Third John shows the author to be a man of eminence in the (larger?) church whence he writes, old enough to speak of Gaius with commendation as one of his "children," though Gaius himself is certainly no mere youth, and eminent enough to call Diotrephes to answer for his misconduct. He has sent out evangelistic workers, some of whom have recently returned and borne witness "before the church" to their hospitable reception by Gaius. For this he thanks Gaius, and urges him to continue the good work. The main object of the letter, however, is to commend Demetrius, who is doubtless the bearer of this letter as well as another written "to the church" (2nd John?). This letter, the author fears, will never reach its destination if Diotrephes has his way. There is very little to indicate whence the opposition of Diotrephes arises, but what little there is (ver. 11) points to those who make claims to "seeing" God and being "of" Him, without adequate foundation in a life of purity and beneficence. The letter "to the church" is more explicit. Second John is perfectly definite in its purpose. After congratulating the "elect lady" on those of her children (members) whom the writer has found leading consistent Christian lives, he entreats the church to remember the "new commandment" of Jesus, which yet is not new but the foundation of all, the commandment of ministering love. The reason for this urgency is that "many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh" (ver. 7). And here we come upon a very novel and distinctive application of an ancient datum of 'prophecy,' clearly differentiating this writer from the author of Revelation. The Doketic heresy is explicitly identified with "the deceiver and the antichrist." That must have been a new and surprising turn for men accustomed to connect the antichrist idea with the persecuting power of Rome. Satan, as we know, had been repeatedly conceived as operating through the coercion of outward force brought against the Messiah and his people through the Beast and the false Prophet (Rev. xiii.). There was good authority, too, for a mystical "man of sin" setting himself forth as God in the temple (2nd Thess. ii. 4), or for connecting Daniel's "abomination that maketh desolate" with the sufferings of the Jewish war and the later attempts of false prophets to deceive the elect with lying wonders (2nd Thess. ii. 9; Mark xiii. 22; Rev. xiii. 14). But this was a new application of the prophecy. To declare that the heretical teachers were themselves antichrists was to call the attention of the church back from outward opposition to inward disloyalty as the greater peril. And the identification is not enunciated in this general warning alone, but fully developed and defended in two elaborate paragraphs of the 'word of exhortation' (1st John ii. 18-29; iv. 1-6). When, therefore, we find Polycarp in his