JOHN,
THEOLOGY
OF
The
person
to
whom
it
is
addressed
is
quite
unknown.
The
name
Gaiua
(Lat.
Caius)
is
very
common,
and
three
other
persons
so
called
are
mentioned
in
NT,
viz.,
Gains
of
Corinth
(1
Co
1";
cf.
Ro
1623);
Qaius
of
Derbe
(Ac
20'')
;
and
Gains
of
Macedonia
(Ac
IQ"').
A
bishop
of
Pergamos,
appointed
by
the
Apostle
John
and
mentioned
in
the
Apostolic
Conslitviions,
was
also
called
Gains,
and
some
critics
are
disposed
to
identify
him
with
St.
John's
correspondent.
This
is,
however,
a
mere
conjecture,
and
the
letter
is
addressed,
not
to
a
church
ofBcial,
but
to
a
private
layman,
apparently
of
some
wealth
and
influence.
It
is
written
in
a
free
and
natural
style,
and
deals
with
the
case
of
some
of
those
travelling
evangelists
who
figured
so
prominently
in
the
primitive
Church,
and
to
whom
reference
is
made
in
the
Didache
and
elsewhere.
Some
of
these,
perhaps
commissioned
by
John
himself,
had
visited
the
Church
to
which
Gains
belonged,
had
been
hospitably
enter-tained
by
him,
and
helped
forward
on
their
journey,
probably
with
material
assistance.
But
Diotrephes
—
an
official
of
the
church,
perhaps
its
'
bishoj)
'
or
a
leading
elder
—
who
loved
power,
asserted
himself
arrogantly,
and
was
disposed
to
resist
the
Apostle's
authority.
He
declined
to
receive
these
worthy
men
who
at
their
own
charges
were
preaching
the
gosi>el
in
the
district.
He
also
stirred
up
feeling
against
them,
and
at
least
threatened
to
excommunicate
any
members
of
the
church
who
entertained
them.
The
evil
example
of
Diotrephes
is
held
up
for
condemnation,
whilst
in
contrast
to
him,
a
certain
Demetrius
is
praised,
whose
reputation
in
the
Church
was
excellent,
who
had
won
the
confidence
of
the
Apostle,
and
—
higher
commendation
still
—
had
'
the
witness
of
the
truth
itself.'
Tried
by
the
strictest
and
most
searching
test
of
all,
the
sterling
metal
of
Deme-trius'
character
rang
true.
Full
information
is
not
given
us
as
to
all
the
circumstances
of
the
case.
Prob-ably
Diotrephes
was
not
wholly
to
be
blamed.
It
was
quite
necessary,
as
the
Didache
shows
us,
to
inquire
carefully
into
the
character
of
these
itinerant
preachers.
Some
of
them
were
mercenary
in
their
aims,
and
the
conflict
of
opinion
in
this
instance
may
have
had
some
connexion
with
the
current
controversies
between
Jewish
and
Gentile
Christians.
But
it
is
the
spirit
of
Diotrephes
that
is
blameworthy,
and
the
little
picture
here
drawn
of
primitive
ecclesiastical
communities
with
their
flaws
and
their
excellences,
their
worthy
members
and
ambitious
officers,
their
generous
hosts
and
kindly
helpers,
and
the
absent
Apostle
who
bears
the
care
of
all
the
churches
and
is
about
to
pay
to
this
one
a
visit
of
fatherly
and
friendly
inspection,
is
full
of
interest
and
instruction.
We
have
no
information
as
to
the
time
at
which,
or
the
places
from
and
to
which,
these
brief
letters
were
written.
They
rank,
with
the
Gospel
and
the
First
Epistle
of
St.
John,
as
among
the
latest
documents
in
the
NT.
W.
T.
Davison.
JOHN,
THEOLOGY
OP.—
It
is
the
object
of
this
article
to
give
a
brief
account
of
St.
John's
teaching
as
contained
in
his
Gospel
and
Epistles.
Without
pre-judging
in
any
way
the
authorship
of
the
Apocalypse,
it
will
be
more
convenient
that
the
doctrine
of
that
book
should
be
considered
separately.
Enough
if
it
be
said
here
that,
despite
the
obvious
and
very
striking
differ-ence
in
the
form
and
style
of
the
book,
the
underlying
similarities
between
it
and
those
to
be
now
considered
are
no
less
remarkable.
Careful
students,
not
blinded
by
the
symbolism
and
other
pecuUarities
of
the
Revela-tion,
who
have
concentrated
attention
upon
its
main
ideas
and
principles,
have
come
to
the
conclusion
that
if
it
did
not
proceed
from
the
same
pen
that
wrote
the
Gospel
and
Epistles,
it
belongs
to
the
same
school
of
Christian
thought.
See
Revelation
[Book
of].
1.
Some
general
characteristics
of
the
teaching
of
St.
John,
—
(1)
It
wasnotin
vain
that
the
designation
'
the
theologian'
was
given
to
him,
as
in
the
title
of
the
JOHN,
THEOLOGY
OF
Apocalypse
and
elsewhere.
The
word
means
in
this
connexion
that
it
was
St.
John's
habit
to
consider
every
subject
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
Divine.
Not
only
is
God
to
him
the
most
real
of
all
beings
—
that
should
be
true
of
every
religious
man
—
but
all
the
details
of
his
very
practical
teaching
are
traced
up
to
their
origin
in
the
nature
and
will
of
God.
The
opening
of
his
Gospel
is
characteristic.
History
is
viewed
from
the
stand-point
of
eternity,
the
life
of
Jesus
is
to
be
narrated
not
from
the
point
of
view
of
mere
human
observation,
but
as
a
temporal
manifestation
of
eternal
realities.
—
(2)
But
it
must
not
for
a
moment
be
understood
that
the
treatment
of
human
affairs
is
vague,
abstract,
unreal.
St.
John
has
a
flrm
hold
upon
the
concrete,
and
his
insight
into
the
actual
life
and
needs
of
men
is
pene-trating
and
profound.
He
is
not
analytical
as
St.
Paul
is,
nor
does
he
deal
with
individual
virtues
and
vices
as
does
St.
James.
But
in
the
unity
and
simpUcity
of
a
few
great
principles
he
reaches
to
the
very
heart
of
things.
His
method
is
often
described
as
intuitive,
contemplative,
mystical.
The
use
of
these
epithets
may
be
justified,
but
it
would
be
misleading
to
suppose
that
a
teacher
who
views
life
from
so
high
a
vantage-
ground
sees
less
than
others.
The
higher
you
climb
up
the
mountain
the
farther
you
can
see.
Those
who
contrast
the
spiritual
with
the
practical
create
a
false
antithesis.
The
spiritual
teacher,
and
he
alone,
can
perceive
and
deal
with
human
nature,
not
according
to
its
superficial
appearances,
but
as
it
really
is
at
its
very
core.
—
(3)
Only
it
must
not
be
forgotten
that
the
view
thus
taken
of
nature
and
conduct
is
ideal,
absolute,
uncompromising.
The
moral
dualism
which
is
characteristic
of
St.
John
is
in
accordance
with
the
sentence
from
the
great
Judgment-seat.
Light
and
darkness
—
good
and
evil—
truth
and
falsehood
—
life
and
death
—
these
are
brought
into
sharp
and
re-lentless
contrast.
Half-tones,
delicate
distinctions,
the
subtle
and
gradual
fining
down
of
principles
in
the
complex
working
of
motives
in
human
life,
disappear
in
the
blaze
of
light
which
St.
John
causes
to
stream
in
from
another
world.
'He
that
is
begotten
of
God
cannot
sin"
(1
Jn
3');
he
that
'denleth
the
Son
hath
not
the
Father'
(2's);
'we
are
of
God,
the
whole
world
lieth
in
the
evil
one'
(S").
Such
a
mode
of
regarding
Ufe
is
not
unreal,
if
only
its
point
of
view
be
borne
in
mind.
In
the
drama
of
human
society
the
sudden
introduction
of
these
absolute
and
irreconcilable
prin-ciples
of
judgment
would
be
destructive
of
distinctions
which
have
an
importance
of
their
own,
but
the
forces,
as
St.
John
describes
them,
are
actually
at
work,
and
one
day
their
fundamental
and
inalienable
character
will
be
made
plain.
—
(4)
Another
feature
of
St.
John's
style
and
method
which
arrests
attention
at
once
is
his
characteristic
use
of
certain
words
and
phrases
—
'witness'
(47
times),
'truth,'
'signs,'
'world'
(78
times),
'eternal
fife,'
'know'
(55),
'believe'
(98),
'glory,'
'judgment,'
are
but
specimens
of
many.
They
indicate
a
unity
of
thought
and
system
in
the
writer
which
finds
no
precise
parallel
elsewhere
in
Scripture,
the
nearest
approach,
perhaps,
being
in
the
character-istic
phraseology
of
Deuteronomy
in
the
OT.
St.
John
is
not
systematic
in
the
sense
of
presenting
his
readers
with
carefully
ordered
reasoning
—
a
progressive
argu-ment
compacted
by
links
of
logical
demonstration.
He
sees
Ufe
whole,
and
presents'it
as
a
whole.
But
all
that
belongs
to
human
life
falls
wittiin
categories
which,
from
the
outset,
are
very
clear
and
definite
to
his
own
mind.
The
Gospel
is
carefully
constructed
as
an
artistic
whole,
the
First
Epistle
is
not.
But
all
the
thoughts
In
both
are
presented
in
a
setting
prepared
by
the
definite
ideas
of
the
writer.
The
molten
metal
of
Christian
thought
and
feeling
has
taken
shape
in
the
mould
of
a
strikingly
individual
mind:
the
crystalliza-tion
of
the
ideas
is
his
work,
and
there
is
consequently
a
unity
and
system
about
his
presentation
of
them
which
may
be
described
as
distinctly
Johannine.
The
