The object of the apostle in writing the 2d Epistle was to warn the lady to whom he wrote against abetting the teaching known as that of Basilides and his follow- ers, by perhaps an undue kindness displayed by her to- wards the preachers of the false doctrine. After the in- troductory salutation, the apostle at once urges on his correspondent the great principle of love, which with him (as we have before seen) means right affection springing from right faith, and issuing in right conduct. The immediate consequence of the possession of this love is the abhorrenceof heretical misbelief, because the latter, being incompatible with right faith, is destructive of the ])roducing cause of love, and therefore of love itself. This is the secret of John's strong denunciation of the " deceiver," whom he designates as "Antichrist." Love is with him the essence of Christianity, but love can spring only from right faith. AVrong belief, there- fore, destroys love, and with it Christianity. Therefore says he, " If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, recei\-e him not into your house, neither bid I
him God speed, for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds" (2 Epist. 10, 11).
III. The i/m-d Epistle is addressed to Caius, a Chris- tian brother noted for his hospitality to the saints. Whether this be one of those mentioned elsewhere in the N. T. by this name is uncertain; he mc(9/ have been the same mentioned Acts xix, 28. See Gaujs. The apostle writes for the purpose of commending to the kindness and hospitality of Caius some Christians who were strangers in the place where he lived. It is prob- able that these Christians carried this letter with them to Caius as their introduction. It would appear that the object of the travellers was to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles without money and without price (3 Epist. 7). The apostle had already written to the ecclesias- tical authorities of the place (typoi/.o, ver. 9,not "scrip- sissem," as the Yulg.), but they, at the instigation of Diotrephes, had refused to receive the missionary breth- ren, and therefore the apostle now commends them to the care of a layman. It is probable that Diotrephes was a leading presbyter who held Judaizing views, and would not give assistance to men who were going about with the purpose of preaching solely to the Gentiles. The apostle intimates the probability of his soon per- sonally visiting the church, when he would deal with Diotrephes for his misconduct, and would communicate to Caius many things of which he could not then write. In the mean time he exhorts him to follow that which is good, commends one Demetrius, and concludes with benediction and salutation. Whether this Demetrius (vcr. 12) was a tolerant presbyter of the same commu- nity, whose example John holds up as worthy of com- mendation in contradistinction to that of Diotrephes, or whether he was one of the strangers who bore the letter, we are now unable to determine.
From their general similarity, we may conjecture that the two epistles were written shortly after the 1st Epis- tle from Ephesus. They both apply to individual cases of conduct the principles v liich had been laid down in their fulness in the 1st Epistle.— Kitto; Smith.
IV. Commentaries. — Tlie following are the exegetical helps on the whole of both the latter epistles exclusive- ly, in addition to those noticed above : Jones, Commen- tary [including Philem. etc.] (Lond. 1635, fol.); Smith, Exposition [on 2d Epistle] (Lond. 1G63, 4to) ; Sonntag, Hypomnemata (Altorf, 1697, 8vo) ; Feustking, Commen- tariiis (Vitemb. 1707, fol.) ; Verpoorten, Exercitatione.s (Gcdan. 1741,4to); Heumann, CoM7?)e??^flr [on 3d Epist.] (Helinst. ]778,8vo); W\\\\er,Commentarivs [on2dEpist.] (Schleiz, 1783, 4to) ; Sommel, Isayor/e (Lond. 1798, 4to) ; Kambonnet, Specimen, etc. [on 2d Epistle] (Tr. ad Eh. 1818, 8vo); Gachon, Atitheniicite, etc. (Montaub. 1851, 8 vo) ; Cox, Private Letters of Sis. Paul and John (Lond. 1867, 8vo). See Commentary.
JOHN, REVELATION OF. See Eevelation.
John the Baptist {'lajdpvTjg 6 j3a7rTi(TTi]g, or simply 'lujdvvr]c, when the reference is clear, as in Matt, iii, 4; iv, 12; Lut. Joannes [Tacitus, //2«^ v, 12] ; Heb. "jini"', denoting /7?-flce, or favor [see Simonis,/>fa". A\ T. p. 513]). In the Church John commonly bears the honorable title of " forerunner of the Lord" — antecursor et prjeparator viaram Domini (Tertull. adv.3Iarc. iv, 33); in Greek, TrpnSponoc, TrpodyyiXoQ Kvpiov. The accounts of him which the Gospels present are fragmentary and imper- fect ; they involve, too, some difficulties which the learned have found it hard to remove; yet enough is given to show that he was a man of a lofty character, and that the relation in which he stood to Christianitj' was one of great importance. Indeed, according to our Lord's own testimony, he was a more honored character and distinguished saint than any prophet who had pre- ceded him (Luke vii, 28). See Pkophet.
1. John was of the priestly race by both parents, for his father Zacharias was himself a priest of the course of Abia, or Abijah (1 Chron. xxiv, 10), offering incense at the very time when a son was promised to him ; and
JOHN"
956
JOHN
Elizabeth was of the daughters of Aaron (Luke i, 5), the latter "a cousin" {avyyevi]c, relative) of Mary, the mother of Jesus, whose senior John was by a period of six months (Luke i). Both parents, too, were devout persons, walking in the commandments of God, and waiting for the fullilment of his promise to Israel. The divine mission of John was the subject of prophecy