in
the
blaze
of
gospel
day.
One
who
knows
the
true
God
and
has
eternal
life
cannot
but
'
guard
himself
from
idols.'
The
writer
of
such
an
Epistle
is
appropriately
called
the
Apostle
of
love.
Yet
the
title
taken
by
itself
is
misleading.
He
is
the
Apostle
equally
of
righteous-ness
and
of
faith.
He
'loved
well
because
he
hated
—
hated
the
wickedness
which
hinders
loving.'
There
is
a
stern
ring,
implying
however
no
harshness,
about
the
very
exhortations
to
love,
which
shows
how
indissolubly
it
is
to
be
identified
with
immutable
and
inviolable
righteousness.
If
to
this
Epistle
we
owe
the
great
utterance,
'God
is
Love'
—
here
twice
repeated,
but
found
nowhere
else
in
Scripture
—
to
It
we
owe
also
the
sublime
declaration,
'
God
is
Light,
and
in
him
is
no
darkness
at
all.'
And
the
Epistle,
as
well
as
the
Gospel,
makes
it
abundantly
clear
that
the
spring
of
Christian
love
and
the
secret
of
Christian
victory
over
evil
are
alike
to
be
found
in
'beUeving':
in
the
immov-able
and
ineradicable
faith
that
Jesus
Christ,
the
Son
of
God,
is
come
in
the
flesh,
and
that
in
Him
the
love
of
God
to
man
is
so
manifested
and
assured
that
those
who
trust
Him
already
possess
eternal
life,
together
with
all
that
it
implies
of
strength
and
joy,
and
all
that
flows
from
it
of
obedience
and
loving
service.
Textual
questions
can
hardly
be
touched
upon
in
this
article.
But
it
is
perhaps
worth
pointing
out
that
whilst
the
corrected
text
restores
the
latter
half
of
2^,
which
in
AV
is
printed
in
italics
as
doubtful,
there
can
now
be
no
question
that
the
passage
(5'-
*)
referring
to
the
three
witnesses
in
heaven,
as
read
in
AV,
does
not
form
part
of
the
Epistle.
'The
words
are
wanting
in
all
Greek
MSS
except
a
few
of
exceedingly
late
date;
nor
are
they
found
in
the
majority
of
the
Greek
Fathers,
or
in
any
ancient
version
except
the
Latin.
They
undoubtedly
form
a
gloss
which
found
its
way
into
the
text
from
Latin
sources;
and
the
insertion
really
breaks
the
connexion
of
thought
in
the
paragraph.
II.
The
Second
Epistle.
—
The
Second
and
Third
Epistles
of
St.
John
are
distinguished
from
the
First
by
their
brevity,
the
absence
of
dogmatic
teaching,
and
their
private
and
personal
character.
They
are
found
among
the
ArUUegomena
of
the
early
Church
in
their
relation
to
the
Canon:
apparently
not
because
they
were
unknown,
or
because
their
authorship
was
ques-tioned,
but
because
their
nature
made
them
unsuitable
for
use
in
the
pubUc
worship
of
the
Church.
The
Mura^
torian
Canon
(a.d.
180)
refers
to
two
Epistles
of
John
as
received
in
the
CathoUc
Church,
and
Irenaeus
about
the
same
date
specifically
quotes
2
Jn
•»'•
as
coming
from
'John
the
disciple
of
the
Lord.'
He
also
quotes
v.'
apparently
as
occurring
in
the
First
Epistle.
Clement
of
Alexandria
by
a
mention
of
John's
'larger
Epistle'
shows
that
he
was
acquainted
with
at
least
one
other
shorter
letter.
Origen
states
that
the
t
wo
shorter
letters
were
not
accepted
by
all
as
genuine,
but
he
adds
that
'both
together
do
not
contain
a
hundred
lines.'
Dio-nysius
of
Alexandria
appeals
to
them,
adding
that
John's
name
was
not
affixed
to
them,
but
that
they
were
signed
'the
presbyter.'
They
are
omitted
from
the
Peshitta
Version,
and
Eusebius
describes
them
as
disputed
by
some,
but
in
the
later
4th
cent,
they
were
f
uUy
acknowl-edged
and
received
into
the
Canon.
The
Second
Epistle,
therefore,
though
not
universally
accepted
from
the
first,
was
widely
recognized
as
Apostolic,
and
so
short
a
letter
of
so
distinctly
personal
a
character
could
never
have
been
ranked
by
the
Church
among
her
sacred
writings
except
upon
the
understanding
that
it
bore
with
it
the
authority
of
the
Apostle
John.
The
title
'the
Elder'
does
not
militate
against
this,
but
rather
supports
it.
No
ordinary
presbyter
would
assume
the
style
of
Ihe
elder
and
write
in
such
a
tone
of
absolute
command,
whilst
an
anonymous
writer,
wishing
to
claim
the
sanction
of
the
Apostle,
would
have
inserted
his
name.
But
no
motive
for
anything
like
forgery
can
in
this
case
be
alleged.
The
similarity
in
style
to
the
First
Epistle
is
very
marked,
Jerome
among
the
Fathers,
JOHN,
EPISTLES
OF
Erasmus
at
the
time
of
the
Reformation,
and
many
modern
critics
have
ascribed
the
Epistle
to
'
John
the
Presbyter'
of
Ephesus,
but
there
is
no
early
reference
to
such
a
person
except
the
statement
of
Papias
quoted
by
Eusebius
and
referred
to
in
a
previous
article.
Much
discussion
has
arisen
concerning
the
person
ad-dressed.
The
two
leading
opinions
are
(1)
that
the
words
'elect
lady
and
her
children
are
to
be
understood
hterally
of
a
Christian
matron
in
Ephesus
and
her
family
;
and
(2)
that
a
church
personified,
with
its
constituent
members,
was
intended.
Jerome
in
ancient
times
took
the
latter
view,
and
in
our
own
day
it
has
been
supported
by
scholars
so
different
from
one
another
as
Lightfoot,
Wordsworth,
Hilgenfeld,
and
Sohmiedel.
It
is
claimed
on
this
side
that
the
exhortations
given
are
more
suited
to
a
community,
that
'the
children
of
thine
elect
sister'
can
be
imderstood
only
of
a
sister
church,
and
that
this
mode
of
describing
a
church
personified
is
not
unusual,
as
in
1
P
S'^,
'
She
that
is
in
Babylon,
elect
together
with
you,
saluteth
you.'
On
the
other
hand,
it
is
urged
that
this
mystical
interpretation
destroys
the
simplicity
and
natural
meaning
of
the
letter
(see
especially
w.'-
"■),
that
the
church
being
constituted
of
members,
the
distmction
between
the
'lady'
and
her
'
children
'
would
disappear,
and
that
if
the
lady
be
a
private
person
of
infiuence
the
parallel
with
the
form
of
salutation
to
another
private
person
in
the
Third
Epistle
is
complete.
This
hypothesis
still
leaves
difficulty
in
the
exact
mter-pretation
of
the
words
Eklekle
Kyria.
Some
would
take
both
these
as
the
proper
names
of
the
person
addressed;
others
take
the
former
as
her
name,
so
that
she
would
be
'
the
lady
Eklekte,'
others
would
render
'
to
the
elect
Kyria,'
whilst
the
majority
accept,
in
spite
of
its
indefiniteness,
the
translation
of
AV
and
H.V.
On
the
whole,
this
course
is
to
be
preferred,
though
the
view
tiiat
a
church
is
intended
not
only
is
tenable
but
has
much
in
its
favour.
The
fact
tiiat
the
early
churches
so
often
gathered
in
a
house,
and
that
there
was
so
strong
a
personal
and
individual
element
in
their
community-life,
makes
the
analogy
between
a
primitive
church
and
a
large
and
influential
family
to
be
very
close.
Thus
an
ambiguity
may
arise
which
would
not
be
possible
to-day.
It
remains
only
to
say
that,
as
in
style,
so
in
spirit,
the
similarity
to
1
Jn.
is
very
noticeable.
The
same
emphasis
is
laid
on
love,
on
obedience,
on
fellowship
with
the
Father
and
the
Son,
and
the
inestimable
im-portance
of
maintaining
and
abiding
in
the
truth.
The
same
strong
resentment
is
manifested
against
deceivers
and
the
antichrist,
and
the
same
intensity
of
feeling
against
unbehevers
or
false
teachers,
who
are
not
to
be
received
into
the
house
of
a
beUever,
or
to
have
any
kindly
greeting
accorded
them.
Whether
the
Epistle
was
actually
addressed
to
a
private
person
or
to
a
Christian
community,
it
furnishes
a
most
interesting
picture
of
the
Ufe,
the
faith,
and
the
dangers
and
temptations
of
the
primitive
Christians
in
Asia
Minor,
and
it
contains
wholesome
and
uncompromising,
not
harsh
and
intolerant,
exhortation,
such
as
Christian
Churches
in
all
ages
may
not
unprofitably
lay
to
heart.
III.
Third
Epibtle.
—
The
two
shorter
Epistles
of
St.
John
were
called
by
Jerome
'twin
sisters.'
They
appear
to
have
been
recognized
together
at
least
from
the
time
of
Dionysius
of
Alexandria,
and
they
are
mentioned
together
by
Eusebius
{HE
iii.
25),
who
refers
to
the
Epistles
'called
the
second
and
third
of
John,
whether
they
belong
to
the
Evangelist
or
to
another
person
of
the
same
name.'
They
are
found
together
in
the
Old
Latin
Version,
are
both
omitted
from
the
Pesh.,
and
they
were
included
together
in
the
lists
of
canonical
books
at
the
end
of
the
4th
cent,
by
the
Council
of
Laodicea
and
the
Third
Council
of
Carthage.
References
to
the
Third
Epistle
and
quota-tions
from
it
are
naturally
very
few.
It
is
short,
it
was
written
to
a
private
iierson,
it
does
not
discuss
doctrine,
and
its
counsels
and
messages
are
'
almost
entirely
personal.
But
its
close
relationship
to
the
Second
Epistle
is
very
obvious,
and
the
two
form
companion
pictures
of
value
from
the
point
of
view
of
history;
and
St.
John's
Third
Epistle,
like
St.
Paul's
personal
letter
to
Philemon,
is
not
without
use
for
general
edi-fication.
