which is placed by Lightfoot (St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp, i. 517) between A.D. 117 and 130, is uncertain. 'Traces of it have also been found by some in Justin Martyr, the Ep. of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hernias, and the Epistles of Ignatius. But these are iiot definite enough to prove ac- quaintance with the tcriting.

They may indicate no more than the use of terms which were common to all Christians, or to certain circles of Christians, at the time. But in the Didachi we have, perhaps, something more. In chs. x., xi., e.g., we find tlia phrase reXadaai aiTi^jV iv t^ d7dirj; tjov ; irapeXd'^rw 6 k6(tplos o^« ; Trdt 5^ ■irpo(pn/fnjs StSoKi^jiafffUi'OS. Tiiese remind us of the TereXfiwrat iv d7dirjj of our Ep, (4') and the parallel phrases in 2 4"- " ; of the 6 k/ktjxo! Tapiyerai of 2" (a very similar forn.

occurs, however, also in St. Paul, 1 Co 7''") ; and of the SoKt/tdi'rre tA Tvev/xara. of 4*. If these are re- garded as reminiscences of the words of the Ep., and not simply as proofs of acquaintance with John's teaching, it may be, in oral form, and if the DidactU can be referred to the closing j-ears of the first century or the opening years of the second, we have a witness earlier even than Polycarjj. ■To this must be added the argument drawn from the relation in which Gosjiel and Ep.

stand to each other. If it can be sliown that the two writings are by one hand, then all that goes to prove the Gospel to be the work of the evangelist John goes to prove the Ep. to be his also. This question, whether the autlior of the Gospel also wrote the Ep., is answered in tlie negative by the Tubingen critics generally.

In support of that position it is urged that the two writings ditl'er radically in their attitude to the OT law, in their view of the person of Christ, in their doctrines of the Holy Spirit and the work of Olirist, in their eschatology, and in their general mode of thought. The Ep., it is said, stands 'in a more intimate relationship ' to the law than is the case with the Gospel. But in point of fact tliere is no mention of the vi^ot in tne Ep.

, and the passages which are supposed to have it specially in view have another application. It does not appear that in the use of the term ivopila. in 3 it is the Mosaic law that is particularly in view, or that the iir dpx^t in 2'- refers specially to the OT law of love. The idea of a personal Logos, again, which is found in the Prologue to the Gospel, is thought to be foreign to the Epistle.

But if we have not the term 6 Xtryoi, we have the phrase 6 Xi7os rrii for^f in the introduction to the Ep. ; and, even if it ia allowed to be a question whether the latter phrase has the same sense as the former, we have a similar conception of the superhuman, pre-temporal, personal being of Christ in the terms ' life ' and ' Son of God ' as they appear in the Epistle.

'The Holy Spirit, it is further urged, is not presented as He IS in the Gospel in personal relations, of which the use of the neuter term xP^a/io. is supposed to be a proof.

But the term xp^nfui is an easily under- stood term for a particular gift or operation of the Holy One ; and the ' witness ' whicn is said to be borne by the Spirit (5'), which is also aserbed to the Spirit by Christ in the Fourth Gospel (15"), points to the harmony of the two writings on the subject of the personality of the Holy (Jhost. The designation of Christ as 'Advocate' (2') ia also held by Baur and others of his school to be in affinity with the Ep.

to the Hebrews rather than with the Fourth Gospel, and to indicate a view of Christ's relation to His disciples which 'lay far apart from the evangelist.' But the idea of Ohrist as Intercessor is not peculiar to any particular Ep., but is found again and again In the NT ; nor can it be made out that in anything else that is said of Christ's relations to His disciples there is any difierence between the Ep. and the Gospel. Nor is it the case that the Ep.

has an eschatology which is not known to the Gospel. The (Conceptions of a present judgment and a spiritual Parousia prevail, it is true, in the Gospel, but not to the exclusion of the ideas of a future judgment and » JOHN, EPISTLES OF lolIX, EPISTLES OF •37 Parousia at tlie end of things [o'^- ■■= U™- > etc. ). And the eschatological concejjtion of the Advent and the Judgment is expressed in the Ep., hut not to the absolute exclusion of the form of doctrine character- istic of the Gospel.

For it speaks of a passing from death to life which is already accomplished, and of eternal life as a present pos-session. • urther, to sa_y, with Baur, Hilgenfetd, and others, that there is a more 'material and external' mode of Ihouglit in tlie Ep. than in the Gospel, is to mis- judge and misinterpret tlie former. The designa- tion, c.ff., of God as 'light' is strangely thought to express a more material conception of God than is ]i(i-..

-ihle to the writer of the Gospel, and the syniliiilsof the ' water' and the ' blood ' are thought to be dillerently used, more materially in the Ep., more ideally in the Gospel. Hut these supposi- tions rest on mistaken interpretations of the passages. There are diflerences between the two ^vritings, as we have seen, and these dill'erences are neither few in number nor inconsiderable in weight. They aredillerences which go to establish the independ- ence of the two compositions.

But they are not sullicient to prove a dill'erence of authorship. They can be made to apjiear so only by forced constructions, and by overlooking the distinct purposes and circumstances of the writings. They can be explained by the ditl'erences between the Gospel and the Ei>. in the occasions which pro- duced them, the subjects with which they have to deal, and the ends which they have in view, and by the natural ditl'erence between an historical com- position and a letter.

On the other hand, there are similarities of the most remarkable kind in thought, style, and expression, in characteristic ideas, in imagery and symbolism, and in the special tyjie of doctrine. They are similarities which pervade the two writings, and point strongly to identity of authorship. No explanation of the origin of the Ep., there- fore, fits the facts so well as the one that has prevailed. It is to internal considerations that tho.

se ap]ieal who reject it ; and it is largely on the ground of the sui)poscd impossibilitj- of two writ- ings so dill'erent in character as the Ep. and the Apoc. proceeding from one and the same hand, tliat the Tubingen critics deny the apostolicity of the former. The external evidence is not seriously assailed. It is admitted even by so uncom[)romis- ing a critic as the late Dr. Samuel David.son that ' the letter is well attested by the voice of an- tiquity, and that, as far a.

s external evidence reaches, its authenticity seems to be secure' {Intniduction to the NT, li. 30'2). 8. Place and Date. — If the Ep. is the work of John, it is most natural to suppose it to have been written in Asia Minor, most probably in Ephesus. It is true that we have no dilinite statement in early Christian literature to that ellcct, and some who regard it as intended to form a companion to the Gospel are inclined to refer it to Patmos.

But it is with Ephesus that the most ancient tradition connects the comj)osition of the Gospel. What Ircn;cus .says of John the fiaOrp-i^s toD Kvptov and his (lOspcl is this: Kal avr6t ^^^5ti}K€ rA evayy^Xioy, i" 'K0(?irv TTji Ao-fo! SiaTplfiuy {ailv. Ilcrr. iii. 1), <ina the same is said in ellect by .leronie (Prolng. to Miitth. vol. vii. pp. 5, 0). If the (Jospel and the Ep., therefore, belong to the same period in John's life, as many things go to show, it is rca.sonable to sup])0.

se that the En. as well as the Gospel was written in Asia Nlinor, and most probably in Ephesus, all the more that it is with that territory and that city that ancient tradition connects the closing stage )f John's career. [f tliere is lilllc by which to dctormino the place where the Ep. was written, there is lus little vou U.— 47 by which to lix its (lute.

Some, indeed, have thought it possible to deline the time of its com- position precisely, and have been bold enough even to refer it to one particular year. Ebrard a.scribes it to the year 95 of the iJionysian era. But his reasoning turns upon the uncertain suppositions that the Ep. is a dedicatory companion to the (Jospel, and that the Gospel was written in Patmos, John being in that island, as he holds, in the lifteenlh year of Domitian. En aid, again, puts the writing of the Gospel at 80 A.D.

, but thinks it was not in circulation till immediately before John's death ; while the Ep. , accordin"; to him, was written later, but circulated earlier. All that can be said with any measure of con- fidence is that the Ep. belongs to the later apostolic period.

This seems the natural, if not the necessary, inference from the general cast of its contents, the condition of the Christian com- munities which is indicated in it, the errors which it combats, the lack of any reference to the con- test between legalism and liberty, and the im- pression which it conveys that the questions which occui)y so large a place in the great Pauline Epp. are no longer the questions of the day.

It is in harmony with the traditional account of the period of John's stay in Ephesus, as it appears in Polycrates (cf. Euseb. BE iii. 31), Irenujus {adv. Nrcr. ii. 39, iii. 1, 3), Origen, and Clement of Alexandria (Euseb. HE iii. 1, 23), as well as in Jerome [de Vir. Illiistr. c. 9). It is also in harmony with the tone of the Ep., for it reads like the calm counsel of old age and ripest experience ; and with the presumption which is created by St.

Paul's declared principle of action (Ko lo-*), and by the absence of any reference to John or any salutation to him in the Pauline Epp. addressed to Asiatic Churches, that it was \mtten after the deatli of the great Apostle 'A the Gentiles. It is most probable, also, that it was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, though how long after that event it is impossible to say. Some, indeed {e.g.

Grotius, Diisterdieck, Eritzsche), have held it to be earlier than that catastrophe, on the ground of the mention of ' the last hour ' in 2", or for the liroiider reason that an event of so terrible moment could scarcely have passed without some notice, if it had happened. But there may be no allusion to that event, for the simple reason that there was no special call to refer to it, or because it w!is no longer a very recent thing. Nor can anything ))e made of the statement in 2'*.

The term ' the last hour ' applies, not to the destruction of Jerusalem (how could the 'antichrists' be signs of that ?), but to the Parouaia, in which connexion we find the phriLse trxaroi xatpol used even by Ignatius (Ep. ad Ephes. c. xi.) The Gnostic teaching which is condemned, and the external position of the errorists, combine with other things to point to a period later than 70 A. I)., and towards the end of the century.

This is in har- mony also with the traditional date of Cerinthus, with whose doctrine the view of Christ's Per.soa repudiated in the Ep. is most probably identified, and with the period in John's life to which tradi- tion assigns hia connexion with the heretic. It has been sought to define the time of com- position more precisely by determining the chrono- logical relation of the Ep. to the Gospel.

But the materials for doing so are far too scanty, and the arguments which have been urged for the one view or the other have little weigTit. Some hold the Ep.

to be prior to the Gospel, on the ground that writings of ' momentary design, like letters, come naturally before writing of permanent design, '•ike narratives or histones' (Thiersch) ; or on the ground that a letter of warning to inrtic\ilar Churches against particular errors would prubal'ly 738 JOUX, EPISTLES Of JOHN, EPISTLES OF have been writ ten earlier than a composition like the Uosiiul, whiih deals with the historical lounila- tions, ami ajipears to he uildressed to all Christen- dom (Huther, al.)

Others argue for the posteri- ority of the Ep. on the basis of certain jiassages which are supposed to refer to the (Josiicl, or to presuppose it, or on the ground that the Kp. seems to require the Gospel for its explanation. But, even if the latter were granted, it would not follow that the Ei>. was later than the Gospel.

Keuss, who thinks tliat the former needs the latter as its commentarj', yet admits that 'as it once had one in the oral instruction of the author, it is not thereby proved that it is later' {Hist, of the AT, Houghton's tr., p. 237). And as to the passages aiipcaled to in particular, the opening ver.ses in their relation to the Prologue of the Gospel, the phrase iv aapxl i\i)\v6jTa (f) as compared with crdpf iyif(To, etc.

, they are almost equally applicable or inapplicable as arguments for the priority of the Ep. and for its liosteriority. There is, indeed, nothing in the E|>. that can be justly said to presuppose the existence of the Gospel as we have it, or to go beyond what is explainable by the earlier oral preaching and teaching. 9. Destination. — The Ep.

being written, then, in the scenes of the closing stage of Jolin's apos- tolic ministry, it is most rcastmable to sujipose it to have been written for readers belonging to those parts. It has been supposed, indeed, to have lieen addressed to Palestinian Christians (Benson). But there is nothing to favour such a supposition, the contents of the Ep. pointing to a Gentile- Chrstian audience rather than a Jewisli-Christian.

Some have thought it directed to a single Church, that of Ephesus (Hug), or even that of Corintli (Lightfoot). But its wide scope and encyclical chaiacter are inconsistent with that. Otliers have regarded it as adilressed to Christians outside the scene ot tlie life and ministry of John in his old age (Holtzmann), or as an encyclical of the widest scope (Uilgenfeld). But the terms which are said to bear this out do not meet the case. The /tai iiuv and itai iij.

(7s in P do not sulRce to establish a distinction between the Asiatic Chris- tians among whom John was writing and those to whom his letter is directed ; and while the character of the Ep. suits its designation as a Cathn/ir Ep., there are things in it, especially the references to particular forms of error, which so far limit and define its destination.

The most curious thing connected with this qnestion of the readers that are in view, is the fact that Augustine, in quoting 3-, speaks of the passage as being in John's ' Epistle to the Parthians' (quod dictum est a Joanne in epistola ad Parthos, Qiimst. Evaruj. ii. 39). That is the only certain occurrence, indeed, of this designation in Augustine's works. It is given, however, in the Benedictine edition of his Tractates on the Ep., in the title ; in the Indiculus operum S.

A ugtistini of Possidius ; in one or two manu- scripts; in the contra Varimaclum Arianum of (dacius Clams or VigUius Tapsensis ; and in Bede's (if it is genuine) Prologus super septem "pistolas canoniras, where it is said that many ecclesiastical writers, and among them the great Athanasius, affirm this Ep. to be ' written to the Parthians.' Hence it has been supposed liy some (Grotius, etc.) that the Ep.

was addressed to Je\vish Christians living beyond the Euphrates within the limits of the Partliian empire. But we hear of no connexion between John and Parthia, and the designation ad Parthos appears to have been unknown to the Church of the East, and even to the Church of the West before Aqgustine's time. It is a pure puzzle, a curiosity on which nothing can be based.

It has been accounted for as a mistake for ud Pathmuii (Serrarius), ad sparsus (Wetstein), adjnititu (Semler), ad Spartos (Scliolz, on the authoritj' of a 12th century manuscript), ir/>65 SiaaTtapjaix^novs {'.) (Holtzniiinn, ^langold), npit vivrat (Paulus), rpit wapffifoi'^ ((liescler, etc.) Most favour the last of the.se explanations.

Some think that the title Tp6c ira/iWfoi's was given to express the pure condition of the Churches addresse<f (Winston) ; others, that the inscription of the Second E]). (ir/)6s TrapOivovt) as found in .some manuscriiils was transferred aa more suitable to the First (Hug). Some, again, suppose that the title ran €7r((rToX7; toO 'ludfi'ou tou vapdivov, John having the designation airodTiAov koX cOayycXiffTov TrapOivou in the inscription borne by the Apoc. in one manuscript (Corf. Guelpher.)

; otliers, that Augustine misunderstood what was said by Clem. Alex. (Frarj. 1011) about the Second Ep. being written irp6s TrapOivov%, and transferred the title to the First (Huther). All is conjecture, and can in no way all'ect the probabilities or the case (supported as these are by the tradition bearing on John's residence and work in Asia Minor) that the Ep. had in view the Churches that would be naturally addressed from Ephesus.

It is therefore with those Asiatic regions in which Gnostic speculations had become rife (Apoc. 2" "''•), and with that great city in which Paul had planted a Christian Church, and in which John had lived on, according to Irenieus (adv. Hicr. ii. 22', iii. 3'), into the reign of Trajan, that this majestic Ep., with its heavenly ealin and its lofty message of truth and love, is connected in respect both of readers and of writer. LiTERATPRE.

— Amonj; the numerous Commentaries, 8i>ecial mention may be made of those of CEcumenius, Calvin, Dilster- dieck, Liicke, Huther, Ebrard, Rothe (most fruitful of all), Haupt, Alford, Jelf, Westcott, Holtzmann, de Wette-Bruckner, Braune, Alexander (in the Speaker's Cumm.), Ewald, I'lunimer; among books on Introduction^ especially those by Weiss, Reuss, Bleek, Hiljjenfeld, Salmon, S. Davidson, Holtzmann, Julicher, Zahn ; and among works of other kinds, the Expositions by Neonder, F. D. Maurice, R.

8. Candlisb, Lias, and Watson, Erdmann's Prima'. Kp. Joan, argwnentwn, nexus et crmsiLium ; Luthardt's de Primiv Joan. Ep. Compositione ; Flitt's de ajiti- christis et pseudopropketiji in Ep. Joan. ; Gfrbrer's Urchri)>ten- thum : Besser's liilieUtunden ; I'deiderer's Urchristenthum and JJibbert Lectures ; Uarnack's Geschichte der altchrist. Literaiur bis Kusebius. The Second Epistle.— 1. Contents.— This brief Ep., though it touches the First Ep.

at several points, and has also something in common with the Third, has an independent value, and a dis- tinct interest. It is unmistakably a letter, and is distinguished from the First Ep. by its personal and private character.

It is addressed, not to a wide circle of readers, as is the case with the First, but to a particular indi\'idual or Church, and it represents a writer who speaks less with the tone of command, but with more of the earnestness that cares for individual Christians, and seeks to come into direct relations with them. As to its origin and much else belonging to it, we have little or nothing to guide us beyond what can be gathered from its own tenor.

It seems to have been occasioned by the pressure of dangers arising from false teaching, and its object is to secure the individual or the Church that is addressed against these perils until the writer could visit the scene in person. With this object in view the author begins his letter, somewhat in St. Paul's way, with a com- mendation of the person or persons to whom he writes, and with a large Christian greeting. Again, with a tact and courtesy such as we find in St.

Paul's letters, he expresses the joy which he had in the con- sistent life of^her (be it lady or Church) whom he ad- dresses. From this he passes on to an exhortation, couched in terms of entreaty, to fulfil the great law of Christian love— a love explained to imply a Life and walk in practical obedience to the di\ina commandments.

His reason for writing in such a strain is, as he indicates, his fear of the possibla JOHN, EPISTLES OF JOHN, EPISTLES OF 739 Influence of certain errorists, whom he identifies with AntichriBt, because they deny that Jesus is the Christ come in the comijlet* reality of human nature. He counsels watchfulness against tlie in- sidious teaching of such deceivers, and speaks rf the loss which would follow the accei)tance of it.

He reminds his reader or readers further of the fact that fellowship with God cannot be enjoyed unless one abides by the true doctrine of Clirist. He declares those who deny that doctrine to be men not to be received or welcomed, lest one should make himself partaker in their evil. He adds certain explanations about the shortness of his letter, and his intention to come in person. He closes with a brief salutation from certain Christians with whom he is associated at the time. 2. A uthorship.

— This Ep. has much in common with the First. It speaKs, as the latter docs, of ' love,' ' truth,' ' the truth,' ' the command- ments,' a 'new commandment' and one 'had from the beginning,' of ' loving in truth,' and ' walking in truth,' of ' abiding in one, of a ' joy ' that may be ' fulfilled.' It speaks, too, of ' Antichrist,' and deals with the same form of error — the denial that Jesus is 'the Christ come in the flesh.'

And it uses the sajne methods of stating a thing — first positively, and then negatively. There are some things, it is true, in which it diflers from 1 Jn. It has certain phrases and grammatical forms which do not occur in the First Ep. — e.g. tfrts for iiv tu, VfpivoTuv fcard for ireptTraTfiv iv, ^px^fievos (v aapKi for i\T)\v6ij3s iv ffapxit &€6f fx''» ^toaxv XpiaTou, 6l5- axV" •pipti", pxirere iavrovs, etc. But little can be made of such things as the.se.

They are not enough to establi-sh any essential dill'erence in idea or in stj'le. It is admitted, even by some who dispute the apostolic origin of 2 Jn, that ' these deviations do not destroy the force of the argument contained in the resemblances' (S. Davidson's Introd. to the NT, ii. p. 329). This being the case, tlie inference would seem to be that 2 Jn is by the .same hand as 1 Jn.

This has been in point of fact the general view, and even some of those wlio have denied the Joliannine authorship of I Jn have admitted that the two Epp. are by the same writer (Bret.schnciiler, Paulus). But there are some who deny that identity of authorship can be inferred from the similarities which have been noticed, even tliough these come to so much that more than a lialf of tlie smaller Ep. can be found in the larger.

They think that these striking resemblances can be explained by the art of a forger, or as the imitative work of a writer who knew 1 Jn well. So some who have recognized 1 Jn to be by the evangelist have a.Mcribe<l 2 Jn to a dillerent hand — either to the Presbyter John (Erasmus, Grotius, etc.), or to gome other John unknown to us. Baur has a some- what elal)orate and far-fetched theory of the origin of this Epistle.

He holds it to be of Montjinist origin, and to be addiessc<l to the Church to which the Gains of 3 Jn belongs. He takes it to be in- deed the Ep. which is referred to in 3 Jn *, and to be intended for one of the sectiona of the Roman Church, in which Church he thinks a schism had taken place. He bases this largely on the state- ment made by Clem. Alex, in his Hi//mti/pii.ic3 ob to 2 Jn being written ad iiunndam ^ulnjluniam elec- tarn, sup|io.

sini; that lionio is meant by the Bnhylonui, and that the term electa, ^KXtm-ri, in a designation given to the Church in harmony with the >lontaniHt idea of the (.'liurch as the pure and holy bride of Christ. Hut all this turns on a fanci- ful and inconsistent interpretation of Clement's words, and those who agree for the most part with Baur, both in his general positions and in his denial of the apostolic origin of 2 Jn, often decline to follow him here, llilgenfeld, e.g.

, rejects this peculiar Montanlst account of the Ep., and tries to explain it as an oihcial condemnation, in the form of a letter, of fellowship with Gnostic teachera That the Ep. cannot be ascribed to John the evang'clist, however, is also held by some who are unable to go all the way either with Baur or with Hilgenfeld, and whose general view of it is essen- tially dillerent. Ebrard, e.g.

, following Erasmus, assigns it to the Presbyter John, passing lightly over the resemblances to I Jn as so many allusions and reminiscences, and regarding the distinctive passages as essentially dillerent from the evan- gelist's style. Although the internal evidence, therefore, is held by most to point to the author of the First Ep. a.s also the writer of the Second, and to the Apostle John as that writer, it is not read in that way by all.

How, then, does the case stand with respect to the external evidence ? The historical testi raony, it must be admitted, is neither very abund- ant nor very clear. That it should be so need not seem strange when regard is had to the extreme brevity of the Ep. and its private character. What we have is as much as could be expected, and it is on the whole sulUcient for the i)urpose. The Ep. seems not to have been accejilcd by the school of Antioch.

Theodore of Mopsuestia appears to be reported by Leontius ot Byzantium as rejecting James and the other Catli. Epp. The words, however, viz. ob quam causam, ut arbitrttr, ipsain epistolam Jacobi et alias deirucps catholicas abrogat et antiquat, are not very precise. Theo- doret makes no reference to 2 Jn. In a homily on Mt 21^, which is doubtfully ascribed to Chry.sostora, it is said of it, as well as of 3 Jn, ol iraHpe^ ajro/ta- ►ovij'oi'Tai. Jerome (rfe Vir. Illus.

c 9) contrasts the two smaller Epp. with the First, and speaks of them as ascribed to the Presbyter John. Origen, who quotes 1 Jn, never quotes either 2 Jn or 3 Jn. He knows of the circulation, however, of the two minor Eji])., but remarks that ' not all affirm them to be genuine' (Euseb. HE vi. 25). Neither the one nor the other seems to have been included in the Peshitta Version. And Eusebius cl.isses both ajiiong the Antilegoniena.

He speaks of them as the 'so-called second and third of John,' and indicates that it was questioned whether they belonged to the evangelist, ' or possibly to another of the same name as ho' [HE iii. 25'). On the other hand, Irena>u8 quotes 2 Jn "• " as the words of ' John, the disciple of the Lord ' (adv. Uier. i. 16'), and gives the statement al)oiit the ' deceivers ' and ' Antichrist ' (2 Jn ') also as by the Lord's 'disciple,' though he refers to it as in 1 Jn instead of 2 Jn (adv. Jlctr.

iii. 16'). Clement of Alex, speaks of John ' in his larger Epistle' (tv rj lieiiovi ^iriffToXfl) as seeming to teach a certain thing ; from which it is clear that he knew a shorter Ep. or shorter Epp. (Strom, ii. 15). In a fragmentary Latin translation of the Hyjmty- posis he speaks of the same Ep.

in these very definite terms : Secund'i Joannis epistola, quce ad virgines scripta siinplicissima est ; scripta vera est ad quanJam Unbyloniam Electam nomitu, siqnificat aiitcm electiunem ecilesiw sanctit. He is also reported by Eusebius (HE vi. 14') to have commented in liis Jlynutypuses on the disjiuted books, viz. 'the Epistle of Jude and the other Catholic Epistles.' Oionysius of .\lexandria (in a pa.s,sage given in Eusebius, HE vii.

25) speaks of John as not naming himself, ^f rj Stirrip<f tftpoiUyj) 'lufdFvou xal Tplrj), KaWoi fipaxti<m oOaatt ^ncrroXair, but as writing 'anonymously a.<< the presbyter.' Dionysius therefore regarded the anonymity of 2 Jn lus quite in John's manner. And tiic school of Alexandria seems to have generally accepted the Secomi F.p. as John the apostle's. Alexander, e.g., in quoting vv.'"

- " sjiys of them in ra()i)y7»» •40 JOliX, EPISTLKS Ul JOHN, EPISTLES OF \ey 6 fiaKdpLOi 'luivvrji (Socrates, IIE i. 6). The Muratoriiin Fragment refers to at least two Epp. of .John in the dillicult sentence, Ejtistoln snne Jiicic et superscripti Johannis ditas in cat/uilica hubentur et saptetitia ab amicis Salomonis in Itonurcm ipsitts scripta (liouth, Reliq. Sac. i. p. 290). D at the text requires emendation, and it is dillerently interpreted, some (Liicke, Huther, etc.)

understanding it to speak for the Johannine authorship, others (reading ut for et sapientia)* taking it to mean tliat, as llie Book of Wisdom was not written by Solomon, so these Epp. were not written by John the apostle. It should be added that, though the ^reat North African Fatliers, Tertullian and Cyprian, do not quote 2 Jn, it is clear tliat it was recognized in their Churcli. For Cyprian himself, in reportin;?

the statements made oy the bishops at the synod which was held at Cartilage in a.d. 256, speaks of Aurelius, bishop of Cliullabi, as appealing to 2 Jn "• in these words: Joannes Apostolus in epistola eua posuit diccns, si nuis ad vos venit, etc. In like manner, although tlie Ep. was not in the great Sj'riac Version, it appears to have been used by Epliraem in the 4th cent., and that in a way in- dicating that it was understood to be by John the ajiostle {dc Amnre Paup. iii. 52; ad Imitat. Prov.

i. 70). And whUe Eusebius placeil it, as we have seen, among the ' disputed ' books, he ex- presses himself uift'erently in his Devionstratio Evangelica (iii. 5), when he gives, as it appears, his own opinion. There lie says of John that in his Epistles he ' either makes no mention of himself or calls himself presbyter, but nowhere apostle or evangelist ' — iv fi^v rats ^toroXats aiVoO oi'5^ tiv^fnjf Tys o/Kc/as Tpoaiyyopias TTOtetTai, ^ Trpea^u- repof iavrbv dvofidi^ei, ovSa/j.

ou S^ dndaroKoif ovSi eta-y^e- XiffTTiv). It was included, too, in the Old Latin VS. The most ancient historical te.stimony, there- fore, although it is of limited quantity, is in favour of the autliorship by John tiie apostle. It is testimony that comes from sources so far apart as Gaul, Alexandria, and North Africa.

It is confirmed by the resemblance of 2 Jn to 1 Jn ; the considerations which go to establish the Johannine origin of the latter being so far avail- able also for the Johannine origin of the former. Nor is any difficulty created by the designation 'the elder.' That title rather supports the apos- tolic origin. It is still a moot point whether we have historical ground for believing in the exist- ence of a Presbyter John in Ejihesus as distinct from the Apostle John.

Nor is there anything in the case as regards 2 Jn to make the hypothesis of this shadowy second John either necessary or helpful. It is to the apostle that the earliest evidence points. It is ditEcult, indeed, to under- stand how this small private letter could have been accepted as it was, and in due time made part of the Canon, unless the general opinion of the Church had ascribed it to John. And the use of the title, ' the elder,' in the inscription tells for the ordinary view.

No one wishing to pass off a writing as by the apostle would have chosen so indefinite a title. No ordinary person, writing with honest intent in his o\vn name, would have called himself ' the elder,' as if there were none but he ; while, if the writer so styling himself had been a person of extraordinary importance, it would be strange that we should know nothing of him. There is nothing to show that the title is used to distinguish ' presbyter ' from ' apostle.

' Apostles could also be called presbyters, as we see from the NT itself (1 P 5'), and as is the case in the very sentence from Papias on which the hypo- thesis of a distinct Presbyter John is founded. It * Et 18 conflrmcd, however, by the new US of the Fragment publiflbed In Miscellanea Cassinese, 1S97. may be a question in what particular sense the title is applied to the writer, whether with reference to his advanced age, as St.

Paul speaks of him- self as the 'aged,' i irpta^in-fii (Pliilem*), or, as is rather the case, in respect of his peculiar iiosition. But on no lips could this simple title be so lit or so intelligible as on those of the evangelist, the last of the apostles, who for long years had been over- seer of the Christian community in Asia Minor. On his lips the name would explain itself, and it would mean more than 'apostle.'

It would be the note of the peculiar relation, both official and fatherly, which the apostle had held to the Churches and their members in those parts, and would be at once understood wherever his superin- tendence had been known. 3. Time, Place, and Destination. — It is impos- sible to determine with certainty the time wlien the Ep. was written. It seems to belong to the clo.sing years of the apostle. But whether it is earlier or later than the larger Ep. we have no means of deciding.

There are those (e.g. Ebrard) who argue that it must be later, because there are things in it which appear to refer back to the First Epistle. But the similarities and supposed allusions are not of the kind that can be explained only by the priority of the larger Epistle. It is also probable that 2 Jn was written in the parts in which 1 Jn was written, especially as the false teachers in view are of the same order in both Epp. If the visit which is intimated in v."

can be taken as an intended tour of inspection, we may go further, and say that, in all probability, the letter was written in Ephesus, the centre of the Asiatic circle. The destination of the Ep. is also a matter of great difficulty. The most definite statement we have on the subject in early Christian literature is in the Latin fragment (if it be authentic) of the Hypotyposes of Clement of Alexandria, already referred to. But it is a mixed statement, and one that does not help us much.

It is to the effect that the Ep. was written ad virgines, and to ' a certain Babylonian, Electa by name ' {ad quandam Babyloniam Electam), but tnat this name Elerta signified the election of the holy Church. The question turns upon the address icXe/cT-j Kvpt(f., and tlie difficulty is in determining whether that refers to an individual or to a community.

These different renderings of it are proposed : {I) to an elect lady ; (2) to the elect lady ; (3) to the elect Kyria ; (4) to the lady Electa ; (5) to Electa Kyria. Grammati- cally, the first is the simplest and most natural, but it is too indefinite. It is not easy to see how a letter of such a tenor could have been addressed so vaguely. The second interpretation may also be taken as grammatically defensible (cf. iKKcKToTi vap€TriS-/iti.

oit, 1 P P), and has been followed by the English Versions and by Luther's German der auserwdhlten Frau. The third, w-hich appears to have been favoured by Athanasius, ami has been accepted later by Bengel, Liicke, de Wette, Diisterdieck, Ebrard, etc., is supported so far by the fact that Kupf^i occurs as a proper name (Gniter, Inscript. p. 1127 n. 11), and by the ana- logy of the address of 3 Jn.

But against it is the consideration that the more natural form in that case would have been Kuply rp iKXfiai, as we have Tattp T(f iyairrrrf (3 Jn '), 'PoC0oi' rbv {KKeKTbv (Ro 16"), and in the Ep. itself, dde\(p^s aov ttjs ^kXcict^s (v.i'i. The fourth rendering, though favoured by Clement, has the difficulty that, while Electus occurs as a personal name, Electa seems not to be found among the names of women. But, apart from this, there is the fact that the term ^itXe/cTi) occurs again in v."

, and it is most unlikely that two sisters should have had the same name Electa. The least probable interpretation is the lastj JOim, EPISTLES OF JOHN, EPISTLES OF 741 which, in addition to other difficulties, makes the person in question the bearer of two strau^'e uaiiies. On the whole, there is most to favour the render- ing ' to the elect lady,' and the idea tliat the Ep.

is addressed to a Christian matron, who was held in liij,'h esteem in a wide Christian circle, and about whose children the apostle had something to write, partly in praise, partly in caution. 15ut ot thiji laily we know nothing beyond what is told us here. The supposition that the person addressed may have been Martha of Bethany has nothing to support it but the I'anciful idea that Kijria in Gr. is like Martha in Ileb., both being feminine forms of the word for 'Lord.'

The designation in ques- tion, however, has been understood bj' not a few to be a figurative e.\pression for a Christian society, rather than a literal description of an individual Christian. The reason for this is found partly in John's way of using symbolical terms, partly in the idea that the salutation would come more naturally from a Church to a Church, but chielly in the fact that there is comparatively little in the Ep.

that applies distinctly to an individual, and much that runs in plural terms — loving ' one another,' lookin" ' to yourselves,' etc. Hence Jerome, followed by Hilgenfeld, LUnemann, and Schmiedel, held the letter to be addressed to the Church generally. But this surely is excluded by the mention of the ' elect sister. Others, with more probability, have supposed the Ep. to be directed to a p.

articular Church ; and some have attempted to iilentify the Church as that of Jeru- salem (Whitby), or that of Philadelphia (Whiston), or that of Corinth (Serrarius). Hut it is doubtful whether any writer would naturally introduce such a symbolism into a brief private letter like this. And as it admits of no douut that the Third Ep. is addressed to an individual, it seems most reason- able to suppose that the companion letter is also written to an individual. In this case we have another e.

xample, and a very interesting one, of the private correspondence of the apostles, and an instructive instance of John's pastoral concern for an individual believer and her children. LiTBRATrRB. — Amone the Commentariefl, especially those by Huther, Dupterrlieck, Lucke, AUord, Ebrard, Westrott : amon^j the hooks of Introduction, those jjiven under the Kir^t Epistle ; and in addition, Kitnteier, de Electa Domina\ Krigele, fU Kc/p/dc Joannim; U. O. 11. iluller, C'omrn. in Sec. Ep. Juan.

\ Ranibonnet, de Srx. Kp. Joantiea ; Kn:mi'r, Studifn u. Kritikcn, 1833 ; S.Coi, The Private Letters q/ St. Paul and St. John. The Tnmo Epistle.— 1. Contents.— This Ep. is also very brief. The writer e.xplains that it is 80, not "because he has little to say, but be- cause he expects shortly to see the person addressed, and to 'speak face to face' with him (vv."

-") It is occupied mostly with things of personal and circumstantial interest, but it touches some im- portant principles, and gives us glim|)ses of the condition of the early Christian societies which are of great value. It has all the marks of a letter, in freedom of style, and in the use of in- scription, benediction, and salutation. It is written with much point and spirit, with some dramatic force, and also with singular tact.

It begins with an expression of the writer's love for the friend ad- dressed, his interest in his welfare, and his joy in the reports brought him by others of his truth and his consistent walk. It then praises hira specially for the kindness which he hiul shown to certain ' brethren and strangers,' and commends these men further to his hosjiitable care.

In strong terms it then condemns the action of a certain Diotrephes who had acted in a very dillerent spirit, Betting himself arrogantly against the writer, and gra»iiing at authority, neither himself receiving such stranger brethren, nor allowing othei'S to do BO. Such ambitious arid uiibrolhetly conduct, it Bays, is not to be imitated, aud cannot be favoured by one who is of God. Passing from this unwel- come subject, it .

speaks a good word for a certaiii Demetrius, with whom perhaps the letter was to go, and closes with some personal explanations, a brief benediction, and mutual greetings. 2. Time, Place, Destination. — This Ep. raises no doubt about its cUstimition. It is addressed to an individual, and is of a private character all through.

iJut beyond the fact that his name was Gauus, that he had the conhdence of the writer, and that he had a large and generous sense of Christian duty to strangers, we know nothinjj of the recipient.

There is nothing to identify hun with the Gaius or Caius, one of the ' men ot Macedonia ' who were ' Paul's companions in travel' (Ac lU-') ; with the Gaius of Derbe who acconii)anied Paul into Asia (Ac 20^) ; with the Corinthian Gaius who was one of the few baptized by Paul (1 Co I'*), and is de- scribed as I'aul's ' host ' and that ' of the whole Church' (Ro 10^); or with another of the same name who is said to have been made bishop of Pcrgauios by John (Const. Ajiostol. vii. 46).

The fact that the Gaius of this Lp. and the Gaius of Corinth have both the character of hospitality, is a very slender basis on which to establish the identity of the two. The name Gaius was one of the commonest personal names, and the prominent men in the Churches of Asia Minor may not have been the same in Jolin's time as in Paul's. The Ep. itself, indeed, does not show that this Gaius was a presbyter or held any ollicial position.

He may very well have been a simple member, though one of influence and repute. Nor does the Ep. make it possible for us to identify the Church to which he belonged. Some, indeed., have thou^'ht it to be the Church of Pergamos, a Gaius bemg mentioned in the Apost. Const, as bishop of that place (Wolf, Thoma) ; and some have taken it to be the Church of Corinth, supposinjj this Gaius to be the (iaius of Corinth referred to m the Pauline Epp. (Koenen).

We can only say that in all proba- bility it was one in the Ephesian circle. Nor have we more to guide us in determining the (late of the Ep. and the place where it was written. Its general character and its likeness to 2 Jn point to the close of the apostle's ministry, if it is his composition, aud to one or other of the Asiatic Churches over which his .superintendence was exer- cised.

As in the case of 2 Jn, Ephesus would most jirobably be the place, especially if the visit re- ferred to in v." could be understood to mean a tour of inspection. And Eusebius (HE iii.

23), speaking of John's administration of the Churches in Asia after the death of Dumitian, quotes from Clement a statement bearing that the apostle ' coming from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus, went also, wlien called, to the neighbouring re;,'ions of the Gentiles ; in some to appoint bishops, m some to institute entire new Churches, in others to ap- point to the ministry some one of those that were pointed out by the Holy Ghost.' 3. Ocfffciion.— The Ep.

appears to have been occa- sioned by the visits of certain Christian brethren who moved about from place to place, pvobalilv as travelling preachers or missionary teachers, ami by the dillerent receptions that hail been given them. Such men were dependent on the hospitalitv of their brethren, and deserved to enjoy it. 'I hey had visited the Church to which Gaius belonged, and had also come to John.

Tliey had re»'eived a brotherly welcome from (Iaius, but had been nnlely treated Vy another menil>er of the Church, a man of ambitious spirit who di.sowned the 0|>08tle's authority. The letter is written in these circum- stances to encourage tiaius in his generous attitu<b' to such strangers, and to intimate the B|xM<tle's pnr|M>se to visit the Church in person ami set matters right.

\Vu gather from it, too, that it had r-42 JOH^^ EPISTLES OF JOIAKIB been preceded by another short letter, whioli seems to have had no ellect. That letter hivs been idoiili- lied by some with 1 Jn (Storr, etc.), by others with 2 Jn(Be8ser, Ewald, etc.) But the subjects dealt with in these Kpp. are so unlike those questions of nospitality to a particular class which make the main contents of 3 Jn, that little can be said for such identilications. The letter appears to be one of the lost Epp.

of Apostles. 4. AJ/inities and Authorship. — It has marked athnities both with 1 Jn and 2 Jn. It has some \vords, (pXvapetif, ipi\oTp(irT€U€tyf inroKa/ji^ivea' OS = welcome, which are not found in these others. But they are due to the case whicli the Ep. has to express. It baa other words and phrases, such as irp&Tri^TeiP, tvovdouffdai^ iryiaiveiy, ivib^x^'^^^-^f Tntrrbv TOitiv, which are either peculiar or more after Paul's style than John's.

But they are far out- weighed by the general resemblance in tlie case of the two smaller letters ; the similarity of the terms in which the closing personal e.xplanations are made (2Jn"-", 3 Jn "• ") ; and the occur- rence of such parallelisms of phrase between 3 J n and the Johannine writings as these — tv iXriddq. (v.>», cf. Ijn3'», 2 Jn '•■'), U 9«oC el^a. (v.", cf. 1 Jn 2"), 6ebv &pfv (v.", cf. 1 Jn 3'), luipi-vpCw ru-t (v.", cf. Jn 21-''), oKas Sri i) itaprrvpla iiiiQv dXj)9i)s i(jTiv{v."

,ci. Jn 12=*). In respect of historical attestation this Ep. stands much in the same position as 2 Jn. The testimony to its recognition in the Church and to its being from the hand of the Apostle John, is on the whole, however, somewhat less in amount and in deliniteness. Like 2 Jn, it was omitted by the Peshitta, and seems not to have been accepted by the school of Antioch.

Like 2 Jn, it was placed by Eusebius among the Antilegomena, and was referred to by Origen as one not admitted by all to be genuine. From the time of Eusebius it appears to have been generally received. With 2 Jn it found a place in the Apostolic Canons, the sixtieth Canon of the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), the Canon of Cyril of Jerusalem, the Canon of the third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397), etc. It is referred to by Jerome as among the Catholic Epp.

, but as said to have been ^vritten together with 2 Jn by John the presbyter (de Vir. Illustr. c. 9), to whom it was also attributed in the decree of Damasus (Charteris, Canonicity, p. 24), and by Cosmos Indicopleustes. It is not quoted by TertuUiau, Cvprian, or Irenaens. It is not mentioned by Clement of Alexandria when he deals with the Second Epistle. Eusebius, however, speaks of Clement as having explained the Catholic Epp. in his Hypotyposes (HE vi.

14), from which it may perhaps be inferred that he used this Ep. as well as the others. Tliere is no such evidence that this Ep. was recognized by the Church of North Africa as we have in the case of 2 Jn, notwith- standing the lack of any reference to it in the writings of the great North African Fathers.

On the other hand, it has a place in the Muratorian Canon (according to the most probable interpreta- tion) ; it was in the Old Latin Version ; it was recognized by Dionysius of Alexandria ; and it was quoted by Ephraem the Syrian. The most ancient testimony to its existence and recognition asso- ciates it not with the presbyter, but with the Apostle John. This association is in harmony with the Johannine touches which attract our attention in it, while the arguments that go to show this Ep.

to be from the same hand as the other two Epp. ascribed to John, go also to prove it to be by the Apostle Jolin. The doubts which over- hung it for a time may have been due to its private character and the length of time which a letter of this kind would naturally take before it could become widely known in the Churches. It has been supposed by some that v." showi that the writer wished to identify himself with the disciple referred to in Jn 21** ( I'tteiderer).

But there is nothing to support this. Ewald (Joh. Schri/tcn, p. 505) was of o))iiiion that of a number of letters written by John to individuals or par- ticular Churches, only 2 and 3 Jn have survived) that both these Epp. were meant for the same Church ; and that the Third was written lest the .Second should have been prevented by Diotre])hi;8 from getting into the hands for which it was intended. Ililgenfeld has a curious tlieory of 3 Jn as a letter of introduction intended to a.

ssert the rights of the Churcli of John against the exclusiveness of the rigorous Jewish-Christian party in the matter of letters of commendation. Baur's tlieory is still more curious and tine-spun. He thought that a schism had been caused in the Church to whicli Gains be- longed by the Montanist movement ; that the ex- clusive party was lieaded by Diotreplies ; and that this Ep.

was written under John's name against the Roman episcopate — the lioman bisliop, Soter, or Anicetus, or Eleuthenis, being aimed at under the pseudonym Diotreplies. 5. Peculiar Interest. — The great interest of this Ep. lies in the insight which it gives us into the ordin.ary life of the Christian communities of those early times and this wide Asiatic territory, which had enjoyed the oversiglit of the last of the apostles.

It helps us to see what these Churches were, not as we idealize them, but in their actual everyday condition, with their excellences and defects, their noble and their ignoble figures, their meek and their ambitious members, the errors into which they might he betrayed, their varied, mixed, and stirring life. It shows us something, too, of their independence, of the kind of ministry that was in exercise among them, and their relation to it, of their order also and administration.

On these latter subjects it has so much to suggest that it seems to mark a notable stage in the growtli of the Church and the history of its organization. It discloses a condition of tilings like that with which the Didachi has made us familiar. It places us at the point of transition from the apostolic age to the post-apoalolic, from the primitive simplicity to a more developed constitution.

Harnack tliinks we can see in it the struggle between the old patri- archal, provincial order of things, with its ministry of travelling missionary preachers, and the rise ot the settled, organized Church, ^vith its otlieials, its rights, and its administration. He finds in it nothing less than the emergence of the Episcopate proper, and recognizes in Diotrephes the first bishop of the monarchical type known to us by name. LiTBRATuas.

— Among the Commentaries and the booki ot Introduction, those given for the Second Ep. ; also Ileiimann, Comm. in Joan. Kp. III. ; Stemler, de Diutrephe ; Gachon, Authenticity de la 2ff et 3e Ep. de Jtan ; S. Cox, The Private Letters of St. Paul and St. John ; and especially Harnack, Ueber den dritten Johannesbri^ {Texte u. Unters. zur Gesch, der aitchr. Literatur, xv. 3). S. D. F. Salmond.