2 John 1
Woods2 John 1:1-4
ADDRESS AND
1 The elder–The apostle John. For the grounds which prompt to the view that the author of this Epistle was the apostle John, see the Introduction. Numerous reasons may be assigned why the writer styled himself “the elder” (ho presbuteros). He was, in point of years, an exceedingly old man when he wrote this missive, and the relationship which he sustained to his read-ers was that of a father counseling his children. Inasmuch as the article appears before “elder,” emphasis is given to the writer as a person, rather than to an official position. He is here called an elder because he was an old man.
Unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth; and not I only, but also all they that know the truth.–Second John is thus addressed to “the elect lady and her children,” identified as individuals whom John loved “in truth,” as well as all others who knew the truth. Much diversity of opinion exists regarding the person or persons thus addressed. The words, “elect lady,” are translated from the Greek phrase, eklekte (elect) kuria (lady), and this circumstance has led some to the conclusion that one or the other of these terms should be regarded as a proper name, some assuming that the phrase should be translated “the lady Eclecte,” and others, “the elect Cyria.” Thus translated, the woman’s name is designated by the apostle, being either Eclecte, or else, Cyria, depending on which of the terms is regarded as the proper name.
Cyria is the English spelling of the Greek kuria, and, etymologically, means lady. This, however, alone considered, is not significant, since all Bible names mean something, viz., Jacob, “supplanter”; Israel, “one who prevails with God”; Jesus, “Saviour.” On the assumption that either eklekte or kuria is to be regarded as a proper name, the presumption is that it is the latter, rather than the former, inasmuch as the choice must be between “the lady Eclecte” or “the elect Cyria,” and women are never called ladies in the New Testament. The word “kuria” (lady) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament (other than in this Epistle), though the word woman, often. Moreover, in 1 Peter 5:13, there is a similar reference to an elect sister where, obviously, an individual, though not named, is designated. The marginal reading in the American Standard Version supports the view that the sister addressed by the apostle was named Syria.
Others have thought that a church is thus figuratively desig-nated by the apostle, using the allegory of a woman in keeping with the mystical use of Revelation 12. This, however, is highly im-probable. To reach this conclusion, one must translate the Greek word kuria as “lady”, interpret, the word “lady” as a church, and then construe the Greek word tekna, children, as members of the church! Only in the highly figurative portions of the scriptures is the church ever referred to as a woman; and it seems very un-likely that the apostle, in this brief treatise, should have used the word thus figuratively. Moreover, other serious difficulties in the way of such a rendering are immediately apparent. If the “lady” was the church, who were the children of the lady addressed?
The church has no existence apart from those who constitute its mem-bership. The elect lady had a sister who also had children. (Verse 13.) On the assumption that the elect lady was the church, and her children the members of the church, who then was the sister, and what did she and her children represent? From all the facts in the case, the preponderance of evidence seems logical to lead to the conclusion that the terms under consideration are to be literally interpreted that the elect lady was some faithful sister known to John; and that she may have borne the name Cyria. More than this it is not possible to know.
Little biographical information is available regarding this woman, and only that which the Epistle contains. From it we learn that she was a faithful disciple of the Lord that John felt much affection for her and her children; that she was the mother of several children, some of whom were equally faithful; and that she was given to hospitality. The apostle expected soon to visit her, though whether he later did does not appear. Inasmuch as no mention is made of her husband, it would seem to be a reasonable hypothesis that he was either dead, or else an unbeliever.
John loved this sister and her children “in truth,” i.e., sincerely, genuinely, truly. (Cf. 1 John 3:18.) He loved them for their inherent worth, for their devotion to the cause of Christ, because they were Christians. So well known was this sister’s faithfulness and loyalty, others were drawn to her, and likewise loved her. From verse 10 we learn that she was accustomed to receiving teachers of the word into her home, and this thus provided occa-sion for a wider acquaintance among the saints than otherwise would have existed.
Here, again, emphasis is given to a matter which often recurs in the apostle’s writings, viz., that the fellowship of love is as wide as the fellowship of faith. All who know (hoi egnokotes, perfect active participle, who learned and have come to know the truth), love those equally possessed. It is the communion of love, and is as extensive as the communion of faith. Inasmuch as Jesus is the embodiment of “the truth,” one does no injustice to the text to substitute for the word “truth,” Christ. He is, indeed, the way, the truth, and the light.
2 For the truth’s sake which abideth in us, and it shall be with us for ever:–Here the reason is assigned why all who know the truth, love those in truth: it is for “the truth’s sake which abideth in us.” John loved this faithful sister and the children embraced in the address, not because of an unusual attractiveness which they may have possessed, nor for any personal charm they may have exhibited, but because of the truth which dwelt both in him and in them. It is a vivid and impressive description of the reason for the love each faithful disciple feels for all other disciples. It was the truth which abode in them all which supplied the occa-sion for the love thus expressed. Only those who have love for the truth love in truth. This truth which had settled down and made its home in them (meno) would, the apostle confidently be-lieved, abide thus with them forever. Despite the opposition which the truth engendered, the difficulties which beset their way, and the antagonism of ungodly men, John assured them that the truth would find its true home in them forever.
3 Grace, mercy, peace shall be with us,–Grace is the principle on which God extends mercy and peace, and hence must ever precede them. Grace has reference to the transgressions of man, mercy to the misery which such transgressions produce, and peace to the contentment and serenity which obtain as the result of the operation of grace and mercy and their appropriation through obedience to the Lord’s commandments. God’s free grace is ex-tended to men in their sins, and his mercy rids them of the misery which a consciousness of sin produces. Peace is the resultant state where grace and mercy have operated. The words together con-stitute a common greeting which, with variations, often occurs in the New Testament. (Romans 1:7; 1 Timothy 1:2; 2 Timothy 1:2.) For the significance of the terms used as a greeting, see the notes on 1 Peter 1:2. Grace (chars) evidences the state of God’s mind toward the sinner; mercy (eleos), the act of love and peace (eirene), the gift of love–the effect resulting from grace and mercy.
These terms marvelously reveal the wondrous scope of God’s goodness to man from the beginning to the end. Grace suggests the first approach, the loving disposition on the part of the great Jehovah to supply the means of salvation to a rebellious and recreant race. Mercy is grace expressing itself in action, and peace is the blessed condition of heart redeemed by blood and restored by grace to the status of reconciliation.
From God the Father, and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father,–Repetition of the word from here, is indicative of the twofold relation which man sustains to the Father and to the the Son of the Father. It was the function of the Son to reveal the Father (John 1:18); i.e., to make him known. .Since the advent of the Son into the world, it is not possible for man to plead that God is unknowable. The blessings of grace, mercy, and peace spring from God, the Father, and Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. They may be obtained from no other source.
In truth and love.–Grace, mercy, and peace flow out to man in truth and love, keynote words of the Epistle, and embodying the two things nearest the heart of the “apostle of love.” John would have his readers ever to remain faithful to the truth which they had received, and to display always the love which issues from that truth. The word “truth” occurs five times in the second Epistle, six times in the third.
4 I rejoice greatly that I have found certain of thy children walking in truth,–Literally rendered, the words with which this verse begins would be rendered, “I rejoiced greatly” (echaren lian, second aorist passive of chairo), but the translators rightly regarded the verb as an “epistolary aorist,” and thus translated by the English present. This idiom of the Greek verb represents the action as taking place from the viewpoint of the receiver of the letter and is thus properly rendered in this fashion.
It was an occasion of much rejoicing to the apostle that he had found “certain” of this woman’s children “walking in truth.” “I have found (heureko, perfect active indicative of heurisko), cf. our English word, eureka), suggests that John had chanced to see these children of the sister to whom he wrote, and from personal knowledge was able to say that they were walking in truth. Does the implication follow that certain others of her children were not walking in truth? Some expositors think so. This conclusion, however, does not necessarily follow, and appears to be opposed to the great joy which the apostle expressed. Had he been aware that other children of this faithful sister were ungodly, this would have tempered the joy which he felt at the faithfulness of others. We are justified in assuming no more than what appears on the surface of the text: with some of this woman’s children John had come in contact.
They were walking in truth. In this he found great satisfaction; and with joy he communicated this fact to their mother, assured that she would be glad to know that her children, away from home, and in the midst of ungodly influences, were faithful to her teaching. With reference to other children which she had, no mention is made, and for the probable reason that the apostle was not in possession of any information regarding their present manner of life.
These children were “walking” (peripatountas) in truth, a term which, in the scriptures, is often used to indicate manner of life or behaviour. It denotes not only action, but habitual action, and progress toward a goal. It was just such everyday conduct on the part of these children that brought joy and satisfaction to the heart of the great apostle.
This interesting circumstance, of an apostle writing a note to a faithful sister, and rejoicing with her over the faithfulness of her children, is wonderfully revealing, in that it indicates a tender, personal touch characteristic of the relationship which obtained between the early saints. It is just such a circumstance as has been duplicated again and again, through the years, by gospel preachers and Christian families. Countless letters have been written through the centuries by the faithful to each other in which joys, sorrows, and the circumstances of life have been shared in Christian love and sympathy. Other than the fact that this woman to whom John wrote was a faithful member of the church, she was not otherwise distinguished. The family was, by the world’s standard, only ordinary people, not unlike millions of others about them; and yet, they were Christians, and being Christians, were worthy of the notice and commendation of an apostle of Christ.
Even as we received commandment from the Father.–I.e., to walk in truth. The children of this sister in “walking in truth” were carrying out the commandment which they had received from the Father to walk in this manner. “And this is the message which we have heard from him and announce unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in the darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” (1 John 1:5-7.) “And hereby we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” (1 John 2:4.) “Beloved, no new commandment write I unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning: the old commandment is the word which he heard.” (1 John 2:7.)
2 John 1:5-6
5 And now I beseech thee, lady,–“And now,” i.e., on the basis of what has just been written by the apostle, “I beseech thee . . .” “Beseech” is translated from eroto, a stronger word than our English word beseech. It is a petition, but such a peti-tion as one has a right to make, a right in this instance based on the law of love. “Lady” (kuria, vocative case) raises again the question of verse 1: Is the noun kuria a proper name, or not? If it is, then this is an instance of direct address: “I beseech thee, Cyria . . .” If it is not, again reference is made to a “lady” not otherwise identified. For additional details in the matter, see the comments on verse 1 of this Epistle.
Not as though I wrote to thee a new commandment, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one an-other.–The design of all of God’s commandments is that we should love one another, since love is the fulfilling of the law. The love which the commandment requires is not a new commandment, but one which had been repeatedly emphasized from the beginning, i.e., from the beginning of the gospel of Christ. It will be observed that the plural pronoun “we” indicates John’s awareness of equal responsibility in the obligation. This duty, the apostle often heard from the lips of the Lord: “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” (John 13:34-35.) For the reasons why reference is made to commandments both new and old, regarding the obligation of love, see the comments on 1 John 2:7-8.
The two great keynotes of John’s writings become manifest: love and duty. The one issues in the other; love prompts to the keeping of the commandments. “For this is the love of God that we should keep his commandments.” (1 John 5:3.) Emotion, unrelated to obedience, is worse than useless. Love in the absence of obedience, degenerates into fanaticism ; duty without love is cold formalism. Where love does not exist, the keeping of God’s commandments is irksome and hard. To the faithful, the keeping of his commandments is not grievous, because love, makes them light.
This is the commandment, even as ye heard from the be-ginning, that ye should walk in it.–(See 1 John 2:7-11; 1 John 3:23-24.) Brotherly love and obedience to God are inseparable; the one fails in the absence of the other. “We love, because he first loved us. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar; for he that loveth not his brother whom he bath seen cannot love God whom he bath not seen. And this commandment have we from him that he who loveth God love his brother also.” (1 John 4:19-21.) The phrase, “this is the commandment,” designates the obligation we have to love one another, and is singled out because it serves as the basis for all the other commandments. Jesus said, “if ye love me, ye will keep my commandments. . . .He that bath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me:and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him.” (John 14:21.)
2 John 1:7-11
7 For many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh.–The preposition “for,” with which this verse begins, obviously links the thought which it contains with that which immediately precedes. The meaning, expanded, runs, It is imperative that you be joined together in love and allow this love to issue in Christian conduct, always keeping the commandments which have been given. To do so is to erect the strongest possible barriers against error. That there is an ever-present threat of it is obvious from the fact that many deceivers are gone forth into the world. The word “deceiv-ers” (planoi) suggests the idea of wanderers, rovers, moving about for the purpose of seducing and leading astray those whom they induce to accept their teaching. (Cf. 1 Timothy 4:1 ff.) These de-ceivers had gone forth as roving bands, their motive being to de-ceive, delude, lead- the saints away from the faith. The fact that some were said to have gone forth from the disciples (1 John 2 18) establishes the presumption that these here referred to may have been the apostates there described, though the verb “gone forth” may mean no more than that they regarded the world as the field in which to propagate their doctrine, and were thus industriously extending their efforts.
These deceivers were those who “confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh.” To “confess not” is the equivalent of deny-ing that Jesus had come in the flesh, and this they were doing. “Cometh” is translated from a present participle in the original text, and reveals that the apostle regarded the incarnation as a continu-ing fact, the denial of which made one a deceiver and false teacher. John did not mean by this that Jesus was yet in the flesh; though in his glorified state when these words were penned, the truth of the incarnation yet remained, and shall ever do so, and to deny it is to repudiate the truth. Judaism denied that Jesus had come in the flesh; Gnosticism, the current heresy of the time when John wrote, denied that he could come in the flesh. Either doctrine was heretical, and the propagators thereof deceivers.
This is the deceiver and the anti-Christ.–For the characteristics and identity of the anti-Christ, see the comments on 1 John 2:18; 1 John 2:22; 1 John 4:3. In the text here, as in the passages in which the term anti-Christ occurs, it will be seen that the apostles sometimes refers to many anti-christs, and again to but one. The great anti-christ was the symbol, the representative of the class whose spirit, disposition, design the others adopted. The anti-Christ is the head of the apostate church–the church of Rome–and all who teach false doctrine, however much they may differ in detail in their teaching, or oppose one another in their actions, are one in their opposition to the Lord and the cause for which he died. Of what consequence is it that men array themselves against each other in minor details when together they form a solid phalanx against the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ our Lord? How quickly do men resolve their differences of a denominational nature when they are confronted with a genuine representative of the truth!
The denominational world has ever recognized the church of the Lord as a common enemy; and where it is active, they have disregarded their own distinctive interests to form a common front against the truth. The spirit of the anti-Christ is the motivating factor in every false teacher.
8 Look to yourselves, that ye lose not the things which we have wrought, but that ye receive a full reward.–“Look to yourselves,” i.e., take an introspective view into your own hearts and test the defences which you have against such in order that you may be sure you will not succumb to the allurements of these teachers and so lose the things wrought out by the apostles. That which was wrought out by the apostles was the gospel delivered through them by means of the Holy Spirit to the people to whom they preached. Taught here in emphatic fashion is, (1) the possi-bility of apostasy; (2) the importance of constant and careful self-examination (3) the vital necessity of ceaseless vigilance against the blandishments of the evil one. That which this faithful sister stood in danger of losing was the most priceless possession she had: the salvation of her soul. The admonition is equally applic-able to us today. Our first and paramount concern should be our own standing before God, and this is to be maintained only by an unswerving adherence to his will and way as taught in the scrip-tures. Any threat thereto, such as these false teachers posed, should be rejected speedily and permanently.
9 Whosoever goeth onward and abideth not in the teaching of Christ, bath not God:–Verse 8, immediately preceding this, warns of the loss to be sustained in listening to the false teachers and “deceivers” mentioned in verse 7. Here, the loss is identified and explained: it is the loss of God himself! Whosoever goes onward and abides not in the teaching of Christ “hath not God!” The verbs “goeth onward” and “abideth not” are descriptive of the same act:the first presents it positively, the second, negatively. The “teaching of Christ” here is not teaching about Christ, or teaching which is Christian in substance or nature; it is the teaching which Christ did personally and through those whom he inspired. It is the teaching of Christ, because he is, in the final analysis, its author, and from him it issued. It is thus an infallible standard, and no deviation from it is possible without apostasy.
To go onward and not abide in this teaching is to lose God. The verb “goeth onward” is from the Greek proago, to progress. The meaning thus is: Whosoever becomes progressive and abides not in the teaching of Christ hath not God. Men often boast that they are progressive, and movements religious have arisen both in and out of the church through the years whose watchword and slogan was progressiveness. Progress is good only when it is in the direction of Christ, and not away from him; and in some matters it is far preferable to be non-progressive, particularly in not going beyond what the Lord has said. Any movement which is away from the teaching of Christ is progress in the wrong direc-tion, and results eventually in the loss of God himself.
The price of a sound church is a pure faith and a faultless practice; and this may be had only by faithful adherence to the truth as it is in Christ Jesus. We must ever be on our guard against any semblance of departure from that which is written, whether in teaching or prac-tice; and we should remember always that the teaching of Christ and his apostles constitute the only safe and all-sufficient rule of faith and practice for the saints of God.
He that abideth in the teaching, the same hath both the Father and the Son.–This is the same thought as that of the clause preceding, but stated positively, and with the addition of the phrase, “and the Son.” (Cf. 1 John 2:23.) “He that abid-eth” (ho menon, keeps on abiding) in the teaching (of Christ), is the individual who recognizes the inviolate character of the teach-ing and veers neither to the right nor left of it. He regards the teaching of Christ (and that continued through his apostles) as the complete deposit of truth for this dispensation to which noth-ing more will be added, and from which nothing may be taken, and which is, therefore, the infallible standard of Christianity. He who recognizes this, and abides in it faithfully, has both the Father and the Son. There is such an intimate relationship sub-sisting between the Father and the Son that to have one is to have the other. Conversely, he who has not the one cannot have the other. And, one has neither when he fails to adhere steadfastly to the teaching of Christ.
Modernism, under the guise of progressiveness, is shrewd and adroit in its method of approach. It begins by reminding us that we live in the twentieth century, not the first; that conditions have changed and in our day necessitate a different and modernized approach; that the New Testament was never intended to be a stereotyped arrangement for all succeeding ages; and that “sanc-tified common sense” must be utilized in adapting its message to our time.
We should regard with grave suspicion anyone who would disparage the value of the New Testament or lessen its influence in any way for our time. All such should be solemnly reminded of Paul’s warning to the fickle Galatians: “I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel: which is not another gospel only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.” (Galatians 1:6-8.)
10 If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house, and give him no greeting:–The Greek construction here (indicative with ei), presents an actual case, and not a hypothetical one, as would have been indicated by can with the subjunctive. The meaning is, “When one comes to you bringing not this teaching, receive him not into your house, and give him no greeting. “This teaching” is the teaching of Christ, the teaching in which we must abide, and beyond which we must not progress, if we are to possess God. (Verse 9.)
In the first century, accommodations were few, and the. means to obtain them often non-existent on the part of the teachers and preachers of the word. Moreover, there was the obligation to extend Christian hospitality (Romans 12:13), as well as the natural desire to share their fellowship. The faithful sister to whom John wrote, of a benevolent disposition, possessed of a home, and evi-dently with sufficient means to entertain visitors, would occasion-ally be faced with the problem of deciding whether the teachers who came her way and who would claim her hospitality were worthy or not. The test which the apostle supplied her to use in such instances was this: Do they advocate the teaching of Christ? (verse 9), and particularly, Do they confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh? If not, she was not to receive them into her house; she was to show no hospitality to them; she was not so much as to give them greeting. The greeting was “Chairo!” lit-erally, goodspeed or Godspeed. This greeting was more than mere formality; it was an approval of the course being pursued by the one thus greeting, and included a desire for success in the effort attempted.
11 For he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works.–And thus the reason why no such greeting should be extended to the advocates of false doctrine of whom John warned. To do so was to become a party to, and thus to be guilty of, the evil works characteristic of such. The severity of the injunction here given, and the apparent inhospitality which it contains, has led some to question the spirit which prompted it, and to attribute it to the fiery disposition of him who once sought to call down fire from heaven upon a village which treated the Lord with contempt. (Luke 9:51-55.) Such is, of course, to misunderstand what the apostle said, and to misapprehend the circumstances under which he said it.
(1) John does not here forbid hospitality to strangers, or, for that matter, to false teachers when, in so doing, false teaching is neither encouraged nor done. Were we to find a teacher known to be an advocate of false doctrine suffering, it would be our duty to minister to his need, provided that in so doing we did not abet or encourage him in the propagation of false doctrine. (2) What is forbidden is the reception of such teachers in such fashion as to supply them with an opportunity to teach their tenets, to maintain an association with them when such would involve us in the danger of accepting their doctrines. The passage teaches that we must do nothing that would in any way support or encourage the teach-ing of that which is not true. To do so is to share in the guilt of the teachers themselves. The principle here taught may not be legitimately extended to include association or hospitality extended to unbelieving relatives, strangers, or even false teachers when in so doing we do not (a) aid them in their work; (b) lend encour-agement to their efforts; (c) subject ourselves to the danger of corruption from them. The test is, Does one become a partaker by the action contemplated? If yes, our duty is clear we must neither receive them nor give them greeting; if No, the principle here taught is not applicable.
2 John 1:12-13
12 Having many things to write unto you, I would not write them with paper and ink: but I hope to come unto you, and to speak face to face, that your joy may be made full.–There were other matters the apostle desired to write, but for the time being did not deem it expedient, either from the nature of the things in mind, or from the fact that it was his purpose soon to visit with the sister, and thus to communicate them to her face to face. The apostle’s heart was full, and the missive was a hurried one, and he would simply wait until he could see and speak face to face with her of all the matters he had stored up for her.
The “paper” (chartes) was prepared by taking the pith of the papyrus plant, pressing it into sheets and pasting them together. Paper, such as we use, was not invented until comparatively recent times, and long after the apostolic period. The “ink” (melan) was a substance made from mixing soot and water and thickened with gum. While the apostolic epistles were frequently dictated (cf. Romans 16:22), it appears that John must have written this brief communication with his hand. “Face to face” is literally “mouth to mouth” (stoma pros stoma), a phrase also occurring in 3 John 1:14, and indicating personal presence and conversation. This meeting John desired that (1) he might communicate to her the other matters he had in mind, the result of which would be (2) her joy would be full.
13 The children of thine elect sister salute thee.–The sal-utation was from the children of the sister of the woman to whom John wrote. The mother was not included, either from the fact that she was dead, or else lived elsewhere. These children, being in the vicinity of where John was, joined in the salutation (greet-ing) to their aunt. This godly woman, a sister of the one par-ticularly addressed by the apostle, was a Christian, because she is described as “elect,” i.e., called or chosen. (See the comments on 1 Peter 2:4.) No further information regarding her is available, yet from what is said, certain deductions follow: (1) She had reared her children to be Christians, and though apparently dead, her influence lived on in them. (2) She was a mother; not a nun, and thus performed her true function in life. (1 Timothy 2:15.) And though unknown to us by name, she is enrolled in that in-numerable army of the faithful who have lived and served and passed on to the joys of their Lord. Blessed and fortunate indeed will we be if as much may be said of us.