2 John 1
LenskiThe Second Epistle of St. John
The Greeting, v. 1–3
2 John 1:1
1 The nominative to indicate the writer and the dative to mark the persons to whom he writes are duly used by John in both of these letters in which he follows the regular ancient method of letter writing. “Grace, mercy, peace from God (the) Father,” etc., are also regularly found in Christian letter headings. But the future tense of the verb and the first person plural: “shall be with us,” are unusual, are John’s own wording. Like the greetings found in the other apostolic letters, also this one reflects what the body of the letter develops and thus contains a great deal.
The Elder to a mistress elect and to her children, whom I on my part love in connection with truth, and not I alone but also all who have known the truth for the sake of the truth remaining in us, and with us it shall remain forever: there shall be with us grace, mercy, peace from God (the) Father and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in connection with truth and love.
Ὁπρεσβύτερος, “the Elder,” is the apostle John. This word was used to designate the pastors of congregations, each congregation had several “presbyters,” “elders.” It is not used in this sense by John, for John was not one of the pastors of the congregation at Ephesus. 1 Peter 5:1 has συμπρεσβύτερος, “fellow elder,” which designates Peter in his apostolic office, in the capacity in which he wrote his First Epistle to all the Asian churches. John uses “the Presbyter” to designate himself in a sense that is still more distinct. He does not mean: one of the apostles who may be called an “elder” when, like Peter, he addresses elders of a church (pastors); John is not addressing such elders. He is “the Presbyter” in the sense that this title belongs only to him. On the theory regarding a Presbyter John who was not the apostle see the remarks in the introduction. If there had been such a person he could not have designated himself “the Presbyter” as is done here and in Third John.
John is “the Presbyter” because the churches gave him this title in an eminent sense as we speak of “the President,” “the Governor,” etc. When they titled John in this manner the churches intended to honor the aged apostle who alone had survived the other apostles. This honor was combined with the recognition of John’s apostolic authority as being that of the one apostle who still remained to guide, teach, and direct the churches. Because he understood it in this sense John accepted the title. When one said “the Presbyter,” all the members of the churches knew who was meant; when here and in Third John John himself writes “the Presbyter,” the readers know who this is. The addition “John” is not only unnecessary but would also be misleading, for it would convey the thought that there were others like him, save that they had other names such as “the Presbyter this,” “the Presbyter that,” but all were equally eminent men. This was not true; there was only this one “the Presbyter,” and there were no others who were to be ranked with him.
This is only the half of it. The other half is the fact that “the Presbyter” fits “a mistress elect and her children” and what is here communicated to them; compare Third John. John is not conveying the apostolic gospel message in these letters so that “the Apostle” or “Apostle of Jesus Christ” would be a proper designation of himself. The special slant of thought which such a title would convey is not the slant wanted in these letters, least of all in this one.
“A mistress” rules her family of “children,” holds them to the Lord’s “commandment.” That is why she is κυρία. As “the Presbyter” John is the director of the many churches found in this entire Asian territory, where also all of them call him “the Presbyter” and acknowledge this his office and authority. As this Presbyter, John directs one of these churches to do what it ought to do as mistress of the family. As “the Presbyter,” we may say as “the one general Pastor of all these churches,” John looks after this one church in which there is trouble and also promises to come to it in person.
John has the same reason for using “the Presbyter” to designate himself that he has for addressing the church as “a mistress elect and her children.” A mistress might refer to slaves. We should remember that in the Roman Empire as at one time in the south of our own country practically all people of means owned slaves. John eliminates such a connotation by at once adding “and her children” to “a mistress,” thus making this congregation a mother of all its members. And yet when John says “a mistress” he indicates that she is not merely an indulgent mother who lets her children do as they please but one who properly controls her children and effectively corrects those who would get out of hand.
There was especially one man of this kind in the congregation, namely Diotrephes (3 John 9). This man had gained some support. In verse 4 John is compelled to write the partitive ἐκ; he cannot say that he has rejoiced greatly because he has found all the children of this mother-mistress walking in what is truth. In Third John we shall see what Diotrephes is doing. We shall see in verse 5, etc., what John is compelled to ask this mistress to do. This congregation had not kept control over its members as a congregation should; it had allowed this Diotrephes to usurp a great deal of the control. One of the children was running things and not the congregation as the κυρία, the mistress.
This explains why John adds the adjective ἐκλεκτὴκυρία, “a chosen mistress,” “a mistress elect.” The Lord himself chose this congregation and all its members (children) to be his own. That choice implies that the congregation shall be true to its divine Lord, and that as a real “mistress” it shall keep all its children in the truth, doing only the Lord’s gospel command, and that it shall not, as Diotrephes did, fall in love with deceivers (verse 7) who were at that time becoming so numerous. To be “chosen” or “elect” means not only to receive and to delight in the Lord’s favor; with this there goes the obligation to act as one who is elect.
Κύριος is our divine “Lord” Jesus Christ; but we do not transfer to the feminine κυρία, this congregation, all that lies in this title of Christ. The thought is not that as κυρία she stands beside our Κύριος as his wife or as his “bride” (νύμφη, Rev. 21:9; 22:17). This imagery refers to the whole Una Sancta. Pietistic language often extends it to individual souls in the most unwholesome manner. Κυρία pertains to τέκνα. The congregation is mistress of its children, is to manage its members aright. In pagan connections this word may be merely “a courteous form of address” as Deissmann, Light, etc., 154, concludes from a pagan letter; but it is not used in this way in these two Christian letters. In them κυρία implies business, serious business, that which the body of the letter presents.
Some have assumed that Second John has no connection with Third John. Thus John is thought to be addressing some woman who has a family of children and to be using kyria as a matter of courtesy (Deissmann is one of these). But why should he, then, call her “elect”? This leads to a discussion as to whether her name was Eklektē or Kyria, Thayer writes the latter “Cyria.” Kyria has been found as a woman’s name; but if this term were a woman’s name in our epistle, the adjective with the article should follow (Gaius is a sample in 3 John 1). Then her children would be only boys, for John proceeds with the masculine οὕς.
If her name was Eklektē, was her sister’s name the same (v. 13)? In v. 4–6 John continues with the singular κυρία; how can he without further ado pass over into the plural in v. 7, etc.? He can do so if “mistress” is a collective and refers to the congregation. Besides all this, a family that has some children that are acting improperly would receive an admonition from the local elders or pastors and not from the apostle who is even coming to this family in person. The heads of our church bodies do not step in to correct this or that woman who has grown lax in managing her boys. This is the local pastor’s work, which he alone can properly perform. Regarding 1 Pet. 5:13 see verse 13 below.
Let us note all the words that are repeated from First John: to love—the truth—to know—to remain—Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father—the commandment—from the beginning—to walk—many deceivers went out into the world—to confess Jesus Christ coming in flesh—the Antichrist—to have the Father and the Son—to fellowship: overwhelming evidence that the same hand wrote both of these letters.
John says that he himself (emphatic ἐγώ) loves the members of this congregation, and not only he but also all who have known the truth, all true Christians. John indicates that this love impels him to write. This is that spiritual love which in First John is made one of the outstanding marks of all true Christians. The antichristian heretics and deceivers have no love for the members of the true church, they try to tear it to pieces. We may, perhaps, here think of 1 John 5:16, 17 (compare James 5:19, 20); John wants to save Diotrephes from the error into which he is lapsing.
Yet this love of John’s is “in connection with truth” (qualitative: with what is truth), namely the gospel (compare 1 John 1:6). It is intelligent, purposeful love that is never separated from the objective verity of the gospel. It would not be the love that the Lord wants and commands (verse 5) if in any way it disregarded the divine, saving truth.
All those who have known the truth (article of previous reference) share with John this love for the members of this congregation. John is writing in behalf of all of them. The whole church is concerned about the spiritual soundness and welfare of every single congregation. John does the writing because he is “the Presbyter.” John describes all these fellow Christians as being those who have known the truth, known it for a long time with its blessed effect upon themselves (γινώσκω), of which also their love is clear evidence. See how John keeps using γινώσκω in First John, and how this weighty verb is to be kept distinct from οἶδα.
2 John 1:2
2 It is “because of, for the sake of this truth remaining in us” that John and all those who know this truth love the members of this congregation and do not want a single one of them to forsake this truth and to fall a prey to the deceivers. “The truth” is “the doctrine” (verses 9, 10), which includes all the words in which the truth is adequately conveyed. The highest concern of all who have come to realize the truth is and ever must be the truth, for thus alone can there be genuine concern for the souls of the members of the church. To ask: “For which should the church be concerned the more, for the truth, the doctrine or confession, or for the souls?” is to make a distinction that may be misleading. The truth remains in us when we realize what it is and thus hold to it. It remains in us when we keep out the deceit.
John mentions the truth three times; he presently adds “the deceivers” and “the deceiver” (verse 7), which is highly significant in regard to Diotrephes and in regard to the body of this brief letter. Not by means of a second participle but with greater emphasis by means of a finite clause John adds that this truth “shall be with us forever.” “Shall be” is not a mere wish; it is the certainty and the assurance of one who knows the truth. John varies the preposition from ἐνἡμῖν to μεθʼ ἡμῶν; the truth remains “in us,” in our hearts, as a possession, and it will be “with us,” in our company, as our constant divine companion. John loves μετά; see it twice in 1 John 1:3. Both phrases are expressive, each in its own way. John includes his faithful readers in the “us.”
2 John 1:3
3 In place of the usual exclamatory “grace to you and peace from God,” etc., John uses a finite sentence and again writes “with us.” This is not a greeting to the readers, it is another certitude and assurance for them, for himself, and for those who have known the truth. There shall, indeed, be in company with us, walking arm in arm with us, “grace, mercy, peace,” and these three “in connection with truth and love,” for the former three can never be separated from the latter two. Grace is God’s undeserved favor toward us sinners; mercy is his pity for those who are in trouble and distress; peace is the well-being that results when grace and mercy are ours. Paul uses these three in the two epistles he wrote to Timothy. Παρά means that the three come to us from the side of God and of his Son.
But there is a point in the repetition of παρά and in the naming of the two Givers: “from God (the) Father and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.” These two are equal (see the exposition of 1 John 5:20). John purposely repeats “the Father” in order to convey fully what he means by Jesus Christ’s being “the Son” of the Father. The antichristian heresy of the deceivers made Jesus the physical son of Joseph, denied the efficacy of his blood, etc. See the introduction to First John and the discussion in 1 John 1:7, “the blood”; 2:2, “expiation”; 2:22, 23. Diotrephes was becoming attached to the deceivers who promulgated this heresy, was beginning to hate John, lodged and entertained the missionaries of these heretics, and closed the doors to missionaries that were sent out by John.
John wants this letter to be read in public in the congregation, a procedure that Diotrephes is not as yet able to prevent. Every word is bound to go home. Who is κύριος in this congregation? The congregation is κυρία and not this church boss Diotrephes! What is this truth that governs all the members of all the churches, for the sake of which they love each other? It is the truth that God is the Father of his Son Jesus Christ and not the Gnostic fiction about God and a mere man Jesus. Why does Diotrephes hate John and John’s missionaries and love the Gnostic proselytes? Because he is giving up the truth. Get the full historical background and let First John and Third John aid you.
The Body of the Letter, v. 4–11
2 John 1:4
4 I was rejoiced greatly because I have found (some) of thy children walking in connection with truth even as we received commandment from the Father.
Ἐχάρην is the second aorist passive: “I was rejoiced,” and not the present active: “I rejoice,” R. V. John speaks of the past; verse 5 shows what he has to say regarding the present. Ὅτι states what caused his joy: “I have found some of thy children walking in connection with truth,” etc. The perfect tense must be iterative, it would otherwise also be an aorist. John does not say how he learned this fact. Some think of a visit, others of reports that reached John. The latter harmonizes with Third John: missionaries who came through the city brought back a report to John about the conditions obtaining in the local church.
John retains the figure of the congregation as a mistress of her children by impressing the fact that all the members are subject to the congregation as children are to their mother. Ἐκτῶντέκνωνσου is partitive: “some of thy children.” Alas, John cannot say πάντατὰτέκνασου, “all thy children.” The partitive does not, however, refer to only a few, for John would then have said τινά, “some”; the partitive makes the impression that only some were found who were not walking in line with truth. “In truth” is qualitative as it was in verse 1: “in what is properly called truth,” and refers to the gospel truth. John’s great joy was caused by all those who were walking (acting, living) according to the gospel as they should. The readers can supply how the unfaithful ones affected John.
We have the parallel passage in 3 John 2, 3, where John says that he was rejoiced because of what the missionary brethren, on returning to John, testified about Gaius’ walking in connection with what is truth. Περιπατοῦντας is, of course, masculine just like οὕς in verse 1 although both refer to the neuter τέκνα. The grammatical gender is properly ignored (R. 713) because “children” is figurative with reference to the members of the church. When it is thought that John is writing to a woman, these masculines are interpreted in various ways. In connection with verse 1 it is thought that John had met only this lady’s sons when he paid a visit to the family. It is not stated why he did not meet the daughters. Others tell us that John met some of the sons in his travels elsewhere. It is said that the daughters had remained at home.
It is said also that ἐκ is not partitive. All of this lady’s sons were faithful to the gospel. This family is regarded as a model family. But did John write to all such families? There were many thousands of them in John’s churches. There were many even in the one congregation where this family had membership. Why a special letter from “the Presbyter” to only this one family? These questions must be answered by those who think that John wrote this letter to a woman.
According to the reports which John had received most of the members of this congregation walked in connection with gospel truth. John emphasizes the source of this truth; it is not necessary to do so in 3 John 3, 4. For the sake of Diotrephes and some others, and so they and the whole congregation may hear it, John adds: “even as we (including all those referred to by the “we” used in verse 3) received commandment from (again παρά) the Father.” By “commandment” John means “the truth” as it tells us what to do: “And this is his commandment (this is what the whole gospel tells us to do) that we believe the name of his Son Jesus Christ and continue to love one another even as he gave us commandment,” 1 John 3:23. These Gnostics with whom Diotrephes was flirting did not have even the Father, for they denied the deity of the Son (1 John 2:23). No wonder that John cannot include Diotrephes and his clique in the congregation among those who have caused him joy. John has a point in every clause. For the third time he writes “Father,” which is directed against the Gnostic delusion.
2 John 1:5
5 And now I am requesting thee, mistress, not as writing to thee a new commandment, but which we had from the beginning that we love one another. And this is this love, that we walk according to his commandments. This is the commandment even as you heard it from the beginning, that in this we should walk.
“Now” is temporal; from the aorist John turns to the present. He is now coming to this congregation with a request which as “the Presbyter” he has a full right to make. It is here made to the congregation in a direct form: “I am requesting thee, mistress.” In ἐρωτάω there lie dignity and due formality. You may imagine how this sounded when it was read before the whole congregation. That title κυρία has significance as it is now repeated. The congregation is the mistress, and no boss such as Diotrephes has the right to dictate to the members. Our versions fail to make a proper distinction when they translate both παρακαλῶ and ἐρωτῶ “beseech.” Whereas the German bitten is correct as a translation of the latter (C.-K. 452), we agree with Trench to the extent that the word bears a certain gravity or dignity and thus fits the κυρία whom John addresses.
Thus also John inserts: “not as writing to thee a commandment (that is) new, καινήν (over against an old one that it is to supersede)”; no, only the one “which you had (all along) from the beginning” (see 1 John 2:7). This phrase is found also in 1 John 2:24; 3:11 and needs no article in the Greek. It is the commandment which the Father gave us through his Son Jesus Christ, which God himself made basic for all who know the truth (verse 1). It is not one that has been newly invented by John.
Ἵνα states what this commandment is. This clause is an accusative appositional clause (R. 992, 699): “that we love one another” (1 John 3:11). John properly words this in the first person plural. It pertains to all of us, to John, to this congregation and all its members, and to all Christians everywhere. “That you love one another” is thus included; but to have worded it in this form would not be nearly as effective as to write “that we love.” The clause does not depend on ἐρωτῶ but is appositional to ἥν. John leaves “I am requesting” without a formal grammatical object, yet we see that what he requests is the observance of this divine commandment of love. Observe the repetition of “commandment,” which recalls the repetitions found in 1 John 2:3–8.
2 John 1:6
6 John defines “the love” that is referred to in this commandment which his readers had had ever since they became Christians; ἵνα is again appositional. It is this, “that we walk according to his (the Father’s) commandments.” Loving one another is not one doing of one commandment among many others; it is doing all God’s commandments. But we should not think of the Mosaic law but of the gospel and of what it asks of us. We are walking in the whole gospel when we love one another as brethren in Jesus Christ, God’s Son. Love itself is hidden in the heart, and thus John writes “that we walk,” this love displays itself in our walk, in word and in deed. John repeats and thus emphasizes this word.
This is “the love” referred to, and thus “this is the commandment even as you heard from the beginning (compare 1 John 3:11) that in it (in this commandment) you walk (or should walk)”; ἵνα introduces a nominative clause which is the predicate after “is.” To love is to walk; the commandment is to walk, to carry out the commandment itself in word and in act. “Little children, let us not be loving with word neither with the tongue, but in deed and truth,” 1 John 3:18.
John changes from the comprehensive “we” to the specific “you.” It is done by means of the verbal ending without the use of the Greek pronouns, which use would be emphatic and inject a contrast that is wholly improper here where “you” are only a part of “we,” and we refers to all Christians everywhere, you, the members of this one congregation, naturally being included in their number. The view that a single family, a mother and her children, is referred to again proves untenable in this passage.
A look at 1 John 3:23 answers the view that faith and doctrine are immaterial, that love apart from these is the whole of Christianity. Look at 1 John 4:9, 10 and see what the love of God is. This love of his is to fill our hearts, and our love is to be according, is with its roots to rest in all that God gave us in his love, in the whole gospel. Lose any of it, and you destroy some of the roots, take away their soil. The plant cannot flourish, it wilts. Love to one another is walking in all that God’s love wants of us. Love to one another is the flower and the fruit that presuppose the whole plant down to its lowest roots, presuppose the whole soil in which these roots live.
How all this applies to Diotrephes and to his clique is plain. He hated John himself although John was an apostle; he closed the door of hospitality to John’s missionaries, threatened the members who would receive them, and opened the door to Gnostic proselyters. In this way Diotrephes walked. What this indicated regarding his relation to the Father, to Jesus, his Son, about his faith and his doctrine, is certainly clear. John rightly treats this opposition according to the open evidence that it has furnished, which the entire congregation also sees and knows. From this he advances to the confession of faith and to the doctrine.
John does not name Diotrephes in this letter to the congregation. John is not settling with the opposition by means of this letter; he is coming in person to do that (verse 12; 3 John 9, 10). In this short letter John lays down the basis on which he will attend to Diotrephes.
2 John 1:7
7 Because many went out into the world, those not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in flesh. This is the deceiver and the Antichrist. Ὅτι introduces an independent sentence just as we, too, use “because.” It states the reason that John is writing all this. In 1 John 4:1 he says: “Many pseudo-prophets have gone out into the world”; here he calls them “deceivers” and uses the simple aorist. Not content to be deceived themselves, these men cannot rest until they have deceived others, as many as possible. They do not bother pagans; their prey are true Christians. “Into the world” means far and wide in the world, wherever they find Christians. They “went out” means from their leader Cerinthus, from his headquarters; some take it that they went out from the devil, the arch-deceiver.
“Deceivers” is made definite: “those not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in flesh.” Compare 1 John 4:1, 2. John summarizes the deception of Cerinthus. He denied the deity and the incarnation of Jesus Christ. We have sketched this earliest form of Gnosticism in the introduction to First John. Not to confess = to deny (1 John 2:23), and to deny is to lie. In 1 John 4:2 we have ἐνσαρκὶἐληλυθότα, the perfect participle, “as having come in flesh” (incarnate, John 1:14); here we have ἐρχόμενονἐνσαρκί, “as coming in flesh,” although the participle is present in form it is really timeless.
Cerinthus did not deny that Jesus was a man; he regarded Jesus as the physical son of Joseph and of Mary. He denied the coming in flesh, the fact that in Jesus Christ we have the eternal Son of God, born of the Virgin, whose blood (1 John 1:7) is the expiation for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2; 4:9, 10), and that “this One is the real God and life eternal” (1 John 5:20).
After saying “many deceivers” John adds: “This is the deceiver and the Antichrist.” This is scarcely a distributive singular; it makes all these deceivers one awful deceiver who as “the deceiver” is also “the Antichrist,” the great opponent and enemy of Christ. By this singular John does not refer to the devil although a connection with the devil is involved (1 John 3:10). We read this in the light of 1 John 2:18, 19: “the Antichrist” is already present in these many deceivers, these many forerunners of the great Antichrist (2 Thess. 2).
The greatness of the danger is thus made plain. Diotrephes is flirting with the great foe of Christ as he roamed about in the world at that time. This is the way in which he loves the brethren, this is what his hostile actions toward John and toward the gospel missionaries mean. John does not say this outright, he will do so when he comes in person in order to confront Diotrephes.
2 John 1:8
8 Look to yourselves lest you destroy what you have wrought but that you may receive full reward. The danger calls for a warning, the more so since Diotrephes has been giving hospitality to some of these deceivers. The two subjunctive aorists are effective: “may not actually destroy but may actually receive.” We prefer the reading “what you have wrought.” We use the perfect in English; the Greek is satisfied with its aorist (R. 842, etc.). John refers to the heavenly reward or pay, the word matches the idea of having worked. It is the reward of grace which is mentioned in Luke 19:17, 19. It will certainly be “full” to overflowing.
Diotrephes is destroying and tearing down what he and the congregation have accomplished by their spiritual upbuilding and by their missionary success. It is plain what the end of that would be. The eternal reward is at stake and no less.
2 John 1:9
9 John states the matter in a simple and a general form. Everyone going ahead and not remaining in the doctrine of Christ has not God; the one remaining in the doctrine, this one has both the Father and the Son. There is no exception either way. A few texts that did not understand προάγων substitute παραβαίνων, which the A. V. version adopts: “whosoever transgresseth.” Some of the interpretations show that προάγων is still not understood. It is not ironical and does not refer to an advance to higher knowledge as the Gnostics claimed to have advanced.
One article is used with the two participles. “To go ahead” means “not to remain”; when one remains he stays right where he is. Leaping forward (πρό) from a safe place to one that is wholly unsafe is folly. See how John rings the changes on “remain” in 1 John 2:24–28.
Διδαχή = “doctrine” (A. V. is correct); “teaching” (R. V.) would be διδασκαλία. “Of Christ” is the subjective genitive: the doctrine Christ taught and still teaches through his apostles. John 1:18. This word does not occur in First John, but its equivalents, “the light, the truth, the Word,” are found. “The doctrine,” like “the Word,” means that the truth is put into words which we hear (verse 6), and so the truth comes to be taught, realized and apprehended (γινώσκειν, verse 1), which means “believed,” trusted.
Much is being said about “doctrine.” People say that they do not want doctrine, and preachers try to accommodate them. Do we not want the truth, the great facts and realities about God, about Christ, and about ourselves, to be put into the proper words so that we may hear, realize, and believe them? Do we want sophisticated myths (fables), 2 Pet. 1:16?
No matter in what direction one goes forward and does not remain in the doctrine of Christ, “he has not God” although he may shout ever so loudly, “I know him!” (1 John 2:4). This is the great delusion. 1 John 2:23. God, the real God (1 John 5:20), is found only in Christ (John 14:9, 11; 10:30), hence only in the doctrine of Christ (John 1:18). John does not need to add “and has not Christ” because he who forsakes Christ’s doctrine certainly also forsakes Christ.
The one remaining in the doctrine, this one (οὗτος), this one alone, “has both the Father and the Son.” By having the one he has the other; a separation of the two is impossible. To have them is to have salvation. Not for nought does John say “has not God” and now “has both the Father and the Son.” These Gnostics imagined that they had “God,” but in their estimation he was not “the Father” of “the Son”; to true believers in Christ and in his doctrine God is “the Father” of “his Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 1:3).
2 John 1:10
10 In the light of v. 7–9 John writes: If one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house and do not say to him: Greetings! For the one saying to him: Greetings! fellowships his works, the wicked ones.
John uses the condition of reality. These conditions use οὑ as the negative. Hence no special force is to be sought in the use of this negative. All conditions exist only in the mind of the writer, who may conceive them as really taking place or as likely to take place (expectancy) or as not having taken place (past unreality) or as not taking place now (present, unreality). In view of 3 John 10 we feel entitled to say that Diotrephes had been doing what John here forbids, had been vilifying John, showing John’s missionaries the door, welcoming the itinerant proselyters of Cerinthus, lodging them himself or getting them lodgings among the members. Speaking to the whole congregation, John forbids this very thing.
When one of these proselyters comes, one who is a proselyter because he does not bring “this doctrine” of Christ but a different doctrine, no matter what it may be, brings it in order to spread it among the congregation and thus shows that he is a proselyter: do you not take him into the house in order to supply him with a base for his operations, do not even greet him with χαίρειν: “Happiness to thee!” or: “Joy to thee!” wishing him well in his work. The present imperatives forbid this course of action.
2 John 1:11
11 John states why this is never to be done. The person who even as much as offers this greeting fellowships this proselyter’s works. John adds the adjective with a second article: “the wicked ones,” which is like an apposition and a climax (R. 776). Reason enough!
Χαίρειν was the common greeting on meeting or on parting. We have it in three letters, Acts 15:23; 23:26; James 1:1. Here the sense is: Do not even give the proselyter this greeting! Already this makes you a participant in the wicked works for which he has come. John does not refer only to the farewell greeting, when the proselyter leaves his host’s house, but to a greeting of any nature.
Smith calls John’s prohibition “unchristian counsel, contrary to the spirit and teaching of our Lord,” and appeals to Mark 9:38, 39; Luke 9:51–56; Matt. 13:28, 29 as though these passages permit us to furnish proselyters a home base for their operations in our midst and to wish them joy in what John calls their wicked works with the emphasis on wicked. Others speak of what was necessary in John’s time, of the modern change of manners, of the greater tolerance of the present, and the like.
The feature that is overlooked is the fact that John is speaking of proselyters who seek entrance among Christians in order to do their proselyting among them. Where does the spirit of Christ bid or allow us to furnish them a home while they work at this wicked business and to wish them well when they come in order to do this work? Where does Christian ethics countenance anything of this kind? The doors of the homes of a Christian congregation cannot be barred too tightly against such spiritual poisoners; they cannot be met at the door with too stern a rebuff. Those who speak about the tolerance noted above would in a given case themselves bar out such nefarious proselyters just as John here tells his readers to do.
To what extent do John’s words affect men who are not proselyters? To none. As occasion offers, we do any man a kindness. We do not even ask what he believes or whether he has a religious belief at all. I may take a Jew, a Mohammedan, a heathen, a tramp, a beggar under my roof; I may bid the time of day to any and to all men. But a notorious proselyting errorist?
Do you as a true believer want even the least fellowship with his works? If he, because of your even kindly wishing him well, succeeds in snaring even one humble Christian, can you answer to God for your kindly wish? John’s admonition: “Look to yourselves!” should make us wary. The state locks up murderers, thieves, criminals as a matter of protection. Is the church to aid and abet spiritual murderers and thieves? Not for one moment, all maudlin sentiment in the state and in the church to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Conclusion, v. 12, 13
2 John 1:12
12 Though having many things to write to you, I did not want to by means of paper and ink; but I am hoping to get to you and to speak mouth to mouth in order that your joy may be as having been filled.
Compare 3 John 13, 14a. This matter regarding Diotrephes is best handled face to face (3 John 10). Since John is able to proceed to this congregation, and to do that immediately (3 John 14), he has resolved not to settle matters in writing but gives notice of his coming. The fact that all these “many things” to which John refers are not a lot of diverse things, but that all revolve about the issue indicated in this letter, on which 3 John 9–12 casts light, need not be argued.
John is not making an excuse but is giving information. We may regard ἠβουλήθην as an epistolary aorist (R. 846). Χάρτης is a sheet of papyrus paper. This word is found often in the papyri. The supposition that John is so old that he cannot write well is unwarranted since he had amanuenses a plenty; he could travel, which called for bodily strength in those days. Homiletic reflections on how much better it is to settle things mouth to mouth, how often things that seemed amiss are thus found to be all right, are out of place. John’s coming to talk face to face refers to what Diotrephes may expect according to 3 John 10.
John is coming to unhorse this congregational boss. That is one thing; the other is the fact that no more proselyters will be received by this or by any other man in the congregation.
When John says that it is his purpose that “your joy may be as having been filled” he speaks to the general membership. The conduct of Diotrephes has been lessening the joy which all the faithful members found in their church life. Full joy must be theirs. John will bring it. He will once more be able to send gospel missionaries with recommendations to the entire church, and no one will say them nay. The participle is a predicate to the copula and is not a part of the periphrastic tense. When John completes his mission in the congregation he will leave enduring joy behind him.
2 John 1:13
13 There salute thee the children of thy sister, the elect one, all the members of the church in whose midst John is writing, which we take to be Ephesus. By calling this church “thy sister” John means that this church in Ephesus is also full mistress in her domain. Although as “the Elder” he resides in this congregation, and because of this fact, there is no boss there to lessen joy. By calling this Ephesian κυρία “the elect one” (note the emphasis conveyed by the second article) John stresses the high position and the obligation that belong to both congregations, each is equally “a mistress elect” of the Lord.
Soli Deo Gloria
R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.
C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.