# The New International Encyclopædia/John, Epistles of

Edition of 1905. See also Johannine epistles on Wikipedia; and the disclaimer.
​JOHN, Epistles of. Three of the canonical Epistles of the New Testament. The First Epistle. The literary form of I. John is peculiar and some have considered it a tract rather than an epistle. Yet it seems clear that the writer has a quite definite circle of readers in mind, whom he addresses in a tone of loving but authoritative familiarity; and although without definite address or signature, it is properly designated an Epistle. In an introduction (i. 1–4), which reminds one of the Prologue to the Gospel of John, the writer states that the Word, who was manifested, with whom he and others had had personal experience, is the Word of life, to know whom is to have fellowship with the Father and the Son. To assist the readers to realize this truth and experience its joy is the purpose of the message that follows. Since God is light, emphasis is laid upon the necessity and possibility of separation from sin in order to fellowship with the light (i. 5–ii. 6). The result and evidence of fellowship with God is mutual love, the supreme duty of each toward the other (ii. 7–12), while the world with its attractions is to be shunned (ii. 12–17). The readers are then warned against those who deny Jesus to be the Christ (ii. 18–29). The full significance of being children of God is then unfolded (iii. 1–17), the realization of which, through faith, is equivalent to vital union with the truth (iii. 18–24). Once more (iv. 1–6) the false views, the spirit of Antichrist, are mentioned. One must oppose these, holding fast to the manifestation of love ​in the mission of Jesus, God’s Son, and exemplifying it in his life of righteousness, faith, and love of the brethren (iv. 7–21). This gives the victory over the world (v. 1–5). Such is the unimpeachable testimony to Jesus, the Son, in whom is life (v. 6–12). With hints of the practical purpose of the Epistle (v. 13–17), a summary restatement of fundamentals (v. 18–20), and a final exhortation (v. 21) the Epistle closes, somewhat abruptly.
The Epistle itself contains no direct information as to its author, date, and place of writing, or parties addressed. The ‘we’ (i. 1 sqq.) gives place to the singular (ii. 1, 7, 8, 12–14, 26; v. 13). The author thus indicates that he is one with others in his fundamental position, but is personally responsible for the Epistle as a whole. It was a time when new views, especially those of Gnostic tendency, were in the air. The view most repugnant to the author was that which denied that Jesus was the Christ (ii. 18–25, cf. iv. 1–3; v. 1–13). As this view does not appear to have been elaborated to any great extent when the Epistle was written, as it afterwards was, a date somewhere near the beginning of the second century is most probable. The internal evidence being so insufficient, we must fall back (1) on traces of the work in early Christian literature, and (2) on comparison with the Gospel of John for facts touching its origin and destination.
The notices of I. John in ancient literature are singularly full and direct. From the quotation and allusions in Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians (c. 115), and the use of the Epistle by Papias (according to Eusebius’s express statement), its circulation and high standing in Asia Minor soon after A.D. 100 cannot be doubted. It was known in the West as John’s before the writing of the Muratorian canon (c.170), which quotes its first verse. Irenæus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian all speak of it as by John. That Marcion and possibly the Alogi did not accept it was due to dogmatic, not historical reasons. If this strong chain of ancient testimony is to be accepted, we are brought to the same general date and situation as that with which the fourth Gospel (see John, Gospel of) is concerned. A comparison of the vocabulary, leading ideas, and other characteristics of the Epistle with the Gospel has led the majority of scholars (H. J. Holtzmann, P. W. Schmiedel, and a few others are exceptions) to conclude that the two are products of the same mind and hand. A more difficult question is that of the respective dates of the two writings. There are no data at hand to decide this. All that can be said with confidence is that during his sojourn in Asia the Apostle John sent this message to a circle of believers (not necessarily to the church in Ephesus), with many of whom he was well acquainted, and by whom he was looked up to as a spiritual father, to warn them against dangerous views concerning Christ, and to impress upon them that faith in Christ must manifest itself in love and in a life separate from sin. Around these fundamental thoughts the whole Epistle revolves in a peculiar epigrammatic style, of great external simplicity, yet singularly rich and comprehensive in thought. The teachings antagonized contradicted the most important elements of Christian doctrine taught by the Apostolic Church. Whether they can be assigned to Cerinthus, the Ephesian heretic, we cannot decide.
The Second and Third Epistles. Unlike I. John, the Second and Third Epistles have the formal address and signature of ordinary letters. The second is addressed to the ‘elect lady and her children.’ It is a question whether this designation indicates a person or a church. If the statement in III. 9, “I have written something to the Church,” refers to II., it is decisive in favor of the former interpretation. On this hypothesis the relation between the two Epistles would be that of a general message to a church (II.) supplemented by a more private note to an influential member, Gaius (III.). The contents of the two accord well with this view. The letter to the Church praises it for its faithfulness, exhorts to the exercise of mutual love in obedience to the command, warns against those who deny Jesus, the incarnate Messiah, and urges that they have no fellowship with such. It closes with a notice of the writer’s intention to visit them soon, and a salutation from the sister church with which the writer was at the time. In the Epistle to Gaius, the elder commends his hospitality to missionary preachers, takes notice of the self-assertion of a certain Diotrephes whom he will bring to terms when he comes, recommends the imitation of the good, praises one Demetrius, and closes with a notice of his expected visit and the usual salutations.
The two Epistles thus seem to be companion letters. Should the address “elect lady” in II. 1 be taken to mean an individual, no connection between the two can be posited, except on the basis of a general similarity of style, and the fact that they have been associated in Christian tradition from ancient times, though their early history is obscure. Irenæus (c.180) quotes II. 11 as a statement by John the disciple of the Lord. The Muratorian canon (c.170) speaks of two Epistles of John after mentioning I. John—but whether the reference is to II. and III. or to I. and II. is somewhat uncertain. Apparently, Clement of Alexandria (c.200) was acquainted with III. as well as with I. and II. Origen (c.225) says that in his day doubts were expressed regarding their authorship. These doubts persisted though their cause is not exactly known. Jerome assigned the Epistles positively to the Presbyter John, not to the Apostle. No quotation from III. John has been discovered in the most ancient Christian writers, and external evidence for it before Origen is lacking. The tradition that the two Epistles were written by the Apostle is supported by the similarity in style, vocabulary, and thought to I. John. The title Presbyter or Elder in II. and III. is not inconsistent with authorship by the Apostle John, since Peter (I. Peter v. 1) speaks of himself as a ‘fellow elder.’ If the ‘Elder’ or ‘Presbyter’ John, mentioned by Papias, was some other one than the Apostle, it is, of course, possible that the letters were written by him, though the latest scholarship tends to identify him as the Apostle. In the nature of the case the date, place of writing, and destination cannot be fixed.
Bibliography. See the list of works mentioned under the article John, Gospel of; consult the commentaries of Westcott, Plummer, and Alexander, and Karl, Johannische Studien (Freiburg, 1898).