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.