| |
Easton's Bible Dictionary
is addressed to Caius, or Gaius, but whether to the Christian of that name in
Macedonia ( Acts
19:29 ) or in Corinth ( Romans
16:23 ) or in Derbe ( Acts
20:4 ) is uncertain. It was written for the purpose of commending to Gaius
some Christians who were strangers in the place where he lived, and who had gone
thither for the purpose of preaching the gospel (3
John 1:7).
The Second and Third Epistles were probably written soon after the First, and
from Ephesus.
Hitchcock's Dictionary of Bible Names
(no entry)
Smith's Bible Dictionary
The third epistle was written for the purpose of commending to the kindness and
hospitality of Caius some Christians who were strangers in the place where he
lived. It is probably that these Christians carried this letter with them to Caius
as their introduction.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES
1. Canonicity and Authorship:
It is not surprising that these brief and fugitive Epistles are among the New
Testament writings which have had the hardest struggle for canonical recognition.
One is probably, the other certainly, a private letter; and neither the same reason
nor the same opportunity for their circulation existed, as in the case of church
letters. The 2nd Epistle contains little that is distinctive; the 3rd Epistle
is occupied with a vexatious episode in the internal history of a single congregation.
Both are written by a person who designates himself simply as "the Presbyter";
and the names of the person (or church) to which the one is addressed and of the
church with whose affairs the other is concerned are alike unknown. The fact,
therefore, that, in spite of such obstacles, these letters did become widely known
and eventually attained to canonical rank is proof of a general conviction of
the soundness of the tradition which assigned them to the apostle John.
Like all the catholic epistles, they were unknown to the early Syrian church;
when 1 John, 1 Peter and James were received into its Canon, they were still excluded,
nor are they found even in printed editions of the Syriac New Testament till 1630.
They were not acknowledged by the school of Antioch. Jerome distinguishes their
authorship from that of the 1st Epistle. They are classed among the disputed books
by Eusebius, who indicates that it was questioned whether they belonged to the
evangelist or "possibly to another of the same name as he." Origen remarks that
"not all affirm them to be genuine"; and, as late as the middle of the 4th century,
the effort to introduce them in the Latin church met with opposition in Africa
(Zahn).
On the other hand, we find recognition of their Johannine authorship at an early
date, in Gaul (Irenaeus); Rome (Muratorian Canon, where, however, the reading
is corrupt, and it is doubtful whether their authorship is ascribed or denied
to the apostle John); Alexandria (Clement, who is reputed by Eusebius to have
commented upon them, and who in his extant works speaks of John's "larger
epistle," implying the existence of one or more minor epistles); Africa (Cyprian
reports that 2 John was appealed to at the Synod of Carthage, 256 AD). Dionysius,
Origen's disciple and successor, speaks of John's calling himself in them "the
Presbyter." Eusebius, though conscientiously placing them among the antilegomena,
elsewhere writes in a way which indicates that he himself did not share the doubt
of their authenticity.
The internal evidence confirms the ultimate decision of the early church regarding
these letters. Quite evidently the 2nd Epistle must have been written by the author
of the 1st, or was an arrant and apparently purposeless piece of plagiarism The
3rd Epistle is inevitably associated with the 2nd by the superscription, "'the
Presbyter," and by other links of thought and phraseology.
2. The Presbyter:
The mention of this title opens up a wide question. The famous extract from Papias
(Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, III, 39) vouches for the existence, among those
who were or had been his contemporaries, of a certain "Presbyter" John (see JOHN,
GOSPEL OF, II, 5). Jerome, moreover, speaks of the two smaller Epistles as, in
contrast with the 1st, ascribed to the Presbyter (De Vir. Illustr., ix); Eusebius
inclines to ascribe to him the Book of Revelation; and modern critics, like Weizsacker
and Harnack, have improved upon the hint by finding in this shadowy personage
the author of the Fourth Gospel. Into this far-reaching controversy, we cannot
here enter. It may be noted, however, that whether, in the confusedly written
passage referred to, Papias really intends to distinguish between John the Apostle
and John the Presbyter is a point still in debate; and that Eusebius (Evangelica
Demonstratio, III, 5) does not regard the title "Presbyter" as inapplicable to
John, but observes that in his Epistles he "either makes no mention of himself
or calls himself presbyter, nowhere apostle or evangelist." Dionysius, too, remarks
that "in the 2nd and 3rd Epistles ascribed to him, he writes anonymously, as the
Presbyter." These Fathers, both exceptionally learned men and presumably well
acquainted with primitive usage, saw nothing anomalous, although they did see
something characteristic, in the fact, or supposed fact, that an apostle should
designate himself by the lowlier and vaguer title. In the very sentence from Papias
already referred to, the apostles are called "presbyters"; not to say that in
the New Testament itself we have an instance of an apostle's so styling himself
(1 Peter 5:1).
To sum up, it is evident that no one desiring falsely to secure apostolic prestige
for his productions would have written under so indistinctive a title; also, that
these brief and very occasional letters could never have won their way to general
recognition and canonical rank unless through general conviction of their Johannine
authorship--the very history of these Epistles proving that the early church did
not arrive at a decision upon such matters without satisfying itself of the trustworthiness
of the tradition upon which a claim to canonicity was rounded; finally, the internal
evidence testifies to an authorship identical with that of the 1st Epistle, so
that the evidence cited regarding this is available also for those. These letters,
along with Paul's to Philemon, are the only extant remains of a private apostolic
correspondence which must have included many such, and for this reason, apart
from their intrinsic worth, possess an interest, material and biographical, peculiar
to themselves. We proceed to consider the two Epistles separately, and since an
interesting question arises as to whether the 2nd is that referred to in 3 John
1:9, it will be convenient to reverse the canonical order in dealing with them.
|
The Third Epistle.
This brief note gives a uniquely authentic and intimate glimpse of some aspects
of church life as it existed in Asia Minor (this may be taken as certain) somewhere
about the end of the 1st century. It concerns a certain episode in the history
of one of the churches under the writer's supervision, and incidentally furnishes
character-sketches of two of its members, the large-hearted and hospitable Gaius,
to whom it is written (and whom it is merely fanciful to identify with any other
Gaius mentioned in the New Testament), and the loquacious, overbearing Diotrephes;
also of the faithful Demetrius, by whose hand probably the letter is sent. The
story which may be gathered from the Epistle seems to be as follows. A band of
itinerant teachers had been sent out, by the Presbyter's authority, no doubt,
and furnished by him with letters of commendation to the various churches, and
among others to that of which Gaius and Diotrephes were members. Diotrephes, however,
whether through jealousy for the rights of the local community or for some personal
reason, not only declined to receive the itinerant teachers, but exerted his authority
to impose the same course of action upon the church as a whole, even to the length
of threatening with excommunication (3 John 1:10) those who took a different view
of their duty. Gaius alone had not been intimidated, but had welcomed to his home
the repulsed and disheartened teachers, who when they returned (to Ephesus, probably)
had testified to the church of his courageous and large-hearted behavior (3 John
1:6). A 2nd time, apparently, the teachers are now sent forth (3 John 1:6), with
Demetrius as their leader, who brings this letter to Gaius, commending his past
conduct (3 John 1:5) and encouraging him to persevere in it (3 John 1:6). The
Presbyter adds that he has dispatched a letter to the church also (3 John 1:9);
but evidently he has little hope that it will be effectual in overcoming the headstrong
opposition of Diotrephes; for he promises that he will speedily pay a personal
visit to the church, when he will depose Diotrephes from his pride of place and
bring him to account for his scornful "prating" and overbearing conduct (3 John
1:10). So far as appears, the cause of friction was purely personal or administrative.
There is no hint of heretical tendency in Diotrephes and his party. Pride of place
is his sin, an inflated sense of his own importance and a violent jealousy for
what he regarded as his own prerogative, which no doubt he identified with the
autonomy of the local congregation.
LITERATURE.
On the 2nd and 3rd Epistles see Commentaries: Lucke, Huther, Ebrard, Holtzmann,
Baumgarten, Westcott, Plummer, Bennett, Brooke; Expositions: Findlay, Fellowship
in the Life Eternal; S. Cox, The Private Letters of Paul and John; J.M. Gibbon,
The Eternal Life.
R. Law
Tags:
bible commentary, bible history, bible reference, bible study, book of 3 john, caius (written to), define, demetrius, diotrephes, gaius, john, new testament, third epistle of john
Comments:
|
 |
|
