First Epistle Of John

Morrish Bible Dictionary

This was doubtless written after the epistles of Peter and Paul. Morally John's writings have their place when the church as a testimony had failed, and the 'last time' had arrived. The three Epistles come in between the Gospel of John and the Revelation. The real remedy for the evils spoken of is the coming in of the Lord as the faithful witness.

Near the end of the first century the error had arisen that Christ had no real body — had not come in flesh: this doctrine is condemned in this epistle. Others held that only the germ of Christianity could be found in existing teachings, and that development must be looked for (an error prevalent also in the present day), which was met by the apostle insisting on 'that which was from the beginning' — the revelation of life in Christ Himself.

The leading truth of this epistle is that eternal life had come down from the Father in the person of Christ; and it was written that

1. The believer's joy might be full, through being in communion with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ by means of inspired and apostolic revelation, He as Advocate maintaining the same.

2. That believers should not sin.   1 John 2:1 .

3. That believers might know that they have eternal life, which is in the Son.   1 John 5:13 . The epistle presents things largely in their own proper character, touching but little upon what is experimentally different therefrom, and thus contains tests of profession.

 1 John 1 presents that which the apostles had heard, seen, contemplated, and handled of the Word of life in the person of the Son become man. It is that which was set forth in a Man. That which was with the Father, namely, the eternal life, was thus manifested to the apostles, who reported what they had seen and heard to the disciples, that they might have fellowship with them, and that their joy might be full. The apostles' fellowship was with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. But it is in the light that it is enjoyed, where also christian fellowship is known, and the blood of Christ is the foundation of all.

 1 John 2 . What is inconsistent and consistent with the light is then referred to, leading on to the unfolding of the advocacy of "Jesus Christ the righteous" with the Father, and its effects in case any one sinned. The test of the knowledge of God is keeping His commandments, and the love of God is perfected in him who keeps His word. But this commandment of love is no new one; what is new is that which is true both in Him and in His disciples. They are in the light now, for God is fully revealed, and they are in the light of this revelation. He who hates his brother is in darkness. Different stages of growth in Christians are now spoken of, namely, fathers, young men, and babes. What is characteristic of each is presented, together with certain besetting dangers, against which young men and babes are warned.  1 John 2:12 and   1 John 2:28 speak of all Christians under the general term 'little children.' It may be noticed that even the babes have the Holy Ghost — the unction from the Holy One.

 1 John 3 gives the nature of the Christian's place and blessings as given of the Father's love, and the actual result of being born of God, both in the practice of righteousness and in loving one another. In these things the children of God are manifested; while in the practice of sin, and the hatred of their brother, the children of the devil are discerned. In John's epistle people are viewed absolutely as either one thing or the other.

Jesus Christ is set forth as the perfect pattern both of righteousness and of love. He is here viewed as veritably God, and the One who came to undo the works of the devil, and He has 'laid down his life for us.' He fully vindicated the rights of God, which sin had compromised, and He loved even unto death.

In fine, this chapter declares, on the one hand, what believers are before God, in present relationship, Christ Himself being the completion and measure of all their blessing; on the other hand, the test of it as regards men, Christ abiding in them that His character may come out in them. In the concluding verse the Spirit is introduced in connection with the conscious knowledge believers have that God abides in them. It is by Him they know it.

 1 John 4 gives a test for distinguishing spirits, namely, the confession of Jesus Christ come in flesh, which could only be by the Spirit of God. There were those who, denying this great foundation of the faith, spoke as of the world, and who had the world's approval. Christians are qualified to discriminate as to what is presented to them. Then it is shown that those towards whom God's love is so great ought to love one another. The character of God morally, which had been seen in Christ, is now seen in those who are the objects of His love; they are identified even in this world with Christ as He is, from whom they derive everything in new creation. He who does not love, does not know God. It is in loving one another that believers come out before the world as the disciples of Christ. In this chapter it is said that we know 'that we abide in Him' (  1 John 4:13 ), not merely that He abides in us: cf.  1 John 3:24 .

 1 John 5 gives a test whereby believers may know that they love God's children, namely, when they love God and keep His commandments. Those born of God get the victory over the world — those, in fact, who believe that Jesus is the Son of God. The glory of His person eclipses all that naturally appeals to them, and they are thus delivered from the influence of the world. This leads the apostle to speak of eternal life, which he shows is not in the first man, but in God's Son. "He that hath the Son hath life: he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." The water and the blood show that it involves clearance from all that is morally of the first man, and the Spirit proves it is in another Man. The Spirit is the 'truth' here: but it is to bring believers into the conscious knowledge of eternal life, which is set forth objectively in the person of the Son of God. Christians are brought by the Spirit, through the application of death, into the present enjoyment of eternal life, and He leads their hearts into the heavenly things into which the Son of God, the Man Christ Jesus, has entered.

The epistle closes with a kind of summary of Christian knowledge from its particular point of view. Christians know first the nature of one begotten of God. Then they know that they are of God, and that the whole world lies in the wicked one — the difference morally between Christians and the world. Lastly, they know that the Son of God has come, and that He has given them an understanding to know Him, in whom God is perfectly revealed. They know moreover that they are in God's Son, Jesus Christ, who is the true God and eternal life. No other object should govern the heart. "Little children, keep yourselves from idols."

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

the most important of the so called catholic or "general" Epistles, of which it is the fourth in order. (See Bible), vol. 1, p. 800, Colossians 2. I. Its Authenticity . — That this is the production of the same author as wrote the fourth Gospel is so manifest that it has universally been admitted (comp. Hauff, Die Authentie U. Der Hohe Werth Des Evang. Johan. p. 137 sq.). The establishment of the genuineness of the one, therefore, involves the admission of that of the other. The evidence, however, in favor of the Epistle is sufficient to establish its claims, apart from its relation to the Gospel. See § 7, below.

1. External. — Eusebius informs us that Papias knew and made use of it ( H.E. 3, 39); Polycarp quotes a passage (4, 3) from it in his Epistle to the Philippians, ch. 7; Irenaeus uses it (comp. Adv. Hoer. 3, 15; 5, 8, with  1 John 2:18;  1 John 4:1;  1 John 4:3; 1 John 5, 1); it is quoted or referred to by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 2, 389) and Tertullian (Scorpiac. c. 22; Adv. Prax. c. 15); and Eusebius assures us that it was universally and always acknowledged in the Church (H.E. 3, 25, 26). It is found in the Peshito and in all the ancient versions and is included in every catalog of the canonical books which has come down to us (Lardner, Works, 6, 584). In fact, the only persons who appear not to have recognized this Epistle are the ancient heretics, the Alogi and the Marcionites, the latter of whom were acquainted with none of the writings of John, and the former rejected them all, ascribing them to Cerinthus, not upon critical, but purely arbitrary and dogmatical grounds.

2. With this the Internal evidence fully accords. The work is anonymous, but the apostle John is plainly indicated throughout as the writer. The author asserts that he had been an immediate disciple of Jesus, and that he testifies what he himself had seen and heard (1 John 1, 1-4;  1 John 4:14), and this assumption is sustained throughout in a way so natural and unaffected that it would be doing violence to all probability to suppose that it could have been attained by one who felt that he was practicing in this a deliberate imposition. The circumstances also of the writer to which he alludes, the themes on which he chiefly dwells, and the spirit which his writing breathes, are all such as fall in with what we know of the apostle John and suggest him as the writer. If this be the work of a pretender, he has, as De Wette remarks ( Exeget. Hdb .), "shown incredible subtlety in concealing the name of the apostle, while he has indirectly, and in a most simple natural way, indicated him as the writer."

A few German theologians in our own times (Lange, Schriften des Johan. 3, 4 sq.; Cludius, Uransichten des Christenth. p. 52 sq.; Bretschneider, Probabilia, p. 166 sq.; Zeller, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1845) have been the first critics to throw doubts on the genuineness of any of John's writings, and this altogether on internal grounds, but they have met with complete refutations from the pens of Bertholdt (6), Harmsen (Authent. d. Schr. d. Evangel. Johan.), and L Ü cke (Commentar, 3). See above. The only serious objections to the Epistles are those of Bretschneider, who has equally attacked the genuineness of the Gospel.

(1.) He maintains that the doctrine concerning the Logos, and the anti- docetic tendency of John's 1st Epistle, betray an author of the second century, whom he assumes to be John the Presbyter. But it is beyond all question, says L Ü cke (1. c.), that the Logos doctrine of John, substantially, although not fully developed, existed in the Jewish theological notions respecting the Son of God, and that we find it distinctly expressed, although in different words, in the Pauline representation of Christ's exalted dignity (compare Colossians 1 with Hebrews 1); that the rudiments of it appear in the literature of the Jews, canonical and apocryphal, Chaldaic and Alexandrians; that in the time of Christ it was considerably developed in the writings of Philo, and still more strongly in the fathers of the second century, who were so far from retaining the simple, Hebraizing, and canonical mode of expression peculiar to John that in them it had assumed a gnostically erudite form, although essentially identical. John intends by the Word (Logos) to express the divine nature of Christ, but the patristic logology attempts to determine the relation between the Logos and the invisible God on one side and the world on the other. The earliest fathers, as Justin Martyr and Tatian, while they make use of John's phraseology, further support their doctrines by ecclesiastical tradition, which, as L Ü cke observes, must have its root in doctrines that were known in the first century. But, from Theophilus of Antioch downwards, the fathers, mentioning John by name, expressly connect their elucidations with the canonical foundation in the Gospel of John, without the granting of which the language of Justin would be inexplicable (Olshausen, On the Genuineness of the Four Gospels, p. 306 sq.). Accordingly, adds L Ü cke, on this side, the authenticity of the Gospel and Epistle remains unassailable. (See Logos).

(2.) On similar grounds may be refuted Bretschneider's arguments derived from the anti-docetic character of John's Epistle. It is true, docetism, or the idealistic philosophy, was not fully developed before the second century, but its germ existed before the time of Christ, as has been shown by Mosheim, Walch, and Niemeyer. Traces of Jewish theology and Oriental theosophy having been applied to the Christian doctrine in the apostolic age are to be found in the Epistles of Paul, and it would be unaccountable to suppose that the fully developed docetism should have first made its appearance in the Epistles of Irenseus and Polycarp. We have the authority of the former of these for the fact that Cerinthus taught the docetic heresy in the lifetime of John in the simple form in which it seems to be attacked in  1 John 4:1-3;  1 John 2:22;  2 John 1:7. (See Docetae).

II. Integrity. — The genuineness of only two small portions of this writing have been called in question, viz., the words Ὁ Ὁμολογῶν Τὸν Υἱὸν Καὶ Τὸν Πατέρα Ἔχει (1 John 2; 23), and the words Ἐν Τῷ Οὐρανῷ Ὁ Πατήρ Ὁ Λᾠγος Καὶ Τὸ Ἃγιον Πνεῦα Καὶ Ουτοι Οἱ Τρεῖς Ἕν Εἰσι . Καὶτρεῖς Εἰσιν Οἱ Μαπτυποῦντες Ἐν Τῇ Γῇ (1 John 5, 7, 8). The former of these is omitted in the Text. Rec., and is printed in italics in the A.V. It is, however, supported by sufficient authority, and is inserted by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Scholz, etc. The latter of these passages has given rise to a world-famous controversy, which can hardly be said to have yet ended (Orme, Memoir of the Controversy respecting the Heavenly Witnesses [Lond. 1830]). The prevailing judgment, however, of all critics and interpreters is that the passage is spurious (see Griesbach, Append. ad N.T. 2, 1-25; Tischendorf on the passage; L Ü cke, Comment. on the Epistles of John, in Bib. Casbinet, No. 15, etc.). (See The Three Heavenly Witnesses).

III. Time And Place Of Writing The First Epistle . — On these points nothing certain can be determined.

1. It has been conjectured by many interpreters, ancient and modern, that it was written at the same place as the Gospel. The more ancient tradition places the writing of the Gospel at Ephesus and a less authentic report refers it to the island of Patmos. Hug ( Introd .) infers, from the absence of writing materials ( 3 John 1:13), that all John's Epistles were composed at Patmos. The most probable opinion is that it was written somewhere in Asia Minor, in which was the ordinary residence of the apostle (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3, 23); perhaps, according to the tradition of the Greek Church, at Ephesus, but for this we have no historical warrant (L Ü cke, Commentary ) .

2. It is equally difficult to determine the time of the writing of this Epistle, although it was most probably posterior to the Gospel, which seems to be referred to in  1 John 1:4. Some are of opinion that the Epistle was an envelope or accompaniment to the Gospel, and that they were consequently written nearly simultaneously (Hug, Introd .) . As, however, the period when the Gospel was written, according to the evidence of tradition and criticism, "fluctuates between the sixth and ninth decennium of the first century" (L Ü cke, Commentary ) , we are at a loss for data on which to found any probable hypothesis respecting the exact time of the writing of the Epistle; but that it was posterior to the Gospel is further rendered probable from the fact that it is formed on such a view of the person of Jesus as is found only in John's Gospel and that it abounds in allusions to the speeches of Jesus as there recorded. L Ü cke concludes, from its resembling the Gospel in its apologetical and polemical allusions, that it indicates such a state of the Christian community as proves that it must be posterior even to the last Epistles of Paul and consequently that the ancient Church was justified in classing it among the catholic Epistles, which all bear this chronological character.

It has been argued by several, from  1 John 2:18 ( Ἐσχάτη Ὤραἐστίν ), that the Epistle was written Before the destruction of Jerusalem, while others, founding their conjecture on the same passage, maintain the very reverse. Among the former are to be found the names of Hammond, Grotius, Calovius, Lange, and H Ä nlein, and among the latter those of Baronius, Basnage, Mill, and Le Clerc.

Equally unsatisfactory is the argument, in respect to the time when this Epistle was written, derived from its supposed senile tone; for, although the style is somewhat more tautological than the Gospel, this can be accounted for by its epistolary character, without ascribing it to the effects of senile forgetfulness. In fact, this character is altogether denied by some of the ablest critics. Still, from the patriarchal tone assumed in the Epistle, and the frequent use of the appellation "little children," we may reasonably conclude that it was written in advanced age, perhaps not long after the Gospel, or about A.D. 92.

IV. For Whom Written . — The writer evidently had in his eye a circle of readers with whom he stood in close personal relation — Christians, apparently, who were living in the midst of idolaters (1 John 5, 21), and who were exposed to danger from false speculation and wrong methods of presenting the truths of Christianity ( 1 John 2:22-26;  1 John 4:1-3;  1 John 5:1-6, etc.). If the Epistle was written by John at Ephesus, we may, from these circumstances, with much probability conclude that the Christians in that region were the parties for whose behoof it was first designed. Augustine ( Quoest. Evangel. 2, 39) says it was addressed "ad Parthos," and this inscription appears in several MSS. of the Vulgate, and has been defended by Grotius, Paulus, and others, as giving the real destination of the Epistle. John, however, had no relations with the Parthians that we know of, nor does a single ancient testimony confirm the statement of Augustine, except on the part of later writers of the Latin Church, who probably simply followed him. It has been suggested that, as the 2d Epistle is by some of the ancients described as Παρθένους (Clem. Alex. Frag., edit. Potter, p. 1011), this may have been changed into, Πρὸς Πάρθους and by mistake applied to the 1st Epistle (Whiston, Comment. On The Cath. Epistles; Hug, Introd. p. 464, Fosdick's transl.). This is possible, but not very probable. The suggestion of Wegscheider, that "ad Parthos" is an error for "ad Sparsos," an inscription which actually is found in several MSS. (Scholz, Bibl. Krit. Reise, p. 67), is ingenious and may be correct. If we are to understand the term Catholic, as applied to this Epistle, in the sense of circular, we may naturally infer, from the absence of the Epistolary Form, that this was an encyclical letter addressed to several of John's congregations and in all probability to the churches of the Apocalypse. See § 8, below. Lardner is clearly right when he says that it was primarily meant for the churches in Asia under John's inspection, to whom he had already orally delivered his doctrine ( 1 John 1:3;  1 John 2:7). (See Revelation).

V. Character . — Though ranked among the catholic Epistles, this writing has not the form of an epistle in this respect it more resembles a free homily; still, in fact, it undoubtedly was sent as a letter to the persons for whose instruction it was designed. The general strain is admonitory and the author seems to have written as he would have spoken had those whom he addresses been present before him. One great thought pervades the book — the reality of Christ's appearance in the flesh, and the all sufficiency of his doctrine for salvation — a salvation which manifests itself in holiness and love. But the author does not discuss these topics in any systematic or logical form; he rather allows his thoughts to flow out in succession as one suggests another and clothes them in simple and earnest words as they arise in his mind. Some have imputed a character of senility to the work on this account, but without reason. Under a simple and inartificial exterior there lies deep thought and the book is pervaded by a suppressed intensity of feeling that recalls the youthful Boanerges in the aged apostle. The mighty power that is in it has drawn to it in all ages the reverence and love of the noblest minds, "especially of those who more particularly take up Christianity as a religion of love — a religion of the heart" (L Ü cke, Int. p. 55).

VI. Contents. — A strict analysis of this Epistle, therefore, seems hardly possible, as the writer does not appear to have been systematic in its plan, but rather to have written out of a full and loving heart. "He asserts the pre-existent glory and the real humanity of our Lord, in opposition to false teachers, and for the comfort of the Church ( 1 John 1:1-7). Then follows a statement of the sinfulness of man, and the propitiation of Christ, this propitiation being intended to stir us up to holiness and love ( 1 John 1:8;  1 John 2:17); Jesus and the Christ are asserted to be one, in opposition to the false teachers (1 John 1:18-29). The next chapter seems devoted to the singular love of God in adopting us to be his sons, with the happiness and the duties arising out of it, especially the duty of brotherly love (ch. 3). The following chapter is principally occupied with marks by which to distinguish the teaching of the Spirit of God from that of false teachers and of Antichrist, with repeated exhortations to ‘ love as brethren' (ch. 4). The apostle then shows the connection between faith, renewal, love to God and to the brethren, obedience, and victory over the world, and concludes with a brief summary of what had been already said (ch. 5)" (Fairbairn). See § 8, below.

VII. Relation To The Fourth Gospel . — The close affinity between this Epistle and John's Gospel has already been alluded to. In style, in prevailing formula of expression, in spirit, and in thought, the two are identical. "It is evident that the writer of each had a similar class of opponents in his mind — those who, like the Docetae, denied the true humanity of Christ; those, again, who denied that the man Jesus was the Christ and Son of God; and those who, under pretence of being his disciples, were habitually living in violation of his commands. In both books is the same deeply loving and contemplative nature; in both, a heart completely imbued with the teaching of the Savior; in both, also, the same tendency to abhorrence of those who opposed his Lord. Remarkable, too (to use the words of Ebrard), is the similarity of the Circle Of Ideas in both writings. The notions, light, life, darkness, truth, lie, meet us in the Epistle with the same broad and deep meaning which they bear in the Gospel; so, also, the notions of propitiation ( Ἱλασμός ) , of doing righteousness, sin, or iniquity ( Ἁμαρτίαν , Ἀνομίαν ) , and the sharply-presented antitheses of light and darkness, truth and lie, life and death, of loving and hating, the love of the Father and of the world, children of God and of the devil, spirit of truth and of error" (Fairbairn). Macknight, and, still more fully, De Wette, have drawn out a copious comparison of expressions common to the Gospel and Epistle.

This similarity has led to the suggestion that both, in a sense, form one whole, the Epistle being, according to some, a prolegomenon to the Gospel; according to others, its practical conclusion; and according to others, its commendatory accompaniment. The probability is that both were written at the same period of the author's life, and that they both contain in writing what he had been accustomed to testify and teach during his apostolic ministry; but whether any closer relation than this exists between them must remain matter entirely of conjecture.

VIII. Design . — That the apostle sought to confirm the believers for whom he wrote in their attachment to Christianity as it had been delivered to them by the ambassadors of Christ is evident on the surface of the Epistle. It is clear, also, that he had in view certain false teachers by whose arts the Christians were in danger of being seduced from the faith of Jesus as the incarnate Son of God, and from that holy and loving course of conduct to which true faith in Jesus leads; but who these false teachers were, or to what school they belonged, is doubtful. It is an old opinion that they were Docetae (Tertullian, De Carne Christi , 1, 24; Dionys. Al. ap. Eusebius, H.E. 7, 25), and to this many recent inquirers have given in their adherence. L Ü cke, who strenuously defends this view, attempts to show that Docetism was in vogue as early as the time of John by an appeal to the case of Cerinthus and to the references to Docetism in three of the epistles of Ignatius (Ad Smyrn. 2 sq.; Ad Trall. 10; Ad Eph. 7); but the doctrine of Cerinthus respecting the person of Jesus Christ was not Docetic in the proper sense, and the passages cited from Ignatius are all subject to the suspicion of being interpolations, as none of them are found in the Syriac recension. L Ü cke lays stress also on the words Ἐν Σαρκί Ἐληλυθότα (4, 2; comp.  2 John 1:7) as indicating an express antithesis to the doctrine of the Docetics that Christ had come only in appearance. It may be doubted, however, whether this means anything more than that Christ had Really come, the phrase Ἐν Σαρκὶ Ἐλθεῖν being probably a familiar technicality for this among the Christians. It may be questioned, also, whether the passage should not be translated thus, "Every spirit which confesseth Jesus Christ having [who has] come in the flesh is of God," rather than thus, "Every spirit which confesseth That Jesus Christ is come," etc. (for Ὁμολογεῖν with the accusative, see  John 9:22;  Acts 23:8;  Romans 10:9;  1 Timothy 6:12), and in this case even the appearance of allusion to a contrary doctrine vanishes (see Bleek, Einleit. p. 593). It may be added that, had John intended to express a direct antithesis to Docetism, he would hardly have contented himself with merely using the words Ἐν Σαρκὶ Ἐλθεῖν , for there is a sense in which even the Docetae would have admitted this.

The main object of the Epistle, therefore, does not appear to be simply that of opposing the errors of the Docetae (Schmidt, Bertholdt, Niemeyer), or of the Gnostics (Kleuker), or of the Nicolaitans (Macknight), or of the Cerinthians (Michaelis), or of all of them together (Townsend), or of the Sabians (Barkey, Storr, Keil), or of Judaizers (L Ö ffler, Semler), or of apostates to Judaism (Lange, Eichhorn, H Ä nlein): the leading purpose of the apostle appears to be rather constructive than polemical. John is remarkable both in his history and in his writings for his abhorrence of false doctrine, but he does not attack error as a controversialist. He states the deep truth and lays down the deep moral teaching of Christianity, and in this way, rather than directly, condemns heresy. In the introduction ( 1 John 1:1-4) the apostle states the purpose of his Epistle. It is to declare the Word of life to those whom he is addressing, in order that he and they might be united in true communion with each other and with God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. He at once begins to explain the nature and conditions of communion with God, and, being led on from this point into other topics, he twice brings himself back to the same subject. The first part of the Epistle may be considered to end at  1 John 2:28. The apostle begins afresh with the doctrine of sonship of communion at  1 John 2:29 and returns to the same theme at  1 John 4:7. His lesson throughout is, that the means of union with God are, on the part of Christ, his atoning blood ( 1 John 1:7;  1 John 2:2;  1 John 3:5;  1 John 4:10;  1 John 4:14;  1 John 5:6) and advocacy ( 1 John 2:1) — on the part of man, holiness ( 1 John 1:6), obedience ( 1 John 2:3), purity ( 1 John 3:3), faith ( 1 John 3:23;  1 John 4:3;  1 John 5:5), and, above all, love ( 1 John 2:7;  1 John 3:14;  1 John 4:7;  1 John 5:1). John is designated as the Apostle of Love and rightly; but it should be even remembered that his "love" does not exclude or ignore but embraces both faith and obedience as constituent parts of itself. Indeed, Paul's "faith that worketh by love," and James' "works that are the fruit of faith," and John's "love which springs from faith and produces obedience," are all one and the same state of mind described according to the first, third, or second stage into which we are able to analyze the complex whole.

IX. Commentaries . — The special exegetical helps on the whole of the Three epistles of John, besides those mentioned under the Gospel above, are the following, of which we designate the most important by prefixing an asterisk: Didymus, In Ep. Jo. (in Bibl. Max. Patr . 5 ; also in Bibl. Patr. Gall. 6); Bede, Expositio (in Opp. 5); Althamer, Commentarius (Argent. 1521, 1528, 8vo); Hemming, Commentarius (Vitemb. 1569, 8vo); Selnecker, Homilioe (Franc. 1580, 1597, 8vo); Danaeus, Commentarius (Genev. 1585, 8vo); Horne, Expositio [including Jude] (Brunsw. 1654, to); Rappolt, Commentatio (ed. Carpzov, Lips. 1687, and later, 4to); Creyghton, Ontleeding (Franec. 1704, 4to); J. Lange, Exegesis (Hal. 1713, 4to; including Pet., ib. 1724, fol.); Rusmeyer, Erkl Ä rung (Hamb. 1717, 4to); Whiston, Commentary (Lond. 1719, 8vo); Tgilde, Verklaaring (Delph. 1736, 4to); Ruhlius, Notoe (Amst. 1739, 12mo); Benson, Notes (London, 1749, 4to; includ. other cath. ep., ib. 1756, 4to); Schirmer, Erkl Ä rung (Breslau. 1780, 8vo); Morus, Proelectiones (edit. Hempel, Lips. 1797, 8vo); Hawkins, Commentary (Halifax. 1808, 8vo); Jaspis, Adnotatio [includ. Rev.] (Lips. 1816, 1821, 8vo); Paulus, Erkl Ä rung (Heidelberg, 1829, 8vo); Bickersteth, Exposition [includ. Jude] (London, 1846, 12mo); Braune, Auslegung (Grim. 1847, 8vo); Mayer, Commentar (Wien, 1851, 8vo); Sander. Commentar (Elberf. 1851, 8vo); Besser, Auslegung (Halle, 1851, 1856, 1862, 12mo); *D Ü sterdieck, Commentar (G Ö tting. 1852-56, 2 vols. 8vo);. *Huther, in Meyer's Handbuch (Getting. 1853, 1861, 8vo); *Maurice, Lectures (Cambr. 1857, 1867, 8vo).

On the First Epistle alone there are the following: Augustine, Tractsatus (in Opp. 4, 1091; tr. into French. Par. 1670, 12mo); Luther, Commentarius (ed. Neumann, Lips. 1708; ed. Bruns, Lub. 1797, 8vo; also in German, in Werke, Lpz. 11, 572; Halle, 9, 906); Œ colampadius, Homilioe (Basil. 1525, 8vo); Zwingle, Annotationes (in Opp. 4, 585); Tyndale, Expositions (London, 1531, 8vo reprinted, in Expositions, ib. 1829, p. 145); Megander Adnotationes [includ. Hebrews] (Tigur. 1539, 8vo); Foleng, Commentaria (Venice, 1546, 8vo); Beurlinus, Commentarius (Ttibing. 1571, 8vo); Hunnius, Enarratio (F. ad M. 1586, 1592, 8vo); Hessels, Commentarius (Duaci, 1599, 8vo); Eckhard, Disputationes (Gies. 1609, 8vo); Socinus, Commentarius (Racov. 1614, 8vo; also in Opp. 1, 157); Egard, Erkl Ä rung (Gosl. 1628, 8vo); Cundisius, Quoestiones (Jena, 1648,1698, 4to); Roberts, Evidences, etc. (Lond. 1649, 8vo); Mestrezat, Exposition (Fr., Gen È ve, 1651, 2 vols. 12mo); Cotton, Commentary (Lond. 1656, fol.); Hardy, Unfolding [on 1-3] (Lond. 1656-9, 2 vols. 4to); *S. Schmid, Commentarius (F. et Lipsiae, 1687, 1707, 1736, 4to); Dorsche, Disputationes (Rostock, 1697, 4to); Spener, Erkl Ä rung (Halle, 1699, 1711, 4to); Zeller, Predigten (Lpz. 1709, 8vo); Marperger, Auslegang (N Ü rnb. 1710, 4to); Oporinus, Liberatio (Gitting. 1741, 4to); Freylinghausen, Erkl Ä rung (Halle, 1741, 8vo); Steinhofer, Erkl Ä rung (T Ü bing. 1762, Hamb. 1848, 8vo); Carpzov, Scholia (Helmstadt, 1773, 4to); Semler, Paraphrasis (Riga, 1792, 12mo); Hesselgren, Prolegomena (Upsala, 1800, 8vo); Weber, De authentia, etc. (Halle 1823, 4to); Rickli, Erkl Ä rung (Luz. 1828, 8vo); Pierce, Sermons (Lond. 1835, 2 vols. 8vo); Johannsen, Predigten (Alton. 1838, 8vo); Paterson, Commentary (Lond. 1842, 18mo); Thomas, Etudes, etc. (Genesis 1849, 8vno); *Neander, Erl Ä uterung (Berl. 1851, 8vo; tr. into Engl. by Mrs. Conant, N.Y. 1852, 12mo); Erdmann, Argumentum. etc. (Berol. 1855, 8vo); Graham, Commentary (Lond. 1857, 12mo); Myrberg, Commentarius (Upsala, 1859, 8vo); Handcock, Exposition (Edinburgh, 1861, 8vo); Candlish, Lectures (Edinburgh, 1866, 8vo); Haupt, Einleitung, etc. (Colb. 1869, 8vo). (See Epistles (Catholic).)