Page images
PDF
EPUB

forth. Bede however informs us, that anciently two interpretations were given of these words. The first was, For his name's fake they went forth to preach the gospel. The fecond, For the faith and profeffion of the holy name of Chrift, they were expelled from their native country. Heuman adopts the latter interpretation, and often calls thefe ftrangers, exiles; and faith they were Gentiles. But, as the brethren are diftinguished from the frangers, and as it is faid that they bare witness to Caius's love before the church, it is reasonable to think these brethren were members of the church over which St. John prefided.-And with respect to the strangers, without determining in this place, whether they were exiles from their own country or not, I suppose, that having come to the place where the brethren, of whom the apostle speaks, dwelled, they joined them in their journey, which I think was undertaken for the fake of preaching Chrift to the Gentiles. If I am right in this conjecture, the ftrangers as well as the brethren, were preachers, as above obferved. For, if they were only perfons in want, it was no commendation of them that they went forth taking nothing of the Gentiles: because standing in need of alms, it was their duty, not only to receive, but even to ask alms for the fupport of their life, from the unbeliev ing Gentiles; especially as, in many places, there may have been no Chriftians, to whom they could apply for relief. Whereas if they were preachers, they were greatly to be praised, when, in imitation of the apostle Paul, they supported themfelves by their own labour, and took nothing from their Gentile converts on the score of maintenance, lest it might have marred the fuccefs of their preaching. In fhort, if these brethren and ftrangers had not been preachers, the apostle could not with propriety have faid, ver. 8. We therefore ought to receive fuck, that we may be joint labourers in the truth. For the terms labourers, and joint-labourers, are always, in the apoftolical writings, applied to preachers of the gospel, or to those who in fome way or other affifted the preachers of the gospel. These things Lardner did not attend to, when he said, "I fee nothing "that should lead us to think preachers are spoken of, but only #persons in want,"

Commentators

Commentators are no less divided concerning the character and office of Diotrephes. Erafmus in his paraphrafe faith, Diotrephes was the author of a new fect. This likewife was Bede's opinion. But, as other learned men have well argued, if Diotrephes had been a corrupter of the Chriftian doctrine, the apostle, without doubt, would have cautioned Caius, and all the members of his church, to have avoided him, as he defired the elect lady to avoid the falfe teachers, of whom he wrote in

his letter to her. But this, as Lamy obferveth, he did not do. He only reproved the pride of Diotrephes, his contempt of the apoftle's authority, but especially his ordering the members of his church, not to fhew kindness to the brethren and the stran-, gers who applied to them for relief.

It is the opinion of many, that Diotrephes was a bishop in the church where he refided, and of which Caius was a member. In fupport of their opinion they obferve, Firft, that he is faid to have hindered thofe, from receiving the brethren and the ftrangers, who were willing to fhew them kindness; and to have caft them out of the church, who, contrary to his orders, continued to entertain them.- Next, they take notice that the apoftle faid to Caius, ver. 9. I would have written to the church; but Diotrephes, who loveth to rule them, doth not receive us. The apoftles wrote most of their letters to the churches, that is, to the whole body of Chriftians living in a particular place, and fent them to the bishops and elders of thefe churches, to be by them read in the public affemblies, for the inftruction of their people. But, as Diotrephes did not acknowledge John's authority, he had reafon to fear that, if he had written to the church, and had fent his letter to Diotrephes to be read by him publicly to the brethren, he would have fuppreffed it by virtue of his epifcopal authority. Or, if it had been read to the church without his confent, he would have rendered it ineffectual by means of his adherents.

Heuman thought that Diotrephes was a deacon; and that having the charge of the church's ftock, he had it in his power to refuse relief to the brethren and the ftrangers who applied to him; and that by fo doing he caft them out of the church,

that

1

that is, obliged them to depart, But Lardner, who fuppofeth Diotrephes to have been a bishop, argueth, that as he loved to rule every thing in his church according to his own pleasure, his office as bishop, enabled him to restrain the deacons from employing any part of the church's ftock, in relieving the brethren and the strangers.

Demetrius, who is fo highly praised by the apostle in this letter, is thought to have held fome facred office in the church of which Caius was a member. But Benson rejects this opinion, because, on that fuppofition, Caius must have known him fo well, as to need no information concerning his character from the apostle. Benson therefore believed him to be the bearer of this letter, and one of the brethren who went out to preach to the Gentiles. But whoever Demetrius was, his character and behaviour were the reverse of the character and behaviour of Diotrephes. For the apoftle fpeaks of him as one who was esteemed of all men, and whofe behaviour in every respect was conformable to the gofpel; in fhort, one to whom the apostle himself bare the most honourable teftimony. This high character of Demetrius, John wrote to Caius, that he and all the members of the church, might imitate him rather than Diotrephes, whofe arrogance, uncharitablenefs, and contempt of the apostle's authority, were fo great, that he threatened to punish him for these enormities when he vifited Caius; which he promifed to do foon, that he might have an opportunity of speaking with Caius face to face concerning that imperious man.

SECT. IV. Of the Date of the Second and Third Epiftles of John.

Of the time of writing the fecond and third epiftles of John, nothing, as Lardner obferves, can be faid with certainty. But he tells us, "Mill places them about the fame time with the "first; that is, in the year 91 or 92. Whiston supposeth that "they were all three written about the year 82 or 83. I "imagine, that St. John was fomewhat advanced in age, and "that he had refided a good while in Afia, before he wrote any

❝ of

86

"of these epiftles; confequently I am difpofed to think that thefe two were not writ fooner than the firft. And, as it was before argued that the first epistle was written about the year 80, these two may be reckoned to have been writ be"tween the years 80 and go." Thus far Lardner, Can, vol. iii. P. 313

[ocr errors]

In the preface to the first epiftle, I have attempted to fhew from the epiftle itfelf, that it was written about the time of the destruction of Jerufalem. But there is nothing in the fecond and third epiftles leading us to think they were written fo early. We may therefore fix their date as late as Lardner hath done; or even later, when John was fo old as with much propriety to take the title of the elder, or aged apoftle, by way of emi

pence,

View and Illuftration of the Matters contained in this Epifile.

O encourage Caius to perfevere in that virtuous course, by which he had obtained the love of all who knew him, John, in the infcription of this letter, declared his own love to him, on account of the uncommon goodnefs of his character and actions, ver. 1.—and prayed to God to prosper him in his fpiritual concerns, ver. 2.- and told him what joy it gave him, when the brethren who had been affifted by him, brought him the welcome news of his perfeverance in the true doctrine of the gofpel, ver. 3.-because the apostle's greateft joy was to hear that his difciples walked in the truth, ver. 4.—Next, he praised Caius as acting agreeably to the gospel, when he shewed kindness to the brethren and to the ftrangers, who had applied to him for fuccour in their ftraits, ver. 5.-And to encourage him to persevere in these charitable christian offices, he told Caius, that the brethren and ftrangers, when they returned, bare an honourable teftimony to his love, publicly before the church over which John prefided. And, as they were, at the time this letter was written, making a fecond journey among the Gentiles, he told him, if he helped them forward a fecond time, in a manner worthy of God whom they ferved, by fuccouring them, he would still do a good work acceptable to God, ver. 9. -Because these brethren and ftrangers, for the fake of publifhing the name of Chrift and the doctrine of the gospel among the Gentiles, were gone forth, as formerly, with a refolution of taking nothing on the fcore of maintenance from the Gentiles, notwithstanding they greatly benefited the Gentiles by preaching the gospel to them, ver. 7.-For which caufe, all who had the furtherance of the gospel at heart, he told him, were bound to fhew fuch perfons kindness, that they might be joint-labourers with them in fpreading and establishing the truth, ver. 8.

Next he told Caius, that he would have written the fame exhortation to the church of which he was a member; but he had abftained from writing, becaufe Diotrephes, who ruled every thing in that church according to his own humour, did not acknowledge his apoftolical authority; thereby infinuating, that Demetrius probably would have fuppreffed any letter which the apostle might write, ver. 9.-He added, that because Diotrephes did not acknowledge his authority, he would, when he came among them, put him in mind of his deeds; his prating against the apostle with malicious words, his not receiving the brethren and the strangers who had applied to him in their straits for relief, his hindering the members of his church from affifting

[blocks in formation]
« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »