聖書注解書

この手紙において、使徒は該猶の魂の繁栄を喜び（3Jn 1:1,2）、良いキリスト者の間における彼の評判を喜び（3Jn 1:3,4）、さらにキリストのしもべたちに対する彼の愛ともてなしの心を喜んでいる（3Jn 1:5,6）。野心に満ちたディオトレフェスからの軽蔑的な扱いについて不満を述べ（3Jn 1:9,10）、デメテレを推挙し（3Jn 1:12）、まもなく該猶を訪問できるという希望を述べている（3Jn 1:13,14）。

3John の序論

ヨハネの第二・第三の手紙の序論については、2 John に付された注釈を参照のこと。

Preface to the Third Epistle of John

This epistle being of nearly the same complexion with the former, and evidently written about the same time, and incontestably by the same person, it is not necessary to give it any particular preface; as the subject of the authenticity of all the three epistles has been treated already so much at large, not only in the introduction to them, but in the notes in general.

This and the preceding epistle are, by Dr. Lardner, supposed to have been written between a.d. 80 and 90. There are no notes of time in the epistles themselves to help us to fix any date, therefore all is conjecture concerning the time in which they were written: but to me it appears as likely that they were written before the destruction of Jerusalem as after; for it is scarcely to be supposed that so signal a display of the justice of God, and such a powerful argument in favor of Christianity and of the truth of Christ's predictions, could be passed unnoticed and unappealed to by any of the inspired persons who wrote after that event. However, where there is no positive evidence, conjecture is useless.

The apostle's address to Caius, and his good wishes for his prosperity in body and soul, 3 John 1:1, 3 John 1:2. He commends him for his steadiness in the truth, and his general hospitality, especially to the itinerant evangelists, 3 John 1:3-8. Speaks of the bad conduct of Diotrephes; his abuse of his power in the Church; and his slander of the apostles, 3 John 1:9, 3 John 1:10. Exhorts Caius to avoid his example, and to follow what is good, 3 John 1:11. Commends Demetrius, 3 John 1:12. Excuses himself from writing more fully, and proposes to pay him a visit shortly, 3 John 1:13, 3 John 1:14.

INTRODUCTION TO 3 JOHN

This epistle was written by the Apostle John, who calls himself an "elder", as in the preceding, and is inscribed to a friend of his, whom he mentions by name, and expresses a very great affection for, on account of his steady adherence to the truths of the Gospel, 3 John 1:1; he wishes him bodily health equal to that prosperity of soul he was indulged with, 3 John 1:2; congratulates him upon the testimony the brethren that came from him gave him of the truth being in him, and of his walking in it, and upon hearing that his children also trod in the same path, 3 John 1:3; commends him for his hospitality and charity, of which testimonies were given before the church; and encourages him to go on doing the same acts of beneficence, since it was to such persons that went forth for the sake of Christ, and preaching in his name, and had nothing of the Gentiles for so doing; wherefore they ought to be received, and entertained by those of ability, that they might be fellow helpers to the truth with them, 3 John 1:5. He complains of Diotrephes as a proud, haughty, and overbearing man in the church, where Gaius was a member, who would neither receive the letters the apostle sent, nor the brethren that came with them; nay, forbid them that would, and cast them out of the church for it, and prated against them with malicious words, whom he threatens to remember when he himself should come thither, 3 John 1:9; wherefore he exhorts Gaius not to follow such an ill example, but that which is good in any person; since he that does good appears to be of God, and he that does evil, it looks as if he had never known him, 3 John 1:11. And particularly he recommends Demetrius, who had a good report of all men, and of the truth itself, and had a testimony from the apostle, and those that were with him, which was known to be a true one, 3 John 1:12. But though he had many things to say, both of one, and of the other, he determines to write no more at present, hoping he should shortly see him, and personally converse together; and closes the epistle with his own good wish, and with mutual salutations of friends, 3 John 1:13.

The Epistles of St. John.

BY

THE VEN. W. M. SINCLAIR, M.A., D.D.,

Archdeacon of London.

INTRODUCTION

TO

THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF JOHN.

I.WHO WROTE THEM.

II.DATE.

III.CHARACTER AND SCOPE.

IV.WHERE WERE THEY WRITTEN.

V.LITERATURE.

I. Who wrote them?—It is difficult to imagine why any should suppose these two Epistles to be by different hands. Was this author the Apostle?

(1) External Evidence.—This is not nearly so strong as for the First. It is natural that it should be so, for the two Epistles seem to have been regarded as of far less general interest; and, therefore, there was less obvious propriety in placing them in a collection of important Apostolical literature, and little reason why they should be quoted at all. The main argument for them is, indeed, their unaffected, inartificial kinship to the First. The oldest authority for the Second is the Muratorian Canon, composed before A.D. 170. Origen speaks of St. John’s Epistles in the plural, and his disciple, Dionysius, cites the Third by name. The Muratorian Canon speaks of two Epistles of John, apparently distinct from the First. The Muratorian writer explains the principle of his arrangement of the Canon distinctly: saying that the Epistles of Paul to Philemon and Timothy, although addressed only to individuals, were placed in the Canon on account of their character. And even if the two Epistles of John mentioned were the First and Second, the fact that the Epistle to Philemon has precedence of those to Timothy (and Titus), probably because it is addressed also to Apphia and Archippus and the church in Philemon’s house, makes it very easy to understand that the Second Epistle of John (early supposed to be addressed to a church under the symbolic form of a lady) would be received into a canon, while the Third, addressed to an unknown individual, and dealing with special circumstances, might not be considered sufficiently general for such a position. In early days there must have been many fugitive writings of the Apostles; and the discretion of the churches in selecting from them for an authorised collection would be guided probably more by usage than by deliberate valuation. Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 190-220), says, “The Second Epistle of John, written to the Virgins, is of the simplest character; it is written to a certain Babylonian, called Electa, but that means the election of the holy Church” (Opera, p. 1011, ed. Potter). Origen, in addition to what has been quoted from him above, is alleged by Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. vi. 25) to have said, “Not all consider these Epistles to be genuine,” without endorsing the doubt himself. Dionysius of Alexandria, pupil and successor of Origen, makes use of the Second and Third Epistle to illustrate St. John’s diction; he says that they were generally received as St. John’s by tradition. Irenæus, disciple of Polycarp and of Papias, (he died A.D. 202) quotes 2John 1:7, by a mistake of memory, as belonging to the First Epistle; the words of 2John 1:11, he cites as by John the disciple of the Lord. Ephrem the Syrian knew both Epistles, but it is easy to understand why two small fragments of such a private character were not translated in early days, and therefore did not appear in the Peschito version; for that contains only three general Epistles (James, 1 Peter, 1 John). Cyprian shows that the Second Epistle was received as Apostolical and Canonical in the North African Church, by the fact that he mentions a quotation of the tenth verse by Aurelius, Bishop of Chullabis. Eusebius by speaking of St. John’s Epistles in the plural number (Demonstratio Evangelica, iii. 5) shows that he himself recognised some other Epistles as well as the First; but, as from their shortness and small range there had been very slight occasion to quote them, he put them among the highest class of those writings which were not placed by absolutely universal consent in the authoritative Canon, and were therefore called Antilegomena. Jerome gives the “opinion of several writers,” not as his own, that they were by the traditional John the Presbyter; a view rejected by Oecumenius and Bede. In the Middle Ages they were received without question as the Apostle’s; then Erasmus took up the opinion mentioned by Jerome, and was followed by Grotius. Most modern commentators recognise them as Apostolic. The Tübingen writers are, of course, obliged to consider them as later, referring them to Montanistic, or at any rate, sub-apostolic times.

(2) Internal Evidence.—The term “elder”: The fact that St. John does not give his name is in favour of authenticity. As in the Gospel and the First Epistle, he prefers to retain a dignified incognito, intelligible to all whom it concerned. Even if the messengers did not know whose letters they were carrying, even if the correspondents did not know the handwriting, they would be perfectly aware from the style and matter, and the promise of a visit. It is doubtful whether by “elder” he meant “aged,” or an official position. In classical Greek these words would have a different form, but St. John’s Greek is that of a man who had become accustomed to a provincial form of the language late in life, and quite admits of slight irregularities. If he means an office, there is nothing to show that all the Apostles always used the apostolic title. St. Peter called himself “fellow-presbyter” (1Peter 5:1), and Eusebius called the Apostles Presbyters (Eccl. Hist. iii. 39). The Apostles and “Overseers” were, in fact, only a specially responsible and important branch of the Presbyterate. As the last remaining Apostle, St. John might prefer not to insist on a designation now unique; or, as the name “elder” was originally adopted with reference to mature age, he may have used it as a hint of his own advanced years; or the dangers of the times may have made it advisable for him, for his messenger, and for his correspondents, to drop the higher title.

The only authority for the existence of another John at Ephesus, at the same time as the Apostle, called “the elder,” and “the disciple of the Lord,” is Papias, quoted by Eusebius. Is it not possible, that, as Eusebius says that he was “very small in mind,” there may be some confusion in some of these details? May not even the confusion itself have arisen from these anonymous Epistles being misunderstood by the unintelligent? But, even admitting the existence of such a second John, it is too much to ask us to believe that he resembled the Apostle not only in name and history, but also in style, character, and thought. And where it was extremely reasonable that the Apostle should leave out his name, it becomes most improbable that this alternative John should have left it out.

The Second and Third Epistles are full of peculiar forms, common also to the First. Notice 2John 1:1, “knowing the truth”; 2John 1:2, “abide in”; 2John 1:3, “in truth and love”; 2John 1:4, “walking in”; 2John 1:5, “the commandment which we had from the beginning” (1John 2:7); 2John 1:6, “this is love, that”; “as ye heard from the beginning” (1John 3:11; 1John 3:23); 2John 1:7, “deceivers are gone forth” (1John 2:18); “confessing not Jesus Christ coming in the flesh” (1John 4:1-2); “the antichrist”; 2John 1:9, “abideth not in the doctrine, hath not God” (1John 2:23); “hath the Son and the Father”; 2John 1:12, “that our joy may be full” (1John 1:4); 3John 1:1, “in truth”; 3John 1:3-4, “walkest in truth”; 3John 1:11, “is of God, hath not seen God” (1John 3:6; 1John 3:10; 1John 4:8). There are five or six expressions in the two Epistles which do not occur elsewhere in St. John’s writings, but it would be in the highest degree absurd to confine any writer exclusively to the language used in a former production. Additional reason for variety here would be found in the simple colloquial character of the writings.

Accordingly, while there is every reason to hold that the Second and Third Epistles are by the author of the First, and the First by the Author of the Gospel, it is difficult to find any valid reason to the contrary.

II. Date.—In the absence of all evidence to the contrary it seems probable that the circumstances and time were not very dissimilar in all three Epistles.

III. Character and Scope.—In the Second, the Apostle, who is probably staying at the same place as some of his correspondent’s children, writes to a mother and her other children to express his sympathy and delight at the faith of the family, and to warn them against admitting false teachers to their circle. It contains noticeable definitions of love, antichrist, and of true and false believers. It also has a general lesson on the treatment of wilful depravers of divine truth.

In the Third, he recounts how some missionaries had been badly received by Diotrephes, who had ambitiously obtained for himself the chief influence in a certain church, but notwithstanding Gaius had been courageous and kind enough to entertain them hospitably. Gaius is exhorted to help them still further. The Letter gives us an idea of the high importance of hospitality at the time as a Christian virtue; and brings out the fact that St. John’s authority was no less disputed in certain cases than St. Paul’s. It is probable that the church of Diotrephes had not been founded by St. John; that St. John had special claim to be obeyed; and that ecclesiastical influence seems to have by this time become vested in a single head.

IV. Where were they written?—Probably at Ephesus, before a tour of inspection. Had they been written in Patmos, some notice of the captivity might be expected.

V. Literature.—To the authorities mentioned in the First Epistle, add the Articles in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, and a paper by Professor Salmon on the Third Epistle in the Christian Observer, April, 1877. I should mention again my obligations to Dr. Karl Braune.

The Third Epistle of John] This title, like that of the Gospel and of the other two Epistles, is not original, and is found in various forms, the most ancient being the simplest, 1. Of John T; 2. Third Epistle of John 3. Third Catholic Epistle of John 4. Third Catholic Epistle of the Apostle John. This letter has still less reason than the second to be styled ‘Catholic’ or ‘General.’ The Second Epistle may possibly be addressed to a local Church and be intended to be encyclical; but beyond all reasonable doubt this one is addressed to an individual.

CHAPTER 1

ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΟΥ

ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗ ΚΑΘΟΛΙΚΗ ΤΡΙΤΗ[449] [449] ιωαννου γ̄ א; ιωανου γ̄ B; ιωαννου επιστολη γ̄ C, many minusc.; ιωαννου επιστολη καθολικη γ̄ 101, 106; επιστολη τριτη του αγιου αποστολου ιωαννου L; του αυτου αγιου ιωαννου του θεολογου επιστολη τριτη 95; επιστολη του αγιου αποστολου και ηγαπημενου προς γαϊον ιωαννου 4.

THE THIRD EPISTLE

Ἰωάννου ἐπιστολὴ τρίτη

ἸΩΆΝΝΟΥ ἘΠΙΣΤΟΛῊ ΤΡΊΤΗ

THE superscription runs in B א: Ἰωάννου γ̄; in C: Ἰω. ἐπιστολὴ γ̄; in G: ἐπιστολὴ τρίτη τοῦ ἁγίου ἀποστόλου Ἰωάννου; in the Elzev. ed.: Ἰωάννου τοῦ ἀποστόλου ἐπιστολὴ καθολικὴ τρίτη.

3 John 1:3. א omits γάρ.—3 John 1:4. In some min. is found, plainly as a correction, ταύτης instead of τούτων.

Instead of ἔχω, B (teste Majo) has ἔχων (not mentioned by Buttm.), and instead of χαράν, B 7, 35, Vulg. etc., read: χαρίν; Buttm. has retained the Rec.

Instead of the Rec. ἐν ἀληθείᾳ (according to C** G K א, Thph. Oec.), A B C* etc., read: ἐν τῇ ἀλ., which Lachm. and Tisch. have accepted; the omission of the article is explained by the preceding ἐν ἀλ., 3 John 1:3.—3 John 1:5. ἐργάσῃ] Rec. according to B C G K S, all the min. Thph. Oec. (Tisch.). Lachm., following A, Vulg. (operaris), has accepted ἐργάζῃ, which, however, appears to be only an alteration on account of the present ποιεῖς.

Instead of καὶ εἰς τοὺς ξένους (Rec. according to G K, etc.), καὶ τοῦτο ξένους must be read, with A B C א, etc., most of the versions, Lachm. and Tisch.—3 John 1:6. Ewald arbitrarily conjectures: οἷς ἐμαρτύρησα.

The reading of C: ποίησας προπέμψεις, is clearly a correction.—3 John 1:7. After ὀνόματος the Elzev. ed., following several min. and some vss., has αὐτοῦ, which is found in none of the greater MSS. (nor, according to Tisch. 7, in B). Buttm. has accepted this αὐτοῦ, and that, too, as the reading of B; Tisch. 2 also ascribes it to this codex, but with the remark: e sil. collat. Reiche says: Lachm.: falso codicem B pro C αὐτοῦ citat. Codicem B αὐτοῦ non habere nunc e Maji atque Kuenii et Cobeti edit, constat.

On the reading ἐξῆλθαν (Lachm. Tisch. 7), comp. 2 John 1:7.

Instead of ἐθνῶν, Rec. according to G K, etc., Lachm. and Tisch. have with justice accepted ἐθνικῶν, which is the reading of A B C א and many others; Reiche, however, regards ἐθνῶν as the original reading.—3 John 1:8. ἀπολαμβάνειν] Rec. following C** G K, etc. Instead of it A B C* א, etc., read ὑπολαμβάνειν, which Lachm. and Tisch. have accepted, and in favour of which Reiche also declares himself. Both words are, in the signification in which they are here used, ἅπ. λεγόμενα; the overwhelming authorities are in favour of ὑπολ.

Instead of τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, א* reads τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, clearly a correction.—3 John 1:9. After ἔγραψα, A B C א (Lachm. Tisch.) read τι. The Rec. is only supported by G K, some min. etc.1[15] Two min.: 29, 66**, have ἌΝ ΤΙ; and some others ἌΝ without ΤΙ; the Vulg.: scripsissam forsitan. These readings have arisen from an erroneous interpretation of the thought.—3 John 1:10. Instead of ΒΟΥΛΟΜΈΝΟΥς is found in C, several min. Vulg.: ἘΠΙΔΕΧΟΜΈΝΟΥς; a correction.

In א the preposition ἘΚ is wanting before Τῆς ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑς.—3 John 1:11. The ΔΈ between Ὁ and ΚΑΚΟΠΟΙῶΝ (Rec.) is, according to almost all the authorities, to be deleted; it was interpolated to mark the antithesis.—3 John 1:12. In Cod. C, to the words τῆς ἀληθείας, τῆς ἐκκλησίας καί is further prefixed. In A the reading is uncertain; according to the statement of Tisch., A* probably reads “ἐκκλησίας” instead of ἀληθείας; Lachm. states the reading thus: “ἀλη … θίας corr. A, … θιας pr. A.”

οἴδατε] Rec. according to G K, etc., several vss. Thph. Oec. (Tisch.). In A B C א, Vulg. etc., on the other hand, is found: ΟἾΔΑς, which Griesb. recommended, and Lachm. accepted.

If the overwhelming evidences were not for ΟἾΔΑς, we might regard it as a correction, as ΟἼΔΑΤΕ seemed objectionable in an Epistle addressed to one person.—3 John 1:13. Instead of γράφειν (Rec. according to G K, etc., Oec.), the reading of A B C א, etc., almost all versions, Thph.: ΓΡΆΨΑΙ ΣΟΙ, accepted by Lachm. and Tisch., is to be preferred.

The reading in A: ΟὐΚ ἘΒΟΥΛΉΘΗΝ, instead of Οὐ ΘΈΛΩ, has originated in 2 John 1:12.

Though the Rec. (according to G K, etc., Thph. Oec.) has γράψαι at the close of the verse, A B C א, etc., here read: γράφειν, which is justly accepted by Lachm. and Tisch. The pronoun σοι is put after the verb in A, etc., Vulg. etc. (Laclim.); most of the authorities, however, decide in favour of its position before the verb (Tisch.).—3 John 1:14. Instead of the Rec. ἸΔΕῖΝ ΣΕ (G K א, several versions, etc.), ΣΕ ἸΔΕῖΝ is probably to be read, with A B C, etc. (Lachm. Tisch.). 3 John 1:15 (3 John 1:14). Instead of ΟἹ ΦΊΛΟΙ, A has ΟἹ ἈΔΕΛΦΟΊ; clearly a correction.—א sol. has ἌΣΠΑΣΑΙ for ἈΣΠΆΖΟΥ.

Only a few codd. (G some min. etc.) have at the close the word ἈΜΉΝ.

The subscription runs in A B א: ἸΩΆΝΝΟΥ Γ̄; in G: ἘΠΙΣΤΟΛῊ Γ̄ ΤΟῦ ἉΓΊΟΥ ἉΠΟΣΤΌΛΟΥ ἸΩΆΝΝΟΥ; in other codd. still more prolix.

[15] 1 Reiche incorrectly says: lectiones variae a rec. discedentes singulae non satis testatae sunt; whereas the overwhelming evidences decide in favour of τι being original. That B reads ἕγραψας (Reiche), has not been observed either by Tischendorf 7 or by Buttmann. Should it be the case, it must be regarded merely as a clerical error.