CHAPTER II: THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
WHAT is known as the First Epistle of John, though in reality it is not in epistolary form at all but in that of a circular addressed to the whole of Christendom, is to all appearances inseparably connected with the Gospel. Often, as we read, we can hardly say whether we have the one or the other book open before us. And in fact the matter on which they differ from each other most clearly is one which, from another point of view, serves to bring them together again. __________________________________________________________________
1 . MAIN PURPOSE: TO OPPOSE THE GNOSTICS.
Whereas, for instance, the Gospel never says that it is opposing false teaching within the Christian fold (except in x. 1-10: see p. 135 f.), the Epistle says this most emphatically. But we found certain utterances in the Gospel aimed at very definite opponents, in other words, at the Gnostics (pp. 152-154, 160-163); and the first Epistle likewise opposes the Gnostics. We are told (ii. 4) that the author's opponents asserted that they knew God; and it was knowledge on which the Gnostics prided themselves. We know further the doctrine of the Stoics according to which the logos or rather the individual logoi were like seeds of corn scattered throughout the world (p. 142 f.), and out of these the things of the world arose. The Gnostics applied this idea to themselves, and claimed that they had in their own persons the divine seed. There is a hint of this idea in iii. 9; and in i. 8, 10 of the Gnostics assertion that this made them sinless.
As to Jesus, the opponents of the writer of the Epistle taught that he was not the Christ (ii. 22). And in this again we can recognise the claim of the Gnostics, that Jesus was only a man who for a time and in a loose way became one with the Christ who had come down from heaven. This is seen even more clearly in iv. 2 f.; they deny that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, an utterance which is aimed at the same time at that other idea of the Gnostics--that he had merely a phantom body (pp. 150, 152). And in v. 6 that teaching of theirs is opposed, according to which the man who suffered on the cross was not really the redeemer, that is to say, the Christ, who had come down from heaven. The author says here that he came, that is to say, to save mankind, not only with water through his baptism but also with blood through his death.
But, further, in iii. 4, 10, ii. 4 the author declares against "every one that doeth sin" or "that keepeth not God's commandments," and by sin he means opposition to the injunction in iii. 3, that every one should purify himself. What he has in mind therefore is an unholy, unbridled life. Now, it is hardly possible that this reproach, which is made more than once and in the most varied forms, can apply to persons other than those who are opposed in other passages throughout the Epistle. And if this be so, the Gnostics with whom we have to deal here are not, like many others, especially in the first decades of the second century, people who adhered to the law of the Old Testament. We already have to do with a more developed form of Gnosticism. __________________________________________________________________
2. AGREEMENT WITH GNOSTICISM.
But it is remarkable that the man who so decisively opposes Gnosticism agrees with it entirely on a strikingly large number of points. He also cannot but think that there are two kingdoms very sharply opposed to each other, the kingdom of God, and that of the world which is ruled by the devil (ii. 16; iii. 8, 10; iv. 4-6), or the kingdom of truth and that of lies (ii. 21) and this opposition extends to mankind as well, the one part being from God and the other from the world, which "lieth in the evil one," that is to say, is under the dominion of the devil (v. 19).
We found that there is the same kind of agreement with the Gnostics in the Gospel (pp. 158-160). But the Epistle goes a step farther. While the Gospel only occasionally suggests that knowledge is a valuable thing (xvii. 3), the Epistle emphasises, in a way that a Gnostic could not excel, that the author and his party themselves possess the knowledge of God or of the truth (ii. 13 f., 20 f., 27; iv. 7). Further, as to the Gnostics belief that they had in themselves the divine "seed," the author maintains again that it is really he and those who think with him who possess it as their own. And on this point he ventures to make the strongest statement found in his Epistle: "Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin" (iii. 9; v. 18). By these he means himself and his party. And this is said by the same person who just before (i. 8, 10) has reproached his opponents in these words: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." Here we can see how great a spell the ideas of the Gnostics exercised upon men's minds.
3. NATURE OF THE OPPOSITION TO GNOSTICISM.
But we see at the same time the peculiar nature of the attack that is made upon them. Those who opposed them claimed as their own all that was valuable in the things the Gnostics prided themselves on, and denied it to the Gnostics. And upon what ground? If these Gnostics really lived the sinful kind of life they were reproached with, this would assuredly provide a certain amount of justification for arguing on these grounds against the truth of their teaching, on the principle "by their fruits ye shall know them" (Mt. vii. 16). But it is much to be feared that the opponents of the Gnostics painted their excesses in darker colours than was just; and it would also be reasonable to ask whether they had as much light on their own side as (in their view) there was of shade in that of their opponents. Unfortunately, we are obliged to say that the New Testament writers are too prone to disparage their opponents by attacking their morals, and often they do so in a way that is very unpleasant. In this matter the Epistles to Timothy and Titus (which were not composed by the Apostle Paul, but in the first half of the second century), the Epistle of Jude from the same period, and the Second Epistle of Peter (which was not written by the Apostle Peter any more than the first Epistle, but is the latest book in the New Testament, and was not written until after the middle of the second century) offend in a special degree. It is very possible that by employing this method of warfare, they show at the same time that they are incapable of overcoming their opponents with intellectual weapons. The author of the Epistle to the Colossians provides an honourable exception; and from this we can see at the same time that Gnostic views were not always and necessarily associated with immorality.
As regards the First Epistle of John, we must say that in its attack on its opponents, compared with the writings mentioned above, it has observed a certain moderation. In form at least it is written in a calm and measured style. We note that the author feels the necessity of convincing his readers of the truth of what he says. Laying so great stress on knowledge as he does, he cannot have failed to desire this. True, his argument does not take the form of giving real proofs; he simply gives expression to his own conviction; but the brevity and simplicity with which he does so makes it so effective that he could really hope to make an impression by it.
On what then, in the last resort, does he take his stand when he opposes the Gnostics? On the Confession of the Church. People must confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh that is to say, has appeared with a body consisting of flesh; otherwise they are not from God, but are Christ's enemies, and, in denying the son, they are at the same time denying God the Father as well (iv. 2 f.; ii. 22). __________________________________________________________________
4. THE EPISTLE NOT BY THE AUTHOR OF THE GOSPEL.
After all that has been said so far, the Gospel and the first Epistle might very well seem to have been the work of the same person; but on a closer view it is clear that in all probability the two writings had different authors. A number of important expressions occur only in the Epistle which the author of the Gospel would have had opportunities of using as well had he been familiar with them. But, above all, the convictions to which the Epistle gives expression bring it nearer than the Gospel to the ordinary, simple faith of the Church.
Jesus second coming from heaven, at which he will bring eternal happiness, in ii. 28, as amongst primitive Christians in general, is expected to take place on a definite day as an objective event; on the other hand, when the Evangelist speaks of a second coming of Jesus after his death, he does so only in the sense that it will be identical with the coming of the Holy Spirit into the hearts of believers, which of course happens at very different times (xiv. 16-18, 26-28). The Epistle follows the old idea closely in expecting that on that great day in the future all men will rise from the dead and come before the bar of judgment (iii. 2; iv. 17). In the Gospel this idea is found only in particular passages, for example in v. 28 f., or in a clause which is perhaps disturbing, or at least can always be dispensed with, "and I will raise him up at the last day," vi. 40, 44, 54, 39 (on this account perhaps added by another person, in order to make the book more acceptable to simple believers); but his principal idea on this point is that eternal life begins even in this world as soon as a man believes in Jesus, and that such a one will never come into judgment (v. 24). To the writer of the Epistle the most important redemptive act of Jesus seems to be his death (i. 7; ii. 2; iv. 10), as was generally thought since the time of the Apostle Paul; the Gospel gives expression to this belief only in i. 29, 36, and perhaps in xi. 50-52; xvii. 19 b, and assumes everywhere else that Jesus brought redemption by coming amongst men and bringing them that true knowledge which leads to believing in him. In the division which is made between God and the world, the Epistle does not go so far as the Gospel. The Evangelist's most significant train of thought is to the effect that God does not give his gifts directly to men, but to Jesus. Jesus is the first to bestow them upon men (xv. 9 f.); none can come to the Father save through him (xiv. 6). There are not wanting in the Gospel, as we have indicated already (p. 161), sayings which represent the idea, assumed throughout the Epistle (ii. 24; iii. 24; iv. 12 f., 15 f.), that men also can commune directly with God. But the difference is perceptible all the same. Finally, in place of the designation "Logos," the Epistle (i. 1) has "the Word of Life," by which one cannot perceive that Jesus is a Being who bears the name Logos and is well known from Greek Philosophy.
It is indeed permissible to think that one and the same person might have expressed himself differently in two works. But the facts of the case are certainly more easily understood if we suppose that we have to do with two different authors; and since, moreover, the Evangelist cannot have been John the Apostle, it is no use insisting that the author of the Epistle can have been no other than he. __________________________________________________________________
5. DATE OF COMPOSITION.
But when was the Epistle written? Since it represents the simpler and earlier form of the Christian faith, it is natural to think it older than the Gospel. But the contrary may also have been the case; and there are many other writers who have not followed the Gospel of John, when it diverges from the original teaching, but have betaken themselves to this. We must therefore look for another means of deciding the question. Let me quote here ii. 12-14: "I write unto you, my little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake. I write unto you, fathers, because ye know him which is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the evil one. I have written unto you, little children, because ye know the Father. I have written unto you, fathers, because ye know him which is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the evil one." This can hardly be understood to mean anything else than that the author wishes to inform his readers that what he now writes is essentially the same as he has already written to them once before. And thus it is very natural to suppose that he suggests that he had done this in the Gospel. With this the external evidence would agree; the Epistle, like the Gospel, is not used by Christian writers until after the year 140, and when it is first used there is no mention of the author's name. __________________________________________________________________
6. SECONDARY PURPOSE: RECOMMENDATION OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
We must now devote a few more words to the purpose of the Epistle. We have hitherto explained that the author is opposing the Gnostics, but if what we have just said be correct, this does not exhaust the matter; another purpose is to repeat in another form what is contained in the Gospel and so to confirm it. Is there any connection between this and the fact that in the earliest days after its publication it gained so little recognition (p. 199 f.)? In that case, the purpose of the Epistle would be the same as that which induced some one, as we have already found (p. 186 f.), to add the twenty-first chapter to the Gospel. And just as in the addition to the Gospel the ruling idea was to satisfy the requirement that the account of Peter should be more favourable, sq in the present case the work was carried out in such a way as to avoid those statements in the Gospel which differed too much from the ordinary faith of the Church. Here we may again wonder whether this may not have been done by the author of the Gospel himself, and whether he may not have written in this way, to set aside his original views of set purpose. But it is easier to suppose that one who belonged to the circle of his followers wrote it to give expression to his own view of the matter.
We should have to assume at the same time that he wished to be taken for the Evangelist. But, according to the ideas of the time, there would be as little harm in this as there was in the other case where the Evangelist (perhaps) wished to be taken for John the Apostle (pp. 183-185). We must not therefore regard it as being in the slightest degree deceitful when we are told at the beginning of his circular: "that which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Life (that is to say, concerning Jesus) . . . declare we unto you also." By taking up the pen in the name of the Evangelist, and yet writing in a rather different sense, the author served the great purpose of gaining recognition in the Church for the precious thoughts contained in the Fourth Gospel, knowing as he did how to remove all that was offensive; and it is quite possible that he helped in a real sense to achieve this purpose. He did not, however, fulfil in any way his opening promise (i. 1). There is not the least trace in his Epistle of anything that only an eye-witness of the Life of Jesus could know. __________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER. III.
THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN.
THE agreement which we have noticed in the mode of expression and the thought of the Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle, is much less pronounced when we turn to the Second Epistle, and disappears even more in the Third. On the other hand, these two Epistles supplement the First from a new point of view. __________________________________________________________________
1. PURPOSE OP THE TWO EPISTLES.
If we take note of what is most peculiar in them, we cannot help seeing that their main purpose is to insist that with certain members of the Christian Church communion must be ended. We read in 2 Jn. 10 f.: "If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this (the right) teaching, receive him not into your house and give him no greeting: for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works." Here the Gnostics are intended who are called in verse 9 people who "go onward."
In the Third Epistle the opposition to these is less perceptible; there was less opportunity, for the occasion for this Epistle was provided by disputes between the author and a certain Diotrephes as to the authoritative influence in the community. "I wrote somewhat unto the Church; but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them, receiveth us not . . . neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and them that would he forbiddeth, and casteth them out of the Church" (3 Jn. 9 f.). These brethren are therefore travelling Christians, who belong to the party of the author. The idea of the Epistle is to request Gaius, to whom it is addressed, to receive them kindly. The author claims to have an influence extending beyond his own dwelling-place. The Demetrius who is mentioned at the end of the Epistle, and of whom it is expressly stated that he "hath the witness of all men," may well have conveyed it himself. __________________________________________________________________
2. ADDRESS OP THE TWO EPISTLES.
The Third Epistle, then, is addressed to a particular person. At first sight, this seems to be so with the Second Epistle as well, when we read, "the elder unto the elect lady and her children." But who is the lady? The last sentence of the Epistle runs: "The children of thine elect sister salute thee." Does the author actually write from the house of the sister of the recipient? And what does verse 4 mean? "I rejoice greatly that I have found certain of thy children walking in truth." Only certain? Was there not greater cause to express sorrow for the others? In short, the "lady" is not a particular woman; she is a community. We learn from Ephes. v. 31 f.; Rev. xix. 7, that the community was thought of as the bride of Christ who had been exalted to heaven, just as in the Old Testament the people of Israel is the bride of God. Since Christ is called "the Lord," the community might be called "the lady." It deserves to be called "elect" because it consists of all the chosen. Its children are of course the members of the community.
We need not stop to think, as regards this matter, that a community had been shown to be meant instead of what appeared at first sight to be one woman. Where should we have to look for it? There is no clue to anything of the kind. Any community, therefore, might suppose that it was greeted by that other community in which the author was staying. This means that the Epistle was meant for the whole church, and its contents suit this idea quite well. For a secondary purpose of the Epistle is found in the fact that the author wishes to warn people in quite a general way against the Gnostics and to emphasise the correct teaching about Jesus (2 Jn. 7-9). In this respect it falls into line with the first Epistle. __________________________________________________________________
3. AUTHOR OF THE TWO EPISTLES AND DATE OF COMPOSITION.
While the Second Epistle insists, not only on opposition to, but on the expulsion of the Gnostics, it goes beyond the First, and so might with the Third seem to be later. Unfortunately we have no definite points from which to start in order to determine the date at which both were written. Yet, on the other hand, there is another fact which leads us to suppose that they preceded the Gospel and the First Epistle.
The author of both Epistles, that is to say, calls himself simply, "the elder." How it could be thought that, in spite of this clear description, he was the Apostle, is really difficult to explain. If we cannot say for certain who is meant by "the elder," yet it is clear that the Apostle would not have described himself in this way. When we read in v. 1 of the First Epistle of Peter (which, besides, is not by Peter, but was written at the beginning of the persecution of the Christians in Asia Minor in the year 112; see iv. 12, 15 f.), that Peter is addressing the elders of the community, and for this special reason calls himself their fellow elder we have something quite different. But, besides this, we know of one quite famous person who is continually called "the elder"; this is John "the Elder," head of the Church in Asia Minor. The use of his special name "the elder" may very well have been so widespread that his real name John was omitted.
Was he the writer of the Epistles? If the Gnostics did not succeed in gaining a following in the Christian communities until about the year 100 (p. 192), a considerable period of time must have elapsed before people would take measures to exclude them so harshly from communion. For many decades they regarded themselves as members of the Church, and, though they were opposed by other teachers in it, they were treated everywhere with toleration, A personal disciple of Jesus, such as John the Elder was, cannot have lived to see the time when they were excluded from communion.
Another person in his circle, who is not known to us, may have had the same title, and in course of time have come to be known solely by this name, "the Elder." But in view of the close relationship between, at least, the Second Epistle on the one hand and the First and the Gospel on the other, it is very likely that the author is supposed to be that John the Elder whom Irenaeus and the other Christian writers had in mind, even though they mentioned the Apostle as the writer of the Gospel and the First Epistle. Only, in that case, the two small Epistles would have been composed merely in the name of John the Elder, just as the First Epistle and (perhaps) the Gospel are represented as being works of John the Apostle.
And this would be the reason for supposing these two to be the earlier of the four writings in question. On this assumption, we shall have to think that in one particular place, Ephesus perhaps, there was a whole number of persons of like mind who were filled with a feeling of veneration for John the Elder, once head of this community, and at the same time were anxious, by writing books, to make their ideas current in the Church. Even if these ideas had ceased to be quite identical with those of their former Master, it was most natural for them to publish their first writings in his name. But perhaps they were made to realise that his reputation had not extended beyond the immediate circle in which he had once worked. In order, therefore, to make a greater impression, when they thought of publishing new works, such as the Gospel and the First Epistle, they felt obliged to choose a person who ranked still higher and publish them in his name; this person was John the Apostle. In this way the two small Epistles, in spite of the fact that their range is restricted, would contribute not a little towards giving us a very interesting and instructive glimpse of a whole series of events and struggles, which the idea that arose later, that their author was John the Apostle, to all intents and purposes served to overcloud completely. __________________________________________________________________