About Jesus   Steve Sweetman

Home Page

               

2 John  

 

 

Biblical text used and quoted in Part Two of this commentary is the Christian Standard Bible (CSB) as seen in the authorization statement below.  Scripture quotations marked CSB have been taken from the Christian Standard Bible®, Copyright © 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission. Christian Standard Bible® and CSB® are federally registered trademarks of Holman Bible Publishers.

 

 

Table Of Contents

 

Preface

 

Authorship Of The Letters

 

About John

 

2 John 1 - 3

 

2 John 4 - 13

 

 

Preface

 

I think that you would agree with me that every page and every book in the Bible is important, but sometimes we ignore the shorter books of the Bible, like the apostle John's two last letters.  Even these shorter books of the Bible have important significance to us, and thus, the reason for this commentary.   

 

John was a very elderly man when he penned these letters, or, had someone else pen them for him.  I would suggest, especially since I am now an elderly man, that any elderly person who still had his mental capacities would have some important things to say in the last years of his life.  The apostle John, the one who Jesus seemed to bond with more than others, did have some things to say that are beneficial for us today. 

 

John, as it has been said, was the disciple whom Jesus loved.  Among other passages that makes this point, John 21:20 reads:

 

"So Peter turned around and saw the disciple Jesus loved [John] following them, the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and asked, 'Lord, who is the one that's going to betray you?'"

 

I don't think Jesus was playing favourites, as we would call it today.  I simply think that Jesus' human personality and John's personality blended together to the degree that they became close, maybe even, best friends.  Jesus loved everyone.  That is why He sacrificed His life, but being completely human as well as being completely divine, He would have naturally had a few best friends, and, it appears to me that John was Jesus' best friend.  That only makes sense, don't you think? 

 

In the following pages I hope to instruct the reader on what John had to say to the recipients of these two letters.  I have already written an exhaustive commentary on John's first letter, which if you have not read, would be worth reading.  It is entitled An Elderly Man Speaks.  Here in January, 2022, I thought, since I had written a commentary on first John, I should finish the task by writing a commentary on second and third John.  My hope and prayer is that you, the reader, will be both instructed and inspired by what you read.

 

Like most all of the New Testament letters, they were written to address certain problems in the church.  John's second and third letter does just that, and that is why I have titled this commentary "Addressing Problems."   

 

 

Authorship Of The Letters

 

There is no real debate among Evangelical Christian Bible scholars over who penned 2 John and 3 John.  It was written by John.  There is, however, debate over which John it was who actually wrote first, second, and third John.  The majority opinion, to which I hold, is that the disciple and apostle of Jesus named John wrote 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, the gospel of John, and the book of Revelation.  The minority opinion is that the "elder John" who was an elder in the church in Ephesus and who was not the apostle John, wrote this letter.  Those holding to this second opinion distinguish between John the apostle, who knew Jesus personally, and John the elder of the church in Ephesus , who lived at the end of the first century.  They claim that there were two different Johns.  

 

I hold to the majority opinion for at least two reasons.  The first reason is that the content of John's three letters and the content of the gospel of John, which most scholars believe was written by the apostle John who personally knew Jesus, are extremely similar in their theology, wording, and content. 

 

The second reason for my opinion is that some early second-century Christian leaders claimed that the apostle John was the elder John who ended up living in the city of Ephesus near the end of the first century.  One early second-century Christian leader was a man named Polycarp (born 69 AD - died 155 AD).  He was a disciple of the apostle John.  Polycarp claimed that John the elder who lived in Ephesus was John the apostle who knew Jesus in person. 

 

Papias was another second-century Christian leader (born 70 AD - died 163 AD).  In his writings he associated the elder John with Peter, James, and other original disciples of Jesus, thus intimating that the elder John (presbyteros in Greek meaning older man) as being the apostle John.   

 

Concerning Papias, you should know that we do not have any of his original writings.  What we do have are quotes of Papias in the writings of Irenaeus (born around 120 AD - died around 202 AD).  Irenaeus was an important Christian apologist in the second century.  By the second half of the second century when Irenaeus wrote his books defending the Christian faith, the majority opinion was that John who was the apostle of Jesus was also the elder John who cared for the Christians in Ephesus .       

 

I have said that John was an elder in the church at Ephesus .  Many say that he was the lead elder in the church of Ephesus .  Traditionally speaking, Bible teachers have often called John the "bishop of Ephesus ."  I do not use the word "bishop" in respect to John because of what I call the "ecclesiastical baggage" concerning that word that stems from the dark age of the church in centuries past, which by the way, is still prevalent in many sectors of the church today. 

 

In today's ecclesiastical terminology, a bishop is a church leader with authority over a large geographical area that includes several congregations.  This is sometimes called "trans-local authority."  I question the idea that John held some kind of official trans-local ecclesiastical authority over a large geographical region.  However, John was certainly well respected across the Christian landscape in those days because he was the last of the original apostles.  For that reason Christians across the known world would have esteemed John above all other church leaders of the day.  However you view this isse is fine with me.  We all can agree that John was one very important Christian leader, if not the most important Christian leader, at the end of the first-century.          

 

 

About John

 

John was a Jew, who in his younger days, lived in the Roman province of Galilee .  The fact that he was both an ethnic Jew and a religious Jew is important.  His Jewish religious heritage is easily seen in what he wrote in his first letter.  Two such religious concepts are the cleansing by blood (1 John 1:7) and atoning sacrifice (1 John 2:2). 

 

1 John 1:7 reads:

 

"If we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin."

 

1 John 2:2 reads:

 

"He himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world."

 

When John penned his three letters he lived in the Roman city of Ephesus .  This fact is also important because many of John's readers would have been Gentiles, and thus, there are Gentile religious concepts that can be seen in John's letters.  One example of this is seen in John telling his readers that there is no fear in love, as seen in 1 John 4:18.  Greco-Roman, religious pagans feared their gods, but this was not to be the case with Christians.  John made it clear that the Christian, especially the Gentile Christian, had no need to be afraid of his God.        

 

1 John 4:18 reads:

 

"There is no fear in love; instead, perfect love drives out fear, because fear involves punishment. So the one who fears is not complete in love."

 

John was one of the original disciples and apostles of Jesus.  He has been forever known as the disciple whom Jesus loved.  He is so known because that is how he described himself in John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 21:7, and 21:20.  Not that Jesus had favourites but it appears to me that Jesus' and John's personalities were such that they became close friends. 

 

John had a brother named James (Matthew 17:1, Mark 5:37).  Matthew 17:1 reads:

 

"After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and his brother John and led them up on a high mountain by themselves."

 

John had a father named Zebedee.  John's father and brothers had a fishing business ass seen in Luke 5:8 and 11 read:    

 

"When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus’s  knees and said, 'Go away from me, because I’m a sinful man, Lord!' For he and all those with him were amazed at the catch of fish they had taken, and so were James and John, Zebedee’s sons, who were Simon’s partners. 'Don’t be afraid,' Jesus told Simon. 'From now on you will be catching people.' Then they brought the boats to land, left everything, and followed him."

 

John outlived all of the other original apostles.  He could easily have been seventy to eighty five years old when he wrote his three letters, and most likely closer to eighty five years old than seventy years old.  This is important because an older person has much wisdom to pass along to the next generation.  Many things an elderly person once thought to be important are no longer important in old age.  Only the real important issues of life are important when you are standing before death's door.  This was especially the case in John's day when an older person was more respected than he or she is today.  So, because John was an elderly man, what he has written needs our undivided attention.           

 

 

2 John 1 - 3

 

The Text

 

1 - The elder: To the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth—and not only I, but also all who know the truth— because of the truth that remains in us and will be with us forever. Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

 

My Commentary

 

Verses 1 and 2 

 

"The elder: To the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth ​— ​and not only I, but also all who know the truth ​— ​ because of the truth that remains in us and will be with us forever."

 

The most common consensus is that John most likely wrote this personal letter somewhere around AD 80 to AD 95.  Although we have three letters written by John called, 1 John, 2 John, and 3 John, we do not know if our ordering of these letters was the order in which John wrote them.      

 

It is quite possible that John wrote a number of these short letters but only three of them have survived for us to read.  We do know for sure that John, did at least, write one more letter that we do not have, as seen in 3 John 9, which reads:

 

"I wrote something to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have first place among them, does not receive our authority."

 

It is clear from 3 John 9 that John wrote a letter that we do not have.

 

In verse 1 John called himself "the elder."  Our English word "elder" is translated from the Greek word "presbyteros" in the original Greek text.  Presbyteros simply means an older man and is used in two ways in the New Testament.  The more common usage of presbyteros simply means an older man.  That being said, presbyteros is also used as a leader in the local expression of church in the New Testament.          

 

In the first-century church, each city had one expression of the universal church with a number of elders overseeing, leading, and caring for the church.  Not one elder led the church.  A number of elders led the church.  Not one pastor cared for God's people.  A plurality of pastors cared for God's people in the local expression of church.  This is called "plurality of elders."  For a much more detailed explanation of the concept of plurality of church leadership, you can read my book entitled "Plurality Of Elders."  

 

John specifically introduced himself as "the elder," as in, possibly a lead elder among a group of elders.  He did not introduce himself as "an elder," as in, one of many elders.   This is somewhat significant.  This question has sometimes been debated over the years.  Was John one of a body of elders or was he a lead elder, that is, the head elder of a local expression of church? 

 

There is some second-century evidence that John was the head elder of the church of Ephesus .  One thing we know for sure, when John wrote this letter, he was an elder in the sense of being an older man, and, an older man that was the last living apostle appointed by Jesus while He was on earth.  This fact alone would have certainly made John one very important church leader back then.  He would have been highly esteemed, not only in Ephesus , but throughout all of the churches in the Roman Empire .      

 

If John was indeed the lead or head elder in the church in the city of Ephesus , this tells me that church structure was beginning a transitional period when it came to church leadership.  It was the apostle Paul who set forth much of New Testament Christian doctrine, and that included his teaching concerning church.  As I detail in my book entitled "Plurality Of Elders," Paul taught that each local expression of church should have a body of older men leading and caring for the local church.  If John was indeed the lead elder of a body of elders, this would have been a departure from Paul's teaching.  Whatever the case, this departure did begin to take place near the end of the first century.  It eventually evolved into what we see in the Dark Age of Roman Catholicism, beginning in the fourth century until it was challenged by the Reformation Movement of the sixteenth century.

 

In short, the original expression of a local church was led by a body of elders.  Near the end of the first century, one man rose to be a lead elder in the local church, and this, in part, was to bring unity to the a progressively divided local church.  That is to say, submission to one man should produce unity in the church. 

 

In and around the end of the second century this one lead elder became God's spokesman to the local church.  In and around the third century this one church leader was not only God's spokesman to the individual believer in the local church, he became the representative of the local church, including individual Christians, to God.  In other words, this one elder became a middle-man between the individual Christian, the church, and God.  This is fundamental to Catholic doctrine.  This effectively did away with the doctrine called the Priesthood of the Believer.  This doctrine states that the individual Christian does not need, or, does not have, an intermediate person between them and God.  To make an elder a middle-man between the Christian and God is pure heresy.  It is not New Testament thinking.  It is an Old Testament concept that no longer exists in these New Testament times.                    

 

John wrote this letter to the "elect lady" and her children.  Our English word "elect" is translated from the Greek word "elektos," which is a derivative of the Greek word "ekklesia."  Both words simply mean chosen, as in, this lady was a chosen lady.  John said nothing concerning who chose this lady.  We assume that he intended his reader to understand that God chose her.  We also don't know if the word "elect," as in chosen, is in reference to this lady being chosen for salvation, chosen as a leader in the local church, or, chosen to a specific service ministry within the church.     

 

The church itself has been chosen by God.  It's a group of people God removed from the world to accomplish His purposes on earth.  Israel of old was a chosen group of people to be in a covenant relationship with God. 

 

The Greek word "ekklesia" is the Greek word that is translated as church in our English New Testament.  I suggest that if you understand the word "church" in our twenty-first century, western-world thinking of church, you will misunderstand how the New Testament defines church.  I do not see too many similarities between the church in the West here in 2022 and what is taught about church in the New Testament.        

 

The lady to whom John was writing, then, was a chosen lady.  Just how we should understand the concept of this lady being chosen is debatable.  Again, did John mean that she, like him and all Christians, have been chosen by God for salvation?  That could well be what John had in mind.   Some Bible teachers, however, think this lady was chosen to be a leader in a local church, and I can easily see that to be the case.  This would make her an elder in the church.  Some might question a lady being an elder at this early stage in church history, and there is some validity in that. 

 

I would suggest, and it is a suggestion, that this lady was chosen for some kind of service or caring ministry in the local church.  This does not mean that she was an official elder, just one with a special service ministry. The content of this letter in my opinion easily suggests that.

 

If this lady was an elder of a local expression of church, this would give some credence to the idea that women could be, or at least were, elders near the end of the first century.  The topic of women elders is addressed in my books entitled "Plurality Of Elders" and "Confirm Your Call To Lead."  I will not get into that discussion here.  It is my thinking at present, that at this early stage in church history the concept of women elders was unknown.   

 

I have just said that this elect lady was a lady, but there are many Bible scholars, and for many valid reasons, suggest that the elect lady is actually a local church, and not a woman.  It was commonplace in the first-century, Greco-Roman world to personalize cities and local churches in terms of femininity.  We often do the same today.  When speaking of America , for example, we will often use the pronoun "she" or "her" in reference to the United States .  At the moment, and I could change my mind in the future, I see this lady as a human lady and not a local expression of church.   

 

John not only addressed this letter to this chosen lady, but he also addressed it to her children.  Once again, there are differing opinions who these children were.  Were they her natural, biological children or were they her spiritual children?  I am not sure we can conclusively answer that question.  If John was viewing this lady as a chosen Christian woman, these children are probably her biological children.  If, however, John viewed this lady as an elder or one who has a ministry in a local church, these children might well be her spiritual children. 

 

We do read New Testament passages where we see the concept of spiritual children.  Both Timothy and Titus were considered spiritual children of Paul.  Titus 1:4 reads:

 

"To Titus, my true son in our common faith. Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior."

 

1 Timothy 1:2 reads:

 

"To Timothy, my true son in the faith.

Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord."

 

With all of the above being said, I believe, at least to date, that this lady's children were biological children.  I suggest this based on what we will read in verse 4.  There, John was thankful that some of her children were following in the way of the Lord.  In my thinking, those children following in the ways of the Lord would be biological Christian children.  Those who did not follow in the way of the Lord, then, would be non-Christian biological children.  I say that because spiritual children would be Christian and following in the way of the Lord.  Spiritual children would not be non-Christian.  The argument against this would be that John didn't clearly say these children were not Christian.  He simply implied that some of these children followed in the way of the Lord and some didn't.  You might, then, make that point that some spiritual children, although being Christian, were not following the truth of God at the present time.  However you believe is fine with me.  It does not take away from the importance of this letter.     

 

If those who believe this elect lady is a local church, then these children might well be related churches under the care of this particular church.    

 

Note the word "love" in verse 1.  It is translated from the Greek verb "agapeo."  The Greek noun "agape" is the most common Greek word translated into our English New Testament as love.  Agape expresses love demonstrated in some kind of sacrifice.  If, then, there is no sacrifice in your expression of love, it is not agape love.  Agape represents God's love because God's love is all about Him sacrificing Himself for us, and really, not just us but for all of His creation.

 

The Greek word "agape" had fallen out of use in the first-century, Greco-Roman world.  This was probably due to people not wanting to sacrifice themselves for others.  That is just human nature.  We tend to serve ourselves, not others.  For this reason, the first-century Christian community borrowed this Greek word to express God's love.  This is why you will often hear agape defined as God's love, despite the fact that the roots of the word "agape" had nothing really to do with the Christian God.       

 

John clearly had sacrificed himself for this lady.  He must have had a healthy, godly intimate relationship with her.  This is seen when he wrote that he loved in the truth.  The specific truth John wrote about here was the truth of God.  His love towards this lady was both pure and godly.  There should be no hint of any kind of sexual intimacy expressed in this verse.

 

John was not the only one who loved this dear lady.  All who knew her and who knew the truth of God loved her.  This expression of love implies community.  That is to say,  first and foremost, church is a community of people who belong to God and to each other, and thus, if community is effectively realized, sacrificial love will exist among those who are called alongside each other in the Body of Christ, the church. 

 

The community aspect of church, that is not often seen in our western-world church today, is basic to the New Testament meaning of church.  Without this communal aspect, church simply becomes an organization, not much different than most civic groups.  God Himself is a unified relational plurality, and He expects the same to be true in church.  It is what Jesus prayed for as seen in John 17.  John 17:21 reads:

 

"May they all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us, so that the world may believe you sent me."

 

For more information on the communal concept of church, you can read my book entitled "The Community We Call Church."

 

The Greek verb in the phrase "those who know the truth" is a Greek perfect, active, participle, which means, that the knowing of the truth of God is not merely a mental head-knowledge. This knowing of the truth has become part of the very nature of these people.  It is an experiential knowing.  These people have become truth knowers, if I can use that terminology.  That is who they have become in Christ. 

 

It is important to both know and understand knowing something in an intellectual way is not the same as becoming that which you know.  When you become what you know, the knowledge has become part of the very fabric of who you are.  It is what being a Christian is all about. 

 

Verses 2 presents us with an eternal truth of Scripture.  If indeed the truth of God remains or abides in us, it will remain or abide in us forever, that is, throughout all of eternity.  I believe John would have understood the truth of God only abides in a person if the Holy Spirit resided in that person.  This verse, then, is in need of further thought and discussion.   

 

We should know that there is no first-century Greek equivalent for our English word forever.  For this reason, the New Testament concept of eternity or forever is seen in the duplication of the Greek word "ion" within the sentence in which it is found.   Ion simply means "an age," and, an age does not suggest forever or eternity.  Therefore, the Greek text duplicates ion.  It uses the word twice in a sentence with the hope that the reader will understand that ion upon ion means forever or eternal.                  

 

Note the word "remains" in verse 2 in the CSB's translation.  Some translations use the word "abide," which in my thinking might, and I do say might, suggest that the truth might not remain in some people.  It actually might leave some people for one reason or another.  At this point, the doctrine of Eternal Security comes into play as we attempt to understand this verse. 

 

The doctrine of Eternal Security states that once you are genuinely saved, you cannot be unsaved.  In other words, you cannot lose your salvation.  The church has been split over this issue for centuries.  It will be up to you how you think about this issue. 

 

If you believe you can lose your salvation, then, you might believe that John was saying that only if the truth of God remains in you, and doesn't leave you, then, that truth will live in your forever.  On the other hand, if you believe that you can never lose your salvation, then, for sure the truth of God will, beyond any doubt, live in you for all of eternity. 

 

I personally believe, at least in this specific verse, John was telling this lady and her children that due to the fact that they genuinely have become truth knowers by their very new nature in Christ, the truth that lives within them via the Holy Spirit will live within them throughout eternity.  I do not think that John was suggesting that one could lose his salvation in this verse.  

 

It is necessary to know that there is no salvation apart from the Holy Spirit living within you.  Romans 8:9 makes that clear.  That verse reads:

 

"You, however, are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him."

 

As a matter of Biblical fact, the Holy Spirit that resides within the Christian is actually the proof that person is a Christian.  Paul made that point in Ephesians 1:13, that reads as follows.

 

"In him you also were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and when you believed."

 

We should understand the word "sealed" in Paul's statement to be like a lawyer's seal that validates the legitimacy of a document.

 

Due to what Paul wrote in the above verses, just the simple mental acknowledgement of truth is not what John is talking about.  This truth must live with you and that can only happen if the Holy Spirit lives within you.  Simply knowing truth does not make you a Christian.  

 

It is important that the truth of God enters our minds.  Anything we learn, we learn because it first is understood in our brain, but, when it comes to God's truth, it must progress beyond our brains.  It must sink into our hearts or souls where it can become the conviction whereby we live.  Knowledge is important.  I am convinced of that.  What we do with that knowledge is also important, and what we must do is live that knowledge out in our lives because it has become a heart-felt conviction to do so.  We can only live out the truth of God in our lives once that truth has really sunk into our hearts.    

 

Verse 3

 

"Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love."

 

We see three words here that speak to our relationship with God.  They are grace, mercy, and peace. 

 

There are two meanings to the word "grace" found in the Bible as it relates to our relationship with God.  Grace is God's love directed to us who do not deserver any expression of love from Him.  This grace is often called unmerited favour because we do not merit it.  Nothing we can do can help us earn grace from God.   We see this meaning of God's grace in Ephesians 2:8 and 9 that read:

 

"For you are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift ​— not from works, so that no one can boast."

 

The other meaning to the word "grace" is God's divine ability given to us in order for us to accomplish His will.  In 1 Corinthians 3:10 Paul wrote that God's grace was given him to fulfill his ministry.  That verse reads:

 

"According to God's grace that was given to me, I have laid a foundation as a skilled master builder, and another builds on it. But each one is to be careful how he builds on it."

 

Grace in the above verse must refer to God's divine ability given to Paul.  Understanding grace in Paul's statement to mean unmerited favour makes no contextual sense. It was God's divine ability, not unmerited favour,   that enabled Paul to be the minister of the gospel God called him to be.

 

I specifically quoted the above two passages because many of us understand God's grace to be His love directed towards us who do not deserve anything from God.  That being said, many of us do not understand God's grace to mean God's divine ability given to us to do what He wants us to do.  Without His ability given to us, we can never effectively do His will as He expects.  It takes divine assistance to fulfill the purposes of God in our lives.      

 

The next word we see is the word "mercy."  Mercy, by Biblical definition, is the outward expression of pity.  Concerning our relationship with God, He has pity on us, and therefore, that pity causes Him to have mercy on us that is demonstrated in various visible ways.  The cross of Christ itself is a demonstration of God's mercy. 

 

The third word we see here in verse 3 is the word "peace."  Like the word "grace," peace has two Biblical meanings.  We have both "peace with God" and "peace in God."  Peace with God means that since we are on God's side and no longer His enemy, we have peace with God.  We exist in a peaceful relationship with God, and because of this, we have peace in God, meaning, we have peace within us that gets us through the tough days of life.    

 

This grace, mercy and peace, according to John, comes from both God who is our Father and Jesus Christ.  Furthermore, Jesus is said to be the Son of God.  By writing this, John is alluding to the plural nature of God in that God and Jesus are associated with each other in the same breath.  This hints at the fact that Jesus, although separate from God, exists in a unified plurality with God that is difficult for our human capabilities to understand.  This speaks to the doctrine called the Deity of Christ.  Jesus was God in human form when He was on earth, and, He is God right now in some kind of super-human form in the heavenly world.  This is the most fundamental thing we must know and believe about who Jesus is.     

 

This verse ends with the words "truth" and "love."  These words are often seen together in the New Testament.  God is both truthful   and loving.  Who God is, by His very essence, is truth and love.  He not only expresses truth, He is the ultimate universal truth.  He not only demonstrates sacrificial acts of love.  He is, by His very nature, sacrificial love. 

 

What someone does and who that someone is are two distinctly different things.  One might fix cars on the side.  That is something he does, but fixing cars from time to time does not make him an auto mechanic.  One has to be trained and licensed to become an auto mechanic, and when that takes place, he becomes an auto mechanic. 

 

When it comes to the Christian life, what we do in service for Jesus and others should be a result of who we have become, and, who we have become are new creations in Christ.  It is what Paul wrote, as recorded in 2 Corinthians 5:17.

 

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, and see, the new has come!"      

 

There are some people who perform certain Christian acts of service, but merely doing such acts of service because that is what one is expected to do, does not prove that he or she is a valid Christian.  A real Christian is one who has the Holy Spirit within him or her, and because of the Spirit's presence in his or her life, works of service are a natural product.  As Christians, all we do should stem from who we have become, and that is, a brand new creation in Christ.    

 

2 John 4 - 13

 

The Text

 

4 - I was very glad to find some of your children walking in truth, in keeping with a command we have received from the Father. So now I ask you, dear lady—not as if I were writing you a new command, but one we have had from the beginning—that we love one other. This is love: that we walk according to his commands. This is the command as you have heard it from the beginning: that you walk in love. Many deceivers have gone out into the world; they do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves so that you don’t lose what we have worked for, but that you may receive a full reward. 9 Anyone who does not remain in Christ’s teaching but goes beyond it does not have God. The one who remains in that teaching, this one has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your home, and do not greet him; 11 for the one who greets him shares in his evil works. 12 Though I have many things to write to you, I don’t want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to come to you and talk face to face so that our joy may be complete. The children of your elect sister sends you greetings. 

 

My Commentary

 

Verse 4

 

"I was very glad to find some of your children walking in truth, in keeping with a command we have received from the Father."

 

As I mentioned earlier in my commentary, the fact that some, or, more than half, as the Greek text might imply, of this lady's children were walking in the truth might suggest these children are biological children and not spiritual children.  I would think that if you have a group of spiritual children, all those spiritual children would be Christian, or walking in the truth.  I understand the opposing argument.  Maybe a spiritual child might be a Christian, but not just living, or walking out the truth, at the time. 

 

Also as previously stated, you can do your own research to think through whether this lady's children are biological children or spiritual children.  I tend to see them as biological children, at least at the moment.      

 

The words "walking in the truth," suggest that these children did not only mentally believe the truth of God, but were in fact living God's truth out in their daily lives.  Once again, being a Christian is not only a matter of the mind.  It is a matter the heart which causes us to live out in daily life what we claim to believe in our minds.  Some of this lady's children were doing just that while some were not.    

 

Our salvation is based on the fact that Jesus is the universal truth.  John 14:6 makes it clear that Jesus is, indeed, the ultimate universal truth.  That text reads:

 

"Jesus told him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"

 

Jesus did not say in this statement that He spoke the truth.  He said that He was the truth.  Speaking something is much different than being something.  Jesus was, what He spoke, and in this instance, He spoke truth because He was, and still is, the universal truth.

 

I have always maintained that I am not a Christian because of all of the benefits I derive from my relationship with Jesus, and there are many.  I am a Christian because I have come to understand that Jesus is the ultimate universal truth, and thus, I have no other logical choice to make other than to hand my life over to Him.  My salvation is based on truth, the very truth that John was writing about here in his second letter to this particular lady. 

 

What exact command to which John alluded in verse 4 is debatable.  It might well be the command to love God and your neighbour as you love yourself.  Luke 10:27 reads:

 

"He answered, 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind;' and 'your neighbor as yourself.'"

 

Whatever the specific command was, we all know that we are to live what we believe, and if we don't, we might not really believe what we claim to believe.  As James said, faith, or belief, without works is dead.  Belief without actions is no belief.  James 2:17 and 18 read:

 

"In the same way faith, if it doesn't have works, is dead by itself.  But someone will say, 'You have faith, and I have works.' Show me your faith without works, and I will show you faith by my works."

 

James 2:20 reads:

 

"Senseless person! Are you willing to learn that faith without works is useless?"

 

Verse 5

 

"So now I ask you, dear lady ​— ​not as if I were writing you a new command, but one we have had from the beginning ​— ​that we love one another."

 

Note the words "dear lady" here in verse 5.  These words are translated from the Greek word "kyria," which many Bible scholars suggest, is a personal name for this lady.  The English translation of this name would be Cyria.  That being said, whether John was calling this lady by her name or simply referring to her in affectionate terms, is debatable.  My guess is that John was not calling her by name, but again, that is just a speculative guess.  

 

John was reminding this lady that she, and those with her, should love one another.  Again, the love John was writing about here is agape love.  It is love expressed in some kind of sacrifice.  It is all about thinking of others over yourself.  I suggest that this is simply a reminder to this lady to continue a life of sacrifice as she and others were already doing.  I say this because back in verse 3 it seems to suggest that this lady, John, and those with John, were actually living out sacrificial love. 

 

John said that the command to love was the command that he, and all Christians, had received from the beginning.  The word "beginning" suggests the first time Jesus commanded His followers to love God and each other, as stated a few paragraphs back.  Of all of the commands that Jesus spoke, this was the most important and fundamental command of all.  If you could love God and each other, according to Jesus, you would fulfill all of what the Law of Moses in the Old Testament was all about. 

 

After being asked what the greatest command of God was, as seen in the Law of Moses, this is how Jesus answered the question.  Matthew 22:37 through 40 reads:

 

"He [Jesus] said to him, 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and most important command.  The second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.  All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commands.'"

 

Verse 6

 

"This is love: that we walk according to his commands. This is the command as you have heard it from the beginning: that you walk in love."

 

Again, we read the most common Greek word translated into English as love in this verse.  It is "agape," implying love demonstrated through some kind of sacrifice.   There are five or six other Greek words that can be translated into English as love, each having their own specific meaning, but agape is the most common Greek word used in the New Testament, and for good reason.  That is due to its definition as being sacrificial in nature.  Beyond agape's definition, the very essence of God is sacrifice.  Sacrifice is not only something God does.  It is who He is.    

 

Here in verse 6 John associated the word "love" with the words "His commands."  What I believe John was implying here is that if you claim to love God, love Jesus, then you will obey His commands, even if it is a major sacrifice, which it often is.  Obedience is a result of true love.  To the degree, then, we obey Jesus will be the degree that we really do love Jesus.

 

I have a difficult time actually telling Jesus that I love Him because, when I do, the thought of obedience flashes through my mind.  Telling Jesus, or anyone else, that you love him, is a serious matter.  There must be visual evidence of love.  There must be concrete actions that demonstrate that you keep the commands of Jesus, and, He does have commands.    

 

John himself said that if you really love God, you will keep His commands.  1 John 5:3 reads:

 

"For this is what love for God is: to keep his commands. And his commands are not a burden,"

 

John would have said what we read in the above verse because he heard it from Jesus Himself.  John 14:15 reads:

 

"If you love me, keep my commands."

 

It is my opinion that the word "love" is one of the most used and misused words spoken in our present-day western culture.  It is the most often used word in our pop songs, but of course, the word "love" in our pop songs has little to know resemblance to Biblical love.

 

  How often have you heard the words  "love ya," when someone departs from another?  Love ya seems to have replaced good-by, and sad to say, that's all that love ya means these days.  It certainly does not mean that I will sacrifice myself for you.   

 

We can make all kinds of claims with our words.  We can claim faith.  We can claim love, but, such claims apart from visible actions are merely claims.  They are worthless.  Here is what John said about such claims in his first letter.  1 John 3:18 reads:

 

"Little children, let us not love in word or speech, but in action and in truth."

 

Genuine agape style love will be demonstrated through some kind of sacrificial actions.  These actions are in accordance with the truths of God, as John wrote.  This means that if you step beyond the boundaries of Biblical truth in the process of showing love, you do not love.  For example, if you know a brother in Christ is steeling from his neighbour, you do not cover up his sin as an act of love.  That would be stepping beyond the boundaries of sacrificial love.  You would, in fact, be participating in his sin.  You confront his theft in the hope that he will repent and show evidence of repentance, which in the long run, will maintain a good relationship with Jesus.  Confrontation is to be redemptive, and must never be done out of spite or wrong motives.  This kind of love is often called tough love because it is tough on the one extending such love and it is also tough on the one receiving such love.  In this sense of the word, agape love is a real sacrifice at times.

 

Note the word "walk" in this verse.  Throughout the Bible we see the word "walk" used in metamorphic terms.  John is not talking about literal walking, as in, taking one step at a time as you walk down the street.  The Greek word translated as walk in this verse is "peripeteo."  This word, in its general everyday usage in the first-century Greco-Roman world meant to occupy or to live.  John was simply telling this elect lady to live out in real life love that is demonstrated through sacrifice.

 

Once again John reminded this lady that the command to love is what all Christians have heard from the beginning.  The beginning would be in reference to when Jesus walked the face of this earth and commanded His disciples to love one another. 

 

If you read the gospel of John and his three letters, you will soon notice one of John's major issues is to love one another.  Extending sacrificial love to those Jesus has placed us alongside in the Body of Christ is fundamental to what church is all about.  To the degree, then, that we can exhibit love via sacrifice will be the degree to which the church will be the representative of Jesus that it is called to be.

 

Verse 7

 

"Many deceivers have gone out into the world; they do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist."

 

We read the word "antichrist" in this verse.  It is one of several descriptive titles the Bible gives to the world-wide ruler that appears at the end of this age that opposes all things pertaining to Jesus, and thus, the term antichrist.  Of course, what I have just written depends on your view of Biblical, end-time, prophecy.  Not all believe in a literal antichrist being a man.  Some believe the antichrist is a world system.  Some simply believe he is the spirit of antichrist that has inflicted the church and the world over the last two thousand years.  I believe he is the end-time international ruler that will deceive the world.     

 

I lean towards what is called the Prophetic Futurism view of Bible prophecy.  This means that the Book of Revelation is yet to be fulfilled at a future date.  In Revelation, chapter 13, we see a man that Prophetic Futurists call the antichrist; the one Paul called "the lawless one" in 2 Thessalonians 2:6 through 10. 

 

"And you know what currently restrains him, so that he will be revealed in his time. or the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but the one now restraining will do so until he is out of the way, and then the lawless one will be revealed. The Lord Jesus will destroy him with the breath of his mouth and will bring him to nothing at the appearance of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is based on Satan’s working, with all kinds of false miracles, signs, and wonders, done with every wicked deception among those who are perishing. They perish because they did not accept the love of the truth and so be saved."

 

John also mentioned the antichrist in 1 John 2:18 and 22, as well as in 1 John 4:3.  John is the only New Testament writer who calls this man the antichrist.      

 

The antichrist, and also, those who have the spirit of the antichrist, are deceivers, as John said here.  John used the words "spirit of the antichrist" because there is one specific antichrist who appears onto the world scene at the end of this age, but prior to then, there are many deceivers who attempt to deceive.  They have the spirit of antichrist within them.  It is what John wrote in 1 John 2:18.

 

"Children, it is the last hour. And as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. By this we know that it is the last hour."

 

Note that John said that many deceivers have gone out into the world.  In my thinking, that suggests that these deceivers were once included in that which we call church.  They were once in the church, and at one point in time they had gone out into the world.  Whether these deceivers, antichrists, were valid Christians in the first place is debatable.  I suggest that they were not real Christians.  They simply found themselves in the Christian community, much like Judas found himself within the community of the twelve apostles.  That is to say, not all who are in the visible church are real Christians.  People may attend a Sunday morning meeting that are not real Christians.  They may teach Sunday school and do a multitude of things in church, but, that does not make them valid Christians.  These deceivers might well have been these types of people. 

 

The debate over these deceivers being real Christians or not depends on your view of what has traditionally been called "Eternal Security," which I addressed earlier in this commentary.  If you believe that one can lose his salvation, then you will believe that these deceivers were once real Christians who left both Christ and the church in order to deceive people.  If you believe that one cannot lose his salvation, then, you will believe that these deceivers were never real Christians in the first place.  You can do your own research on this issue.  It has been an ongoing debate for centuries, and I would certainly not end the debate here, so I will not try.

 

Verse 8

 

"Watch yourselves so you don’t lose what we have worked for, but that you may receive a full reward."

 

I am sure that the apostle John worked extremely hard for the benefit and welfare for all those whom Jesus had given him the responsibility to care for.  He exhibited the same intentionality in doing God's work as the apostle Paul.  Both men did not want to lose that which they worked so hard for.  This is what we see here in this verse.

 

John was telling this elect lady and her children to watch, to make sure, they did not lose what they, and he, have worked so hard for.  This is a lesson that is so often not learned, especially when we think of it in generational terms.  That is to say, we often fail to pass our faith, and all that goes along with it, to the next generation, and that, after much hard work in the service of the Lord.  I suggest that is a sad state of affairs.   Over time, from one generation of church to the next, and then, to the next, and so on, all that has been worked for is either lost or reduced to a bare minimum.  I have seen this over and over again.  Anyone who knows anything about church history will surely concur with me on this point. 

 

Note the pronouns "you" and "we" in John's statement.  John encouraged this lady and her children that they (you) don't lose what we have worked for.  This suggests a communal approach to fulfilling God's will in the church.  That is to say, individual believers (we) work together, but, and individual (you) can easily destroy what we, the church, have worked so hard to accomplish.  This is what church is all about.  Church is a community of believers taken out of the world, placed alongside each other in the Body of Christ, to do Gods will here on earth. 

 

Verse 9

 

"Anyone who does not remain in Christ’s teaching but goes beyond it does not have God. The one who remains in that teaching, this one has both the Father and the Son."

 

I mentioned the doctrine of Eternal Security earlier in this commentary.  In short, those who believe in this doctrine believe that once a person is genuinely saved, he cannot lose his salvation.  On the other hand, those who do not adhere to this doctrine believe that one can lose his salvation, and, they use this verse to help support their position.  It's the difference between what Christian theology has called Calvinism and Arminianism.  John Calvin (Swiss), born 1509, died 1564, believed in Eternal Security while Jacobus Arminius (Dutch), born 1560, died 1609,  did not believe in Eternal Security. 

 

The apostle John wrote that one who does not remain in the teaching of Jesus, but goes beyond His teaching, that one does not have God in his life.  The only way to keep God in your life, then, is to remain in the teaching of Jesus.  This, to many Bible teachers, suggests that if a Christian departs from the foundational teaching of Jesus, that person loses his salvation.  I suggest that might not be the best way to understand this verse.

 

Our English word "remains" in this verse is what is called a Greek present participle, which in my thinking, means this.  Due to the fact that the word "remains" is a participle, the going beyond the teaching of Jesus is more than just an action a person does.  He goes beyond Jesus teaching because, at the core of who he is, is one who constantly goes beyond anything that he should not go beyond.  He is simply one who cannot stay within the bounds of Jesus' teaching, or really any other teaching.  That would suggest, then, that this person has not become the new creation in Christ that constitutes one being a real Christian.  He might have mentally adopted the teaching of Jesus and had been a part of the church, but, that teaching has never become who He is, which is, a brand new creation in Christ.  He is not that new creation in Christ as Paul wrote about in 2 Corinthians 5:17.

 

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, and see, the new has come!"

 

I certainly do not expect everyone to accept what I have just written concerning this verse.  It is up to you, the reader, to do the needed research for yourself so you can come to your own conclusion.  The debate over the possibility of being able to lose your salvation or not has been raging for centuries, and there is no way that I will end the debate in a couple of paragraphs here. 

 

Verse 10 and 11

 

"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your home, and don’t greet him; for the one who greets him shares in his evil works."

 

First of all, notice the word "home' in verse 10.  At the beginning of this commentary I mentioned the debate over whether the elect lady was a real literal lady or simply a metamorphic representation of the church.  I also commented on whether this lady's children were biological children or spiritual children.  With the use of the word "home" in verse 10, I believe that the elect lady was a real woman and not a local church, and, her children are biological children, not spiritual children.  Spiritual children would not necessarily live in this lady's home.

 

The words "this teaching" in verse 10 would be in reference to the teaching of Jesus that was noted in the previous verse.  Jesus' teaching would incorporate all that Jesus taught, but in the immediate context of this letter, the specific teaching would be the command to love God and your brothers and sisters in Christ. Such love for the Christian brotherhood would, or at least should, remove any motivation to teach heresy to those to whom you have sacrificially given your life.

 

Verses 10 and 11 show us the importance of correct Biblical teaching.  Today's church, in my opinion, does not emphasize good doctrine as it should, and as it once did.  This departure seems to be rooted in the postmodern secular culture in which we live.  That is to say, the postmodern culture that in many ways fails to dig into the fine details of issues has influenced our church to the degree that we have no desire to study to show ourselves approved before God and the world.

 

The failure to study to show yourself intellectually capable of knowing and understanding the truth of God was not the case with John and those to whom he cared for.  They were not to even greet at false teacher at their doorstep.  This means that they were not permitted to have a false teacher in their midst.  He could not have a foothold into your home, and by implication, into the church as well.  There is no way that a heretic could influence the church with heretical views, something we should all be thinking seriously about in today in our homes and churches.

 

When I write about heresy and false teaching, I am not thinking in terms of secondary issues that are debatable and difficult to understand.  I'm not talking about, for example, the various views of end time prophecy.  I am not talking about the doctrine of Eternal Security, as I have mentioned a couple times in this commentary.  I suggest that all views of end time prophecy, Eternal Security, and other issues like them, be taught in the local expression of church.  In this way, the Bible student is given all of the needed information for him or her to come to his or her own conclusion.

 

When thinking of these things I have personally benefited from learning through a variety of sources and teachers.  While at Bible college in the mid 1970's, the college had no set, predetermined doctrinal stances to teach.  Each teacher was allowed to set forth his thinking on any given secondary theological issue.  This is not the situation in many denominational colleges where the doctrine of the denomination must be taught.  It is my opinion, that the local church should follow the example of the Bible college I attended many years ago.  In my personal study, I attempt to learn all sides of an issue in order to come to a well thought out conclusion.   

 

What we must all be in agreement on are the fundamental doctrines of Christ.  I'm talking about, for example, such doctrines as the Deity of Christ, which in John's day was beginning to be compromised because of false teachers.  We cannot allow anyone to teach that Jesus was not God in a human form while on earth, nor is not God in some kind of superhuman form now in heaven.  If we allowed such a false teaching and false teachers into the midst of the church, John said that we would be participating in an evil deed.  That is pretty strong language.  Teaching heresy, according to John, is evil.  This is how we must view heretical doctrine and those who teach it. 

 

In parts of what is traditionally called church today, some are teaching that Jesus is not divine.  It has been well documented that many so-called ministers in mainline churches do not even believe in the Deity of Christ.    This should never be the case.  It is pure blasphemy.  How can one call himself a Christian, and especially a Christian minister, and not even believe in the most fundamental teaching about Jesus?  According to John, these so-called Christian ministers are evil and if we align ourselves with them, we participate in their evil blasphemy.  It is that simple.  

 

There is a movement within Evangelical Christianity that promotes the notion that Christians and Muslims should worship together.  This teaching is founded on the premise that both Christians and Muslims serve the same God.  This is both unbiblical and illogical.  Muslims believe that their god has no son, and especially, no particular son.  On the other hand, Christians believe that God does have a Son, and He is the Lord Jesus Christ.  This alone should tell us that Christians and Muslims do not serve the same God.  It is simply an illogical heresy which should never have found its way into the church.        

 

Verse 12

 

"Though I have many things to write to you, I don’t want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to come to you and talk face to face so that our joy may be complete."

 

Note the word "write" here in verse 12.  It is translated from the Greek word "grapho."  We derive our English word "graphic," and other related English words like photograph, from this Greek word.  Note also the word "paper."  The word "paper" is translated from the Greek word "chartes" where we derive our English word "chart." 

 

We should understand that John did not write on paper as we understand paper today.  The paper John would have written on, we call parchment.  This parchment was made out of dried animal skins.  Such skins would have come from sheep, goats, or maybe cows.         

 

John understood the nature of Christian discipleship.  He was one of the very first disciples that Jesus chose for Himself while He was on earth.  John was taught directly by Jesus and he experienced many aspects of life with Jesus.  Teaching others through the medium of ink and parchment has its advantages, but nothing beets face to face instruction.  The most effective way to teach or to disciple others is to have a personal relationship with them.  This is what I believe was in the back of John's mind when he wrote that he had much more to say but wanted to do so face to face. 

 

In today's church, the centerpiece of the church's calendar is the Sunday morning meeting.  As important as that is, it is not the most effective way to teach or disciple people.  Simply sitting in a pew and listening to someone speak, can be instructive, but it is the least efficient way to teach or disciple.  What is better, is teaching in small groups, as in, a mid-week meeting, where those involved can participate and ask questions.  It is a much more personal form of discipleship, and personal interaction is what discipleship is all about.            

 

Small meetings, like Bible studies, are much more personal than just sitting in a pew in a large gathering of people.  Small gatherings give those in attendance the opportunity to ask questions and get answers.  Dialogue is one effective form of teaching.  That is not the case in a Sunday morning service where you just sit and listen in the hope that your mind does not wander to other things, which it often does.  Small interactive gatherings are much more productive when it comes to teaching and the concept of discipleship. 

 

Lastly, the best form of instructive discipleship is one on one, or as John put it, face to face.  Building personal relationships helps the one being discipled to participate in what is being taught.  It is more than a teaching session.  It is living out in real life what is taught.  It is what Jesus did with the twelve apostles.  Yes, Jesus did teach the masses, but as you know, most of the masses did not follow His teaching.  Yes, He did teach the larger group of disciples as well, and they did attempt to follow His teaching, but with the Twelve, it was different.  He wanted them to take His place after He left this planet, so face to face discipleship was that which was needed to accomplish His goal.      

 

Think of it this way.  I am a father.  There are three ways in which I can teach my children what I want them to learn.  I can make them sit down and listen to me, which is important, but is the least effective way to teach them.  Their minds will probably wander elsewhere as I attempt to teach them.  They could well be thinking of playing their video game instead of listening to boring old me.

 

A better way to teach them is for me to be a living example of what I am teaching.  They are actually seeing teaching in action.  One learns more by seeing than hearing.  I can attest to that.  Since I am legally blind, I listen to many audio books.  I would prefer to read them because I have come to learn that I maintain more from what my eyes read than what my ears hear.  I often have to re-listen to a book in order for its content to sink into my brain.  One's brain wanders more when you listen than it does when you read.  That is just life.    

 

The best way to teach my children is to involve them in the things I am teaching them.  For example, if I am teaching them about forgiving others, I do so by having them forgive each other.  If one has offended the other, I pull them aside.  I have them talk the issue through in the hope that the talk will lead to the offender repenting and the offended forgiving the offender.  It is, the most effective form of instruction.  It is what Christian discipleship is all about.      

 

Verse 13

 

"The children of your elect sister send you greetings."

 

John ends this letter with one simple statement. The children of this lady's sister send their greetings.  It is, thus, apparent to me that John is in close contact with this the elect lady's sister's children.  In my thinking, this elect lady is not a local church as some think, as I discussed earlier in this commentary.  She is a real literal woman. 

 

Just why John used the word "elect," meaning chosen, to describe both recipient of this letter and her sister, as I have said, is debatable.  We just do not know what John meant by calling this woman the elect lady.  You can refer back to my comments on verse 1 for details on this issue. 

 

You can certainly tell by the way John ended this letter so briefly that he had much more to tell this elect lady.  Whatever else he would like to have written is unknown and suggests to me that his intention was not to put things off.  He would see this lady as soon as it was humanly possible.          

 

Summing this letter up, like most all letters we read in the New Testament, solving problems within church was a primary reason for John to write his letter to this elect lady, whoever she was.  The main problem that John addressed, as is always the case within church, was false teaching taught by false teachers.  It was a problem faced by the early church.  It has been a problem throughout the history of the church.  It is a present-day problem as well.  You can expect that whatever Jesus does in relation to church, and it is His church, Satan will have a response.  That being said, church is often its own worst enemy.  I think that at times Satan just has to sit back and relax as he watches us mess things up.

 

Beyond dealing with the heresy problem in church we note the relationship John had with those he cared fore.  It was based on love, and love that is demonstrated through sacrifice.  Sacrificial love, if demonstrated within the church will prevent many problems from inflicting the church in the first place.  Many of our problems are due to our own sinful nature that is realized in putting ourselves first instead of putting others first.  It's all about sinful human pride. 

 

One last point I will make in this summery is this.  Church is all about being in personal, supportive, and functional relationships with those to whom Jesus has placed us in the Body of Christ, the church.  To the degree, then, that we can succeed at these relationships will be the degree to which we will succeed as the church.  This is especially the case in the local expression of church.

 

 

 

 

Home Page