2 John

THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES GENERAL OF

JOHN

INTRODUCTION

AUTHENTICITY.--That these two Epistles were

written by the same author appears from their similarity of tone,

style, and sentiments. That John, the beloved disciple, was the author

of the Second and Third Epistles, as of the First Epistle, appears from

IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 1.16.3],

who quotes

2Jo 10, 11;

and in [3.16.8], he quotes

2Jo 7,

mistaking it, however, as if occurring in First John.

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

(A.D. 192) [Miscellanies, 2.66], implies

his knowledge of other Epistles of John besides the First Epistle; and

in fragments of his Adumbrations [p. 1011], he says, "John's

Second Epistle which was written to the virgins (Greek,

"parthenous"; perhaps Parthos is what was meant) is the

simplest; but it was written to a certain Babylonian named the Elect

lady." DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA (in EUSEBIUS

[Ecclesiastical History, 7.25]) observes that John never names

himself in his Epistles, "not even in the Second and Third Epistles,

although they are short Epistles, but simply calls himself the

presbyter, a confutation of those who think John the apostle

distinct from John the presbyter. ALEXANDER

OF ALEXANDRIA cites

2Jo 10, 11,

as John's [SOCRATES, Ecclesiastical

History, 1.6]. CYPRIAN [Concerning the

Baptism of Heretics], in referring to the bishops at the Council of

Carthage, says, "John the apostle, in His Epistle, has said, if any

come to you"

(2Jo 10);

so that this Epistle, and therefore its twin sister, Third John, was

recognized as apostolic in the North African Church. The

MURATORI fragment is ambiguous. The Second and

Third Epistles were not in the Peschito or old Syriac

version; and COSMAS INDICOPLEUSTES in the sixth century says that in his time

the Syriac Church only acknowledged three of the Catholic Epistles,

First Peter, First John, and James. But EPHREM THE

SYRIAN quotes the Second Epistle of John. EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History,] reckons both

Epistles among the Antilegomena or controverted

Scriptures, as distinguished from the Homologoumena or

universally acknowledged from the first. Still his own opinion

was that the two minor Epistles were genuine, remarking, as he does in

Demonstration of the Gospel [3.5], that in John's

"Epistles" he does not mention his own name, nor call himself an

apostle or evangelist, but an "elder"

(2Jo 1;

3Jo 1).

ORIGEN (in EUSEBIUS

[Ecclesiastical History, 6.25]) mentions the Second and Third

Epistles, but adds, "not all admit (implying that most

authorities do) their genuineness." JEROME [On

Illustrious Men, 9] mentions the two latter Epistles as attributed

to John the presbyter, whose sepulcher was shown among the Ephesians in

his day. But the designation "elder" was used of the apostles by others

(for example, PAPIAS, in EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 3.39]), and is

used by Peter, an apostle, of himself

(1Pe 5:1).

Why, then, should not John also use this designation of himself, in

consonance with the humility which leads him not to name himself or his

apostleship even in the First Epistle? The Antilegomena were

generally recognized as canonical soon after the Council of Nicea

(A.D. 325). Thus CYRIL OF

JERUSALEM, A.D. 349,

enumerates fourteen Epistles of Paul, and seven Catholic Epistles. So

GREGORY NAZIANZEN, in A.D. 389. The Councils of Hippo, 393, and Carthage, 397,

adopted a catalogue of New Testament books exactly agreeing with our

canon. So our oldest extant Greek manuscripts. The Second and

Third Epistles of John, from their brevity (which ORIGEN notices), and the private nature of their

contents, were less generally read in the earliest Christian assemblies

and were also less quoted by the Fathers; hence arose their

non-universal recognition at the first. Their private nature makes them

the less likely to be spurious, for there seems no purpose in their

forgery. The style and coloring too accord with the style of the First

Epistle.

TO WHOM ADDRESSED.--The Third Epistle is directed

to Gaius or Caius; whether Gaius of Macedonia

(Ac 19:20),

or Gaius of Corinth

(Ro 16:23;

1Co 1:14),

or Gaius of Derbe

(Ac 20:4),

it is hard to decide. MILL believes Gaius, bishop

of Pergamos [Apostolic Constitutions, 7.40], to be the person

addressed in

3Jo 1.

The address of the Second Epistle is more disputed. It opens, "The

elder unto the Elect lady"

(2Jo 1).

And it closes, "The children of thy elect sister greet thee"

(2Jo 13).

Now,

1Pe 1:1, 2,

addresses the elect in Asia, &c., and closes

(1Pe 5:13),

"The Church that is at Babylon, elected together with you,

saluteth you." Putting together these facts, with the quotations

(above) from CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, and the fact that the word "Church" comes

from a Greek word (kyriake) cognate to the Greek

for "lady" (kyria; "belonging to the Lord,"

kyrios); WORDSWORTH'S view is probable. As

Peter in Babylon had sent the salutations of the elect Church in

the then Parthian (see above on CLEMENT OF

ALEXANDRIA) Babylon to her elect

sister in Asia, so John, the metropolitan president of the elect

Church in Asia, writes to the elect lady, that is, Church, in

Babylon. NEANDER, ALFORD,

and others, think the Greek "kyria" not to mean "lady,"

but to be her proper name; and that she had a "sister, a

Christian matron," then with John.

DATE AND PLACE OF

WRITING.--EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical

History, 3.25] relates that John, after the death of Domitian,

returned from his exile in Patmos to Ephesus, and went on missionary

tours into the heathen regions around, and also made visitations of the

churches around, and ordained bishops and clergy. Such journeys are

mentioned,

2Jo 12;

3Jo 10, 14.

If EUSEBIUS be right, both Epistles must have been

written after the Apocalypse, in his old age, which harmonizes with the

tone of the Epistles, and in or near Ephesus. It was on one of his

visitation tours that he designed to rebuke Diotrephes

(3Jo 9, 10).