THE
PULPIT COMMENTARY, EDITED BY THE
VERY REV. H. D. M. SPENCE, D.D., IJEAN OF GLOllOESTEB;
AND BY THE
REV. JOSEPH S. EXELL, M.A..
1·. JOHN. <$xposition BY REV. A. PLUMMER, M ..A.., D.D., ldASTGR OF llNlVJlRSl'IY COLLIWE, Dlll!.H.All.
~omiletics BY REV. C. CLEMANCE, B.A., D.D.
~omilies bu llarious autbors. REV. W. JONES. BEV. R. FINLAYSON, B.A.
NEW EDITION.
FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY LONDON AND NEW YORK 1907 THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. INTRODUCTION.
J. THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLES. ONE of the first questions which meets the student of these Epistles is- Who wrote them? None of them bears any name, or any de.finite and indisputable indication of the writer. Nevertheless, the authorship is not really doubtful. The four writings, the Fourth Gospel and these three Epistles, are too closely linked together to be separated, and assigned, some to one author and some to another. And if they are all by one writer, that writer, beyond all reasonable doubt, is St. John the apostle. No other person has been suggested who fits into the very complex position with even tolerable exactness. If the Gospel were wanting, we might be in doubt as to who wrote the Epistles. If the First Epistle were wanting, we might be in doubt as to who wrote the two short Epistles. If the Seconcl Epistle were wanting, we should certainly be in serious doubt as to who wrote the third. But as it is, there is no room for reasonable doubt; that is, a doubt that will stand the impartial investigation of all the evidence. Nearly every one admits that the Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle cannot be severed; both external and internal evidence conclusively show that they are by the same hand. The same may be said of the Second and Third Epistles. And a patient examination of the evidence respecting the First and Second Epistles will lead most people to the conclusion that they also are by the same hand; and thus the two ends of the chain are united. The key of the position, therefore, is the Fourth Gospel. And with regard to that the reader is roferred to the Introduction to St. John's Gospel in the • Cambridge Greek Testament,' or in the 'Cambridge Bible for Schools,' or in the' Pttipit Commentary.' By the side of which the following sober and eminently just statement of the problem will repay consideration: "The Gospel of St. John presents a unique phenomenon. It contains two distinct strata of thought, both quite unmistakable to the critica.l eye; and in each of these strata, again, there are local peculiarities which complicate the problem. When it oomes to be closely investigated, the complexities of JOHN EPIST. b u INTRODUOTION TO
the problem are such that the whole of literature probably does not furnish a parallel. The hypothesis of authorship that shall satisfy them thus becomes in its turn equally complicated. It is necessary to find one who shall be at once Jew and Christian, intensely Jewish, and yet comprehen- sively Christian; brought up on the Old Testament, and yet with a strong tincture of Alexandrian llhilosophy; using a language in which the Hebrew Ftructure and the Greek superstructure are equally conspicuous; one who had mixed personally in the events, and yet at the time of writing stood at a distance from them; an immediate disciple of Jesus, and yet possessed of i-o powerful an individuality as to impress the mark of himself upon his recollections; a nature capable of the most ardent and clinging affection, and yet an unsparing denouncer of hostile agencies of any kind which lay outside his own charmed circle. There is one historical figure which seems to fit like a key into all these intricate wards-the figure of St. John as it has been handed down to us by a well-authenticated tradi- tion. I can conceive no second. If the St. John of history did not exist, he would have to be invented to account for his Gospel" (Dr. Sanday's • Inaugural Lecture' as Ireland Professor of Exegesis: Parker, Oxford, 1883). In short, the problem with regard to the Epistles of St. John is very similar to that respecting the Pastoral Epistles. There are portions of the latter which are unquestionably Pauline; and these carry with them the authorship of those portions the .Pauline origin of which might be questioned. Similarly, the apostolic origin of the Fourth Gospel carries with it the apostolic authorship of the First Epistle, and this that of the Second Epistle, and this again that of the third. The First Epistle was known to St. Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, and is quoted as his by St. IrenreUB, the pupil of St. Polycarp. Papias, the contemporary of Polycarp, made use of it. It is repeatedly quoted as St. John's by Clement of .Alexandria, and still more frequently by Tertullian, who seems to have been specially fond of the Epistle. So that the century immediately following St. John's death is well filled with witnesses. Origen and his pupil, Dionysius of .Alezandria, St. Cyprian, and in short all the Fathers, Greek and Latin, accept the Epistle as St.John's. The Muratorian Fragment quotes the opening words of it, and it is contained in the Old Syriac Version. The evidence, therefore, both external and internal, fully justifies the classification of Eu,sebius, who places the First Epistle of St. John among the u!liversally received (& aµ.o>..oyovpho,,;) or catholic books of the New Testament. , The evidence for the Second Epistle, though less ample, is sufficient. That for the Third Epistle, if it stood alone, would seem insufficient for any certain conclusion. But both on external and internal grounds it is impossible to disconnect these twin Epistles and give them a different parentage. And therefore the Third Epistle is covered by the evidence for the second, as that again by the evidence for. the first. IrenieU8, a pupil of St. John's pupil, Polycarp, twice q.uotes the Second TUE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. iii