the forerunner of the Messiah, was the son of
Zechariah and Elizabeth, and was born about six months before our
Saviour. His birth was foretold by an angel, sent purposely to deliver
this joyful message, when his mother Elizabeth was barren, and both his
parents far advanced in years. The same divine messenger foretold that
he should be great in the sight of the Lord; that he should be filled
with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb; that he should prepare the
way of the Lord by turning many of the Jews to the knowledge of God; and
that he should be the greatest of all the prophets, Luke i, 5–15. Of the
early part of the Baptist’s life we have but little information. It is
only observed that “he grew and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the
deserts till the day of his showing unto Israel,” Luke i, 80. Though
consecrated from the womb to the ministerial office, John did not enter
upon it in the heat of youth, but after several years spent in solitude
and a course of self-denial.
The prophetical descriptions of the Baptist in the Old Testament are
various and striking. That by Isaiah is: “The voice of him that crieth
in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the
desert a high way for our God,” Isaiah xl, 3. Malachi has the following
prediction: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the
coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And he shall turn the
hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to
the fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse,” Mal. iv, 5.
That this was meant of the Baptist, we have the testimony of our Lord
himself, who declared, “For all the prophets and the law prophesied
until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias who was to come,”
Matt. xi, 14. The appearance and manners of the Baptist, when he first
came out into the world, excited general attention. His clothing was of
camel’s hair, bound round him with a leathern girdle, and his food
consisted of locusts and wild honey, Matt. iii, 4. The message which he
declared was authoritative: “Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at
hand;” and the impression produced by his faithful reproofs and
admonitions was powerful and extensive, and in a great number of
instances lasting. Most of the first followers of our Lord appear to
have been awakened to seriousness and religious inquiry by John’s
ministry. His character was so eminent, that many of the Jews thought
him to be the Messiah; but he plainly declared that he was not that
honoured person. Nevertheless, he was at first unacquainted with the
person of Jesus Christ; only the Holy Ghost had told him that he on whom
he should see the Holy Spirit descend and rest was the Messiah. When
Jesus Christ presented himself to receive baptism from him, this sign
was vouchsafed; and from that time he bore his testimony to Jesus, as
the Christ.
Herod Antipas, having married his brother Philip’s wife while Philip was
still living, occasioned great scandal. John the Baptist, with his usual
liberty and vigour, reproved Herod to his face; and told him that it was
not lawful for him to have his brother’s wife, while his brother was yet
alive. Herod, incensed at this freedom, ordered him into custody, in the
castle of Machœrus; and he was ultimately put to death. (See
_Antipas_.) Thus fell this honoured prophet, a martyr to ministerial
faithfulness. Other prophets testified of Christ; he pointed to him as
already come. Others saw him afar off; he beheld the advancing glories
of his ministry eclipsing his own, and rejoiced to “decrease” while his
Master “increased.” His ministry stands as a type of the true character
of evangelical repentance: it goes before Christ and prepares his way;
it is humbling, but not despairing; for it points to “the Lamb of God
which taketh away the sins of the world.”
The Jews had such an opinion of this prophet’s sanctity, that they
ascribed the overthrow of Herod’s army, which he had sent against his
father-in-law, Aretas, to the just judgment of God for putting John the
Baptist to death. The death of John the Baptist happened, as is
believed, about the end of the thirty-first year of the vulgar era, or
in the beginning of the thirty-second.
The baptism of John was much more perfect than that of the Jews, but
less perfect than that of Jesus Christ. “It was,” says St. Chrysostom,
“as it were, a bridge, which, from the baptism of the Jews, made a way
to that of our Saviour, and was more exalted than the first, but
inferior to the second.” That of St. John promised what that of Jesus
Christ executed. Notwithstanding St. John did not enjoin his disciples
to continue the baptism of repentance, which was of his institution,
after his death, because, after the manifestation of the Messiah, and
the establishment of the Holy Ghost, it became of no use; yet there were
many of his followers who still administered it, and several years after
the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, did not so much as know that
there was any other baptism than that of John. Of this number was
Apollos, a learned and zealous man, who was of Alexandria, and came to
Ephesus twenty years after the resurrection of our Saviour, Acts xviii,
25. And when St. Paul came after Apollos to the same city, there were
still many Ephesians who had received no other baptism, and were not yet
informed that the Holy Ghost was received by baptism in the name of
Jesus Christ, Acts xix, 1. The Jews are said by the Apostle Paul to have
been “baptized unto Moses,” at the time when they followed him through
the Red Sea, as the servant of God sent to be their leader. Those who
went out to John “were baptized unto John’s baptism;” that is, into the
expectation of the person whom John announced, and into repentance of
those sins which John condemned. Christians are “baptized into the name
of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,” because in this expression
is implied that whole system of truth which the disciples of Christ
believe; into the name of the Father, the one true and living God whom
Christians profess to serve; of the Son, that divine person revealed in
the New Testament whom the Father sent to be the Saviour of the world;
of the Holy Ghost, the divine person also revealed there as the
Comforter, the Sanctifier, and the Guide of Christians.
JOHN THE EVANGELIST was a native of Bethsaida, in Galilee, son of
Zebedee and Salome, by profession a fisherman. Some have thought that he
was a disciple of John the Baptist before he attended Jesus Christ. He
was brother to James the greater. It is believed that St. John was the
youngest of the Apostles. Tillemont is of opinion that he was
twenty-five or twenty-six years of age when he began to follow Jesus.
Our Saviour had a particular friendship for him; and he describes
himself by the name of “that disciple whom Jesus loved.” St. John was
one of the four Apostles to whom our Lord delivered his predictions
relative to the destruction of Jerusalem, and the approaching calamities
of the Jewish nation, Mark xiii, 3. St. Peter, St. James, and St. John
were chosen to accompany our Saviour on several occasions, when the
other Apostles were not permitted to be present. When Christ restored
the daughter of Jairus to life, Mark v, 37; Luke viii, 51; when he was
transfigured on the mount, Matt. xvii, 1, 2; Mark ix, 2; Luke ix, 28;
and when he endured his agony in the garden, Matt. xxvi, 36, 37; Mark
xiv, 32, 33; St. Peter, St. James, and St. John were his only
attendants. That St. John was treated by Christ with greater familiarity
than the other Apostles, is evident from St. Peter desiring him to ask
Christ who should betray him, when he himself did not dare to propose
the question, John xiii, 24. He seems to have been the only Apostle
present at the crucifixion, and to him Jesus, just as he was expiring
upon the cross, gave the strongest proof of his confidence and regard,
by consigning to him the care of his mother, John xix, 26, 27. As St.
John had been witness to the death of our Saviour, by seeing the blood
and water issue from his side, which a soldier had pierced, John xix,
34, 35, so he was one of the first made acquainted with his
resurrection. Without any hesitation, he believed this great event,
though “as yet he knew not the Scripture, that Christ was to rise from
the dead,” John xx, 9. He was also one of those to whom our Saviour
appeared at the sea of Galilee; and he was afterward, with the other ten
Apostles, a witness of his ascension into heaven, Mark xvi, 19; Luke
xxiv, 51. St. John continued to preach the Gospel for some time at
Jerusalem: he was imprisoned by the sanhedrim, first with Peter only,
Acts iv, 1, &c, and afterward with the other Apostles, Acts v, 17, 18.
Some time after this second release, he and St. Peter were sent by the
other Apostles to the Samaritans, whom Philip the deacon had converted
to the Gospel, that through them they might receive the Holy Ghost, Acts
viii, 14, 15. St. John informs us, in his Revelations, that he was
banished to Patmos, an island in the Ægean Sea, Rev. i, 9.
This banishment of the Apostle to the isle of Patmos is mentioned by
many of the early ecclesiastical writers; all of whom, except Epiphanius
in the fourth century, agree in attributing it to Domitian. Epiphanius
says that John was banished by command of Claudius; but this deserves
the less credit, because there was no persecution of the Christians in
the time of that emperor, and his edicts against the Jews did not extend
to the provinces. Sir Isaac Newton was of opinion that John was banished
to Patmos in the time of Nero; but even the authority of this great man
is not of sufficient weight against the unanimous voice of antiquity.
Dr. Lardner has examined and answered his arguments with equal candour
and learning. It is not known at what time John went into Asia Minor.
Lardner thought that it was about the year 66. It is certain that he
lived in Asia Minor the latter part of his life, and principally at
Ephesus. He planted churches at Smyrna, Pergamos, and many other places;
and by his activity and success in propagating the Gospel, he is
supposed to have incurred the displeasure of Domitian, who banished him
to Patmos at the end of his reign. He himself tells us that he “was in
the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the
testimony of Jesus Christ;” and Irenæus, speaking of the vision which he
had there, says, “It is not very long ago that it was seen, being but a
little before our time, at the latter end of Domitian’s reign.” On the
succession of Nerva to the empire in the year 96, John returned to
Ephesus, where he died at an advanced age, in the third year of Trajan’s
reign, A. D. 100. An opinion has prevailed, that he was, by order of
Domitian, thrown into a caldron of boiling oil at Rome, and came out
unhurt; but this account rests almost entirely on the authority of
Tertullian, and seems to deserve little credit.
2. The genuineness of St. John’s Gospel has always been unanimously
admitted by the Christian church. It is universally agreed that St. John
published his Gospel in Asia; and that, when he wrote it, he had seen
the other three Gospels. It is, therefore, not only valuable in itself,
but also a tacit confirmation of the other three; with none of which it
disagrees in any material point. The time of its publication is placed
by some rather before, and by others considerably after, the destruction
of Jerusalem. If we accede to the opinion of those who contend for the
year 97, this late date, exclusive of the authorities which support it,
seems favoured by the contents and design of the Gospel itself. The
immediate design of St. John in writing his Gospel, as we are assured by
Irenæus, Jerom, and others, was to refute the Cerinthians, Ebionites,
and other heretics, whose tenets, though they branched out into a
variety of subjects, all originated from erroneous opinions concerning
the person of Christ, and the creation of the world. These points had
been scarcely touched upon by the other evangelists; though they had
faithfully recorded all the leading facts of our Saviour’s life, and his
admirable precepts for the regulation of our conduct. St. John,
therefore, undertook, perhaps at the request of the true believers in
Asia, to write what Clement of Alexandria called a _spiritual_ Gospel;
and, accordingly, we find in it more of doctrine, and less of historical
narrative, than in any of the others. It is also to be remembered, that
this book, which contains so much additional information relative to the
doctrines of Christianity, and which may be considered as a standard of
faith for all ages, was written by that Apostle who is known to have
enjoyed, in a greater degree than the rest, the affection and confidence
of the divine Author of our religion; and to whom was given a special
revelation concerning the state of the Christian church in all
succeeding generations.
We have three epistles by this Apostle. Some critics have thought that
all these epistles were written during St. John’s exile in Patmos; the
first, to the Ephesian church; the others to individuals; and that they
were sent along with the Gospel, which the Apostle is supposed also to
have written in Patmos. Thus Hug observes, in his “Introduction:” If St.
John sent his Gospel to the continent, an epistle to the community was
requisite, commending and dedicating it to them. Other evangelists, who
deposited their works in the place of their residence, personally
superintended them, and delivered them personally; consequently they did
not require a written document to accompany them. An epistle was
therefore requisite, and, as we have abundantly proved the first of
John’s epistles to be inseparable from the Gospel, its contents
demonstrate it to be an accompanying writing, and a dedication of the
Gospel. It went consequently to Ephesus. We can particularly corroborate
this by the following observation: John, in the Apocalypse, has
individually distinguished each of the Christian communities, which lay
the nearest within his circle and his superintendence, by criteria,
taken from their faults or their virtues. The church at Ephesus he there
describes by the following traits: It was thronged with men who
arrogated to themselves the ministry and apostolical authority, and were
impostors, ψευδεις. But in particular he feelingly reproaches it because
its “first love was cooled,” τὴν ἀγάπην σου τὴν ϖρώτην ἀφῆκας. The
circumstance of impostors and false teachers happens in more churches.
But decreasing love is an exclusive criterion and failing, which the
Apostle reprimands in no other community. According to his judgment,
want of love was the characteristic fault of the Ephesians: but this
epistle is from beginning to the end occupied with admonitions to love,
with recommendations of its value, with corrections of those who are
guilty of this fault, 1 John ii, 5, 9–11, 15; iii, 1, 11, 12, 14–18, 23;
iv, 7–10, 12, 16–21; v, 1–3. Must not we therefore declare, if we
compare the opinion of the Apostle respecting the Ephesians with this
epistle, that, from its peculiar tenor, it is not so strikingly adapted
to any community in the first instance as to this?
The second epistle is directed to a female, who is not named, but only
designated by the honourable mention, ἐκλεκτὴ κυρία, “the elect lady.”
The two chief positions, which are discussed in the first epistle,
constitute the contents of this brief address. He again alludes to the
words of our Saviour, “A new commandment,” &c, as in 1 John ii, 7, and
recommends love, which is manifested by observance of the commandments.
After this he warns her against false teachers, who deny that Jesus
entered into the world as the Christ, or Messiah, and forbids an
intercourse with them. At the end, he hopes soon to see her himself, and
complains of the want of writing materials. The whole is a short
syllabus of the first epistle, or it is the first in a renewed form. The
words also are the same. It is still full of the former epistle: nor are
they separated from each other as to time. The female appears before his
mind in the circumstances and dangers of the society, in instructing and
admonishing which he had just been employed. If we may judge from local
circumstances, she also lived at Ephesus. But as for the author, his
residence was in none of the Ionian or Asiatic cities, where the want of
writing materials is not conceivable: he was still therefore in the
place of his exile. The other circumstances noticed in it, are probably
the following: The sons of the ἐκλεκτὴ κυρία had visited John, 2 John 4.
The sister of this matron wishing to show to him an equal respect and
sympathy in his fate, sent her sons likewise to visit the Apostle. While
the latter were with the Apostle, there was an opportunity of sending to
the continent, 2 John 13, namely, of despatching the two epistles and
the Gospel.
The third epistle is written to Caius. The author consoles himself with
the hope, as in the former epistle, of soon coming himself, 3 John 14.
He still experiences the same want of writing materials, 3 John 13.
Consequently, he was still living in the same miserable place: also, if
we may judge from his hopes, the time was not very different. The
residence of Caius is determined by the following criteria: The most
general of them is the danger of being misled by false teachers, 3 John
3, 4. That which leads us nearer to the point, is the circumstance of
John sometimes sending messages thither, and receiving accounts from
thence, 3 John 5–8, that he supposes his opinions to be so well known
and acknowledged in this society, that he could appeal to them, as
judges respecting them, 3 John 12, and that, finally, he had many
particular friends among them, 3 John 15. The whole of this is
applicable to a considerable place, where the Apostle had resided for a
long time; and in the second epoch of his life, it is particularly
applicable to Ephesus. He had lately written to the community, of which
Caius was a member, ἔγραψα τῆ ἐκκλησία, “I wrote to the church,” 3 John
9. If this is to be referred to the first epistle, (for we are not aware
of any other to a community,) then certainly Ephesus is the place to
which the third epistle was also directed, and was the place where Caius
resided. From hence, the rest contains its own explanation. John had
sent his first epistle thither; it was the accompanying writing to the
Gospel, and with it he also sent the Gospel. Who was better qualified to
promulgate the Gospel among the believers than Caius, especially if it
was to be published at Ephesus?
The above view is ingenious, and in its leading parts satisfactory; but
the argument from the Apostle’s supposed want of “writing materials” is
founded upon a very forced construction of the texts. There seems,
however, no reason to doubt of the close connection, in point of time,
between the epistles and the Gospel; and, that being remembered, the
train of thought in the mind of the Apostle sufficiently explains the
peculiar character of the latter.
Zechariah and Elizabeth, and was born about six months before our
Saviour. His birth was foretold by an angel, sent purposely to deliver
this joyful message, when his mother Elizabeth was barren, and both his
parents far advanced in years. The same divine messenger foretold that
he should be great in the sight of the Lord; that he should be filled
with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb; that he should prepare the
way of the Lord by turning many of the Jews to the knowledge of God; and
that he should be the greatest of all the prophets, Luke i, 5–15. Of the
early part of the Baptist’s life we have but little information. It is
only observed that “he grew and waxed strong in spirit, and was in the
deserts till the day of his showing unto Israel,” Luke i, 80. Though
consecrated from the womb to the ministerial office, John did not enter
upon it in the heat of youth, but after several years spent in solitude
and a course of self-denial.
The prophetical descriptions of the Baptist in the Old Testament are
various and striking. That by Isaiah is: “The voice of him that crieth
in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the
desert a high way for our God,” Isaiah xl, 3. Malachi has the following
prediction: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the
coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And he shall turn the
hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to
the fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse,” Mal. iv, 5.
That this was meant of the Baptist, we have the testimony of our Lord
himself, who declared, “For all the prophets and the law prophesied
until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias who was to come,”
Matt. xi, 14. The appearance and manners of the Baptist, when he first
came out into the world, excited general attention. His clothing was of
camel’s hair, bound round him with a leathern girdle, and his food
consisted of locusts and wild honey, Matt. iii, 4. The message which he
declared was authoritative: “Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at
hand;” and the impression produced by his faithful reproofs and
admonitions was powerful and extensive, and in a great number of
instances lasting. Most of the first followers of our Lord appear to
have been awakened to seriousness and religious inquiry by John’s
ministry. His character was so eminent, that many of the Jews thought
him to be the Messiah; but he plainly declared that he was not that
honoured person. Nevertheless, he was at first unacquainted with the
person of Jesus Christ; only the Holy Ghost had told him that he on whom
he should see the Holy Spirit descend and rest was the Messiah. When
Jesus Christ presented himself to receive baptism from him, this sign
was vouchsafed; and from that time he bore his testimony to Jesus, as
the Christ.
Herod Antipas, having married his brother Philip’s wife while Philip was
still living, occasioned great scandal. John the Baptist, with his usual
liberty and vigour, reproved Herod to his face; and told him that it was
not lawful for him to have his brother’s wife, while his brother was yet
alive. Herod, incensed at this freedom, ordered him into custody, in the
castle of Machœrus; and he was ultimately put to death. (See
_Antipas_.) Thus fell this honoured prophet, a martyr to ministerial
faithfulness. Other prophets testified of Christ; he pointed to him as
already come. Others saw him afar off; he beheld the advancing glories
of his ministry eclipsing his own, and rejoiced to “decrease” while his
Master “increased.” His ministry stands as a type of the true character
of evangelical repentance: it goes before Christ and prepares his way;
it is humbling, but not despairing; for it points to “the Lamb of God
which taketh away the sins of the world.”
The Jews had such an opinion of this prophet’s sanctity, that they
ascribed the overthrow of Herod’s army, which he had sent against his
father-in-law, Aretas, to the just judgment of God for putting John the
Baptist to death. The death of John the Baptist happened, as is
believed, about the end of the thirty-first year of the vulgar era, or
in the beginning of the thirty-second.
The baptism of John was much more perfect than that of the Jews, but
less perfect than that of Jesus Christ. “It was,” says St. Chrysostom,
“as it were, a bridge, which, from the baptism of the Jews, made a way
to that of our Saviour, and was more exalted than the first, but
inferior to the second.” That of St. John promised what that of Jesus
Christ executed. Notwithstanding St. John did not enjoin his disciples
to continue the baptism of repentance, which was of his institution,
after his death, because, after the manifestation of the Messiah, and
the establishment of the Holy Ghost, it became of no use; yet there were
many of his followers who still administered it, and several years after
the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, did not so much as know that
there was any other baptism than that of John. Of this number was
Apollos, a learned and zealous man, who was of Alexandria, and came to
Ephesus twenty years after the resurrection of our Saviour, Acts xviii,
25. And when St. Paul came after Apollos to the same city, there were
still many Ephesians who had received no other baptism, and were not yet
informed that the Holy Ghost was received by baptism in the name of
Jesus Christ, Acts xix, 1. The Jews are said by the Apostle Paul to have
been “baptized unto Moses,” at the time when they followed him through
the Red Sea, as the servant of God sent to be their leader. Those who
went out to John “were baptized unto John’s baptism;” that is, into the
expectation of the person whom John announced, and into repentance of
those sins which John condemned. Christians are “baptized into the name
of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,” because in this expression
is implied that whole system of truth which the disciples of Christ
believe; into the name of the Father, the one true and living God whom
Christians profess to serve; of the Son, that divine person revealed in
the New Testament whom the Father sent to be the Saviour of the world;
of the Holy Ghost, the divine person also revealed there as the
Comforter, the Sanctifier, and the Guide of Christians.
JOHN THE EVANGELIST was a native of Bethsaida, in Galilee, son of
Zebedee and Salome, by profession a fisherman. Some have thought that he
was a disciple of John the Baptist before he attended Jesus Christ. He
was brother to James the greater. It is believed that St. John was the
youngest of the Apostles. Tillemont is of opinion that he was
twenty-five or twenty-six years of age when he began to follow Jesus.
Our Saviour had a particular friendship for him; and he describes
himself by the name of “that disciple whom Jesus loved.” St. John was
one of the four Apostles to whom our Lord delivered his predictions
relative to the destruction of Jerusalem, and the approaching calamities
of the Jewish nation, Mark xiii, 3. St. Peter, St. James, and St. John
were chosen to accompany our Saviour on several occasions, when the
other Apostles were not permitted to be present. When Christ restored
the daughter of Jairus to life, Mark v, 37; Luke viii, 51; when he was
transfigured on the mount, Matt. xvii, 1, 2; Mark ix, 2; Luke ix, 28;
and when he endured his agony in the garden, Matt. xxvi, 36, 37; Mark
xiv, 32, 33; St. Peter, St. James, and St. John were his only
attendants. That St. John was treated by Christ with greater familiarity
than the other Apostles, is evident from St. Peter desiring him to ask
Christ who should betray him, when he himself did not dare to propose
the question, John xiii, 24. He seems to have been the only Apostle
present at the crucifixion, and to him Jesus, just as he was expiring
upon the cross, gave the strongest proof of his confidence and regard,
by consigning to him the care of his mother, John xix, 26, 27. As St.
John had been witness to the death of our Saviour, by seeing the blood
and water issue from his side, which a soldier had pierced, John xix,
34, 35, so he was one of the first made acquainted with his
resurrection. Without any hesitation, he believed this great event,
though “as yet he knew not the Scripture, that Christ was to rise from
the dead,” John xx, 9. He was also one of those to whom our Saviour
appeared at the sea of Galilee; and he was afterward, with the other ten
Apostles, a witness of his ascension into heaven, Mark xvi, 19; Luke
xxiv, 51. St. John continued to preach the Gospel for some time at
Jerusalem: he was imprisoned by the sanhedrim, first with Peter only,
Acts iv, 1, &c, and afterward with the other Apostles, Acts v, 17, 18.
Some time after this second release, he and St. Peter were sent by the
other Apostles to the Samaritans, whom Philip the deacon had converted
to the Gospel, that through them they might receive the Holy Ghost, Acts
viii, 14, 15. St. John informs us, in his Revelations, that he was
banished to Patmos, an island in the Ægean Sea, Rev. i, 9.
This banishment of the Apostle to the isle of Patmos is mentioned by
many of the early ecclesiastical writers; all of whom, except Epiphanius
in the fourth century, agree in attributing it to Domitian. Epiphanius
says that John was banished by command of Claudius; but this deserves
the less credit, because there was no persecution of the Christians in
the time of that emperor, and his edicts against the Jews did not extend
to the provinces. Sir Isaac Newton was of opinion that John was banished
to Patmos in the time of Nero; but even the authority of this great man
is not of sufficient weight against the unanimous voice of antiquity.
Dr. Lardner has examined and answered his arguments with equal candour
and learning. It is not known at what time John went into Asia Minor.
Lardner thought that it was about the year 66. It is certain that he
lived in Asia Minor the latter part of his life, and principally at
Ephesus. He planted churches at Smyrna, Pergamos, and many other places;
and by his activity and success in propagating the Gospel, he is
supposed to have incurred the displeasure of Domitian, who banished him
to Patmos at the end of his reign. He himself tells us that he “was in
the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the
testimony of Jesus Christ;” and Irenæus, speaking of the vision which he
had there, says, “It is not very long ago that it was seen, being but a
little before our time, at the latter end of Domitian’s reign.” On the
succession of Nerva to the empire in the year 96, John returned to
Ephesus, where he died at an advanced age, in the third year of Trajan’s
reign, A. D. 100. An opinion has prevailed, that he was, by order of
Domitian, thrown into a caldron of boiling oil at Rome, and came out
unhurt; but this account rests almost entirely on the authority of
Tertullian, and seems to deserve little credit.
2. The genuineness of St. John’s Gospel has always been unanimously
admitted by the Christian church. It is universally agreed that St. John
published his Gospel in Asia; and that, when he wrote it, he had seen
the other three Gospels. It is, therefore, not only valuable in itself,
but also a tacit confirmation of the other three; with none of which it
disagrees in any material point. The time of its publication is placed
by some rather before, and by others considerably after, the destruction
of Jerusalem. If we accede to the opinion of those who contend for the
year 97, this late date, exclusive of the authorities which support it,
seems favoured by the contents and design of the Gospel itself. The
immediate design of St. John in writing his Gospel, as we are assured by
Irenæus, Jerom, and others, was to refute the Cerinthians, Ebionites,
and other heretics, whose tenets, though they branched out into a
variety of subjects, all originated from erroneous opinions concerning
the person of Christ, and the creation of the world. These points had
been scarcely touched upon by the other evangelists; though they had
faithfully recorded all the leading facts of our Saviour’s life, and his
admirable precepts for the regulation of our conduct. St. John,
therefore, undertook, perhaps at the request of the true believers in
Asia, to write what Clement of Alexandria called a _spiritual_ Gospel;
and, accordingly, we find in it more of doctrine, and less of historical
narrative, than in any of the others. It is also to be remembered, that
this book, which contains so much additional information relative to the
doctrines of Christianity, and which may be considered as a standard of
faith for all ages, was written by that Apostle who is known to have
enjoyed, in a greater degree than the rest, the affection and confidence
of the divine Author of our religion; and to whom was given a special
revelation concerning the state of the Christian church in all
succeeding generations.
We have three epistles by this Apostle. Some critics have thought that
all these epistles were written during St. John’s exile in Patmos; the
first, to the Ephesian church; the others to individuals; and that they
were sent along with the Gospel, which the Apostle is supposed also to
have written in Patmos. Thus Hug observes, in his “Introduction:” If St.
John sent his Gospel to the continent, an epistle to the community was
requisite, commending and dedicating it to them. Other evangelists, who
deposited their works in the place of their residence, personally
superintended them, and delivered them personally; consequently they did
not require a written document to accompany them. An epistle was
therefore requisite, and, as we have abundantly proved the first of
John’s epistles to be inseparable from the Gospel, its contents
demonstrate it to be an accompanying writing, and a dedication of the
Gospel. It went consequently to Ephesus. We can particularly corroborate
this by the following observation: John, in the Apocalypse, has
individually distinguished each of the Christian communities, which lay
the nearest within his circle and his superintendence, by criteria,
taken from their faults or their virtues. The church at Ephesus he there
describes by the following traits: It was thronged with men who
arrogated to themselves the ministry and apostolical authority, and were
impostors, ψευδεις. But in particular he feelingly reproaches it because
its “first love was cooled,” τὴν ἀγάπην σου τὴν ϖρώτην ἀφῆκας. The
circumstance of impostors and false teachers happens in more churches.
But decreasing love is an exclusive criterion and failing, which the
Apostle reprimands in no other community. According to his judgment,
want of love was the characteristic fault of the Ephesians: but this
epistle is from beginning to the end occupied with admonitions to love,
with recommendations of its value, with corrections of those who are
guilty of this fault, 1 John ii, 5, 9–11, 15; iii, 1, 11, 12, 14–18, 23;
iv, 7–10, 12, 16–21; v, 1–3. Must not we therefore declare, if we
compare the opinion of the Apostle respecting the Ephesians with this
epistle, that, from its peculiar tenor, it is not so strikingly adapted
to any community in the first instance as to this?
The second epistle is directed to a female, who is not named, but only
designated by the honourable mention, ἐκλεκτὴ κυρία, “the elect lady.”
The two chief positions, which are discussed in the first epistle,
constitute the contents of this brief address. He again alludes to the
words of our Saviour, “A new commandment,” &c, as in 1 John ii, 7, and
recommends love, which is manifested by observance of the commandments.
After this he warns her against false teachers, who deny that Jesus
entered into the world as the Christ, or Messiah, and forbids an
intercourse with them. At the end, he hopes soon to see her himself, and
complains of the want of writing materials. The whole is a short
syllabus of the first epistle, or it is the first in a renewed form. The
words also are the same. It is still full of the former epistle: nor are
they separated from each other as to time. The female appears before his
mind in the circumstances and dangers of the society, in instructing and
admonishing which he had just been employed. If we may judge from local
circumstances, she also lived at Ephesus. But as for the author, his
residence was in none of the Ionian or Asiatic cities, where the want of
writing materials is not conceivable: he was still therefore in the
place of his exile. The other circumstances noticed in it, are probably
the following: The sons of the ἐκλεκτὴ κυρία had visited John, 2 John 4.
The sister of this matron wishing to show to him an equal respect and
sympathy in his fate, sent her sons likewise to visit the Apostle. While
the latter were with the Apostle, there was an opportunity of sending to
the continent, 2 John 13, namely, of despatching the two epistles and
the Gospel.
The third epistle is written to Caius. The author consoles himself with
the hope, as in the former epistle, of soon coming himself, 3 John 14.
He still experiences the same want of writing materials, 3 John 13.
Consequently, he was still living in the same miserable place: also, if
we may judge from his hopes, the time was not very different. The
residence of Caius is determined by the following criteria: The most
general of them is the danger of being misled by false teachers, 3 John
3, 4. That which leads us nearer to the point, is the circumstance of
John sometimes sending messages thither, and receiving accounts from
thence, 3 John 5–8, that he supposes his opinions to be so well known
and acknowledged in this society, that he could appeal to them, as
judges respecting them, 3 John 12, and that, finally, he had many
particular friends among them, 3 John 15. The whole of this is
applicable to a considerable place, where the Apostle had resided for a
long time; and in the second epoch of his life, it is particularly
applicable to Ephesus. He had lately written to the community, of which
Caius was a member, ἔγραψα τῆ ἐκκλησία, “I wrote to the church,” 3 John
9. If this is to be referred to the first epistle, (for we are not aware
of any other to a community,) then certainly Ephesus is the place to
which the third epistle was also directed, and was the place where Caius
resided. From hence, the rest contains its own explanation. John had
sent his first epistle thither; it was the accompanying writing to the
Gospel, and with it he also sent the Gospel. Who was better qualified to
promulgate the Gospel among the believers than Caius, especially if it
was to be published at Ephesus?
The above view is ingenious, and in its leading parts satisfactory; but
the argument from the Apostle’s supposed want of “writing materials” is
founded upon a very forced construction of the texts. There seems,
however, no reason to doubt of the close connection, in point of time,
between the epistles and the Gospel; and, that being remembered, the
train of thought in the mind of the Apostle sufficiently explains the
peculiar character of the latter.