"THE SECOND EPISTLE OF JOHN

Who wrote it. The external evidence for the genuineness of this epistle is not so convincing as in the case of the one that we have just been considering; but this is easily accounted for by its brevity and its being less suitable for public reading in church. At the same time, it is expressly quoted by Irenæus and Clement of Alexandria, and is mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment. It appears also to have been acknowledged by Eusebius, although he placed it among the "disputed " books. With regard to internal evidence, it has all the appearance of being genuine. Like the third epistle it bears to be written by "the elder," a designation which implies that the writer was a well-known personage in the Church. Papias applies the name of "elders" specially to the surviving disciples of the Lord, as men of a past generation,-so that there was a certain appropriateness in John so describing himself, as the last of the apostles.1 An imitator who wished to pass for John would have made his claim in more distinct terms; and the contents of the epistle are such that no reasonable motive can be assigned for forgery.

The genuineness of the epistle derives considerable support also from its strong resemblance to the first epistle, no less than seven of its thirteen verses having something parallel in the other.2

To whom written.-" Unto the elect lady and her children." It is a question whether these words are to be taken literally, or in a figurative sense as the designation of a Church and its members. On the whole the latter seems the more probable, in view of the expressions used in verses 1, 4, 5, 10, 13. Such language

1 Cf. Peter's use of the expression "a fellow-elder," as applied to himself (1 Peter v. 1).

2 Cf. ver. 1 and 1 John iii. 18; ver. 4 and iv. 21; ver. 5 and ii. ; ver. 6 and v. 3; ver. 7 and iv. 1-3; ver. 9 and ii. 23; ver. 12 and

1. 4.

need not surprise us in the case of a writer so fond of symbolism as the author of the Apocalypse and the fourth Gospel.1 But which of the Churches in Asia is thus addressed we have no means of knowing.

Where and when written.-Probably from Ephesus,-subsequently to the first epistle.

Its Character and Contents.-While the epistle contains expressions of warm affection for the members of the Church in question (whom the apostle appears to have recently visited), its main object was evidently to warn them against the insidious and corrupting influence of certain heretical teachers who were going about denying the reality of Christ's humanity (ver. 7). The apostle urges an uncompromising opposition to all such teachers, in terms that remind us of the story told by Irenæus on the authority of those who had received it from Polycarp, that finding Cerinthus in a public bath, the apostle rushed out at the sight of him, exclaiming, "Let us fly lest even the bath fall on us, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within,”—a speech that betrays a lingering of the spirit that had once been rebuked by his Lord (Luke ix. 54). On the other hand,

the blending of love with truth in the earlier part of the epistle is equally characteristic of the disciple "whom Jesus loved"; and it finds similar illustration in the beautiful story of "St. John and the Robber."

'THE THIRD EPISTLE OF JOHN "

Who wrote it.-If we admit the second epistle to be the work of John, we can have no difficulty in accepting this also as his. The two epistles have been aptly termed "twins"; and the contents of this epistle are so peculiar

1 Some think that a similar metaphor is to be found in the First Epistle of Peter (v. 13), whom tradition associates in his later years with John.

2 The word "love" occurs four times in this short epistle, and "truth" five times.

For resemblances cf. ver. 1 and 2 John ver. x; ver. 3-4 and a John ver. 4; ver. 13 and 2 John ver. 12.

in their bearing on the position and authority of the apostle, as to preclude the idea of forgery.

To whom written.-"Unto Gaius the beloved." The name Gaius occurs several times in the New Testament; but whether the receiver of this letter is to be identified with any of those who are elsewhere so called it is impossible to say, the name being a very common one. He is addressed as a faithful and liberal member of the Church (verses 1-6).

Where and when written.

Probably from Ephesus, subsequently to the first epistle.

Its Character and Contents.-This epistle, like the second, gives us a momentary glimpse of Churchlife in Asia towards the close of the first century. While the second contains a warning against heresy, this relates rather to the evil of schism. It shows us the practical difficulties which even the Apostle John had to encounter in the government of the Church. In Gaius (the recipient of the letter) we have a sincere and charitable Christian whose influence and example John invokes in opposition to the factious and intolerant conduct of an ambitious ecclesiastic named Diotrephes, who has gone so far as to close his doors on "the brethren" who had come in the apostle's name, apparently bearing a letter from him-perhaps our second epistle (verses 9-10). The aged head of the Church in Asia feels that it will be necessary, the next time he visits the district, to hold a reckoning with the offender for his malice and presumption. Meanwhile he warns Gaius against being led astray by the example of Diotrephes; and in pleasing contrast he refers to one Demetrius—possibly the "silversmith" of Ephesus (Acts xix. 24), and apparently the bearer of this letter-who "hath the witness of all men, and of the truth itself." Finally the apostle pleads the same excuse for his brevity as he does in the case of the second epistle, viz. that he hopes soon to visit his readers, when they "shall speak face to face."

'Acts xix. 29; xx. 4; Rom. xvi. 23; 1 Cor. i. 14.

THE Author. There is very strong external evidence

to prove that this book was written by the Apostle John. Passing over some earlier apparent witnesses, we find unmistakable mention of it in the writings of Justin Martyr. He expressly refers to it as the work of the apostle, in the dialogue which he held with Trypho, an unbelieving Jew, in the very city of Ephesus where John lived, and within half a century after his death. Equally clear and explicit is the testimony of Irenæus, who, as we have seen, was a disciple of Polycarp, the disciple of John. In one passage of his writings, Irenæus even gives as his authority for preferring 666 to 616 as “the number of the beast," in the disputed reading (xiii. 18), the testimony of those who had seen John face to face. The book is twice mentioned in the Canon of the Muratorian Fragment, once in such a way as to imply that it was publicly read in church; it was one of the books on which Melito, Bishop of Sardis, wrote a commentary (about 170 A.D.); and it is expressly quoted as "the Scripture" in the letter sent by the persecuted Christians of Vienne and Lyons to their brethren in Asia Minor (177 A.D.)

But soon after the middle of the second century the book began to be regarded with suspicion, owing to the use made of it by a heretical party called the Montanists, who indulged in extravagant notions regarding the

"thousand years" of Christ's reign with His saints which was to take place before the end of the world (xx.) The feeling of distrust was strengthened by observing what a marked difference there was in the language and style of the Revelation and of the other works ascribed to John ; and a considerable amount of controversy took place on the subject. Ultimately, however, the objections were overruled, and the book obtained general acceptance in the Church.

In modern times the controversy has been renewed ; and objectors are still disposed to insist, as of old, on the internal marks of a different authorship from that of the fourth Gospel.1 In particular it is pointed out that whereas the Gospel is written in good Greek, the Revelation is full of grammatical mistakes and eccentricities ; so that while there is scarcely anything in the former to show that the writer was other than a Greek, the latter would give us the impression of its having been written by a person who first thought in Hebrew and had afterwards to turn his thoughts into a language with which he was imperfectly acquainted.

To meet this objection the following considerations may be adduced :

(1) The difference in the nature and contents of the two books; the one being mainly narrative or colloquial, the other being formed on the model of the Old Testament prophets. (2) The possible effect on the apostle of twenty years' residence in Ephesus, in the way of improving his knowledge of Greek. (3) The unfavourable circumstances under which he appears to have written the Revelation; and the possible employment by him of a skilled Greek amanuensis in the composition of the Gospel.

On the other hand, amid all the diversity between the two books both in ideas and in language, there are not wanting some important features of resemblance, betokening an identity of authorship.

1 The Tübingen school, however, generally admit Revelation as the work of the apostle, and reject the fourth Gospel