THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN, THE APOSTLE
PREFACE of the HAYDOCK COMMENTARY
The Second and Third Epistles of St. John were not at first received as canonical by all Churches. See Eusebuis and St. Jerome, in Catalogo, and Tillemont, art. 9, on St. John, p. 349. The style sufficiently shews they were written by St. John the evangelist. The time and place whence they were written is uncertain. The design in both is to exhort those he writes to, to stand firm in the faith of Christ against all seducing heretics, to love one another, &c. (Witham) — But though these last two Epistles of the beloved apostle were frequently contested till the fourth or fifth century, from that period they have been regularly received; and even during the first ages[centuries], they were frequently cited by many of the holy Fathers as Catholic Scripture. This short Epistle may still be divided into two parts. The first, a congratulation to the lady he styles Elect, in which he felicitates her on account of the faith and virtue he had discovered in some of her children. He exhorts both them and their mother to be more and more confirmed in charity, as the essential and fundamental precept of Christianity, and of which the unequivocal mark is the observance of the other commandments. This part is from the beginning to ver. 6, inclusive. The second, which begins with ver. 7, and continues to the end, is to put them on their guard against the errors of Simon, of Cerinthus, of the Gnostics, and of Basilides, and prescribes the manner how they are to behave themselves towards these seducers. Though the time and place be uncertain, there is some appearance that it was written from Ephesus, when the apostle governed this Church and all the others of Asia[Asia Minor].
Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide
PREFACE TO THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLE OF S. JOHN
SEVERAL ancient writers have entertained doubts respecting the Second and Third Epistles of S. John, supposing them to have been written by John the Presbyter, not John the Apostle. They have been led to think this because the writer begins by calling himself the Elder, or the Presbyter, in Greek πζεσβύτεζος. This doubt is mentioned by Eusebius (H. E. lib. 3 cap ult.) and S. Jerome (de Scrip. Eccles.). But that both these Epistles are canonical is now de fide, and also that they were written by S. John the Apostle. This appears, 1st From the definition of the Council of Trent (sess. 4), and the Third Council of Carthage (cap. 47), and the Council of Laodicæa (cap. 59), and the 84 of the Canons of the Apostles.
2d. From the Fathers, viz. Irenæeus (lib. 3 c. 13), S. Augustine (lib. 2 de Doct. Christ. c. 8). Hear also S. Jerome (Epis. ad Paul): “James, Peter, John, and Jude the Apostles published seven epistles, both mystical, succinct, and brief, all about the same length: short in words, long in sentences, so that there are few readers who are unacquainted with them.”1 He says elsewhere (Epis. ad Evagr.): “The son of thunder, whom Jesus loved most dearly, sounds with his trumpet; he, I mean, who from the Saviour’s breast drank rivers of doctrine, ‘the Presbyter to the Elect Lady and her children, whom I love in the truth.’”
3d. Similarity of style and matter is an argument for these two Epistles having the same author as the first. This is what Baronius says (An. 99, cap. 9): “Certainly, if ever it be allowable to judge by their likeness to one another that children are born of the same parents, any one can easily perceive, from the words, the sentences, the style, the tone, bearing as they do on the surface the same character, that these Epistles have proceeded from the same author. First, with regard to the words and sentences, there are many indications of this, as when he says in the First Epistle ‘I write not a new commandment unto you, but an old.’ So in the Second, ‘Not as writing a new commandment unto you, but that which we have had from the beginning.’ Again in the First, ‘Every one who denieth the Son, neither hath he the Father: he who confesseth the Son hath the Father also.’ And in the Second he utters the same sentiment in the words, ‘Every one who draws back, and abides not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God: he who abides in the doctrine of Christ hath both the Father and the Son.’ So too in the First, ‘Whosoever is born of God sinneth not. In the Third the same idea is thus expressed, ‘He that doeth good is of God; and he that is born of God sinneth not.’ And as in the First Epistle it is frequently inculcated that we should love in deed and in truth, in the Second and Third there are injunctions to love in truth. In the First Epistle we find, ‘Many false prophets are gone out into the world; in this is known the spirit of God,’ &c. So in the Second we find the same idea in almost identical words, ‘There are many seducers gone out into the world: he who confesseth not that Jesus is come in the flesh, this is a seducer and an antichrist.’ Again, we have in the First Epistle, ‘This is love, that we keep His commandments;’ and in the Second, ‘This is love, that we walk according to His commandments.’ This continual inculcation of charity, love, and truth in these two Epistles clearly indicates that we have in them a genuine transcript of the mind of S. John, just as we have in the First.”
To the objection that John writes of himself as the Elder, or Presbyter, I reply that in that age Presbyter and Bishop had the same meaning, as I have shown on 1 Tim. iv. 14. Moreover, S. John, worn out at this time with the fulness of years and the weight of the apostolic dignity, was the oldest of all living Christians. The last of the Apostles, he lived until the age of Trajan, and died about A.D. 101.