2 John Introduction Bible Teaching

WELCOME
PRAYER
WORD TO MUSIC
SILENCE

2nd John 1
Introduction – Meat
August 14th 2016
Alright, I wanted to knock this short little epistle out in one straight read – which we will do – next week.

Why?

Because I think we need to talk about its value and place in the Word. In fact lets talk about the value and place of both the second and third epistles together.

For starters, the authenticity of these two epistles was doubted by many believers in the early church and quite a bit of time passed before it was fully admitted into canon as being authentic.

Of course the First Epistle was considered legit and the work of the apostle John; but though it was not positively and absolutely rejected there were some serious doubts about who authored the second and third.

What made these two suspect? Several items.

First, they are really short – which I suppose is irrelevant to quality when the Holy Spirit is involved but it was a factor that suggested it did not merit a place in canon.

Add in that while short each of them were written to a single individual and it takes them to the level of being a note to a friend. So even if they were penned by John the Apostles does it mean that they were inspired?

It’s a really good question. I mean just because John was an apostle couldn’t have meant that everything it put to paper was scripture, right?

So that was the thinking and I have to admit I join in wonderment.

Finally, if we add in the fact that because the epistles were written to specific single individuals and not for general circulation they were not frequently referred to in the early church by others – which added to their suspect nature – and made them more difficult to authenticate as from John.

As with most other books of scripture validating their genuineness came through two approaches – looking at the external evidence and the internal.

Because of their brevity the external and (especially the) internal proofs are less full and clear than in other books.

So first, the external evidences to consider.

In the church and school at Alexandria both epistles were well known and were received as a part of the sacred writings.

Clement of Alexandria, and Alexander, bishop of Alexandria both quote or refer to them and admit that they are the writings of the apostle John.

Origen, the successor of Clement, said,
“John left behind him an epistle of very few words; perhaps also a second and third, though some do not consider these genuine. Both these together, however, contain only an hundred words.”

Dionysius of Alexandria shows that he was acquainted with all of them, but calls the two last “feromenai” which means, “writings alleged to be genuine.”

This is interesting. In our day if we were teaching the Bible and referred to one of the books as “alleging to be true” there would be an uproar among the zealots – but it was an open honest expression way way back in the day – one used by Luther as well.

In terms of external evidence these epistles were also known and received in the western churches in the second and third centuries.

Irenaeus’s insights are especially important due to where he lived as a youth and where he was educated.
Born at Smyrna he lived not very long after the times of the apostles and was a direct disciple of Polycarp who was by all accounts acquainted with the apostle John.

Anyway Irenaeus lived his early years in Asia Minor and it is believed that placed him in direct contact with the writings of John.

And he quotes the second epistle, (2Jo 1:11,) and with express reference to John as the author, under the name of “John, the disciple of our Lord.”

Then, after quoting from the first epistle, he adds,

“And John, the disciple of Jesus, in the epistle before mentioned, commanded that they (the heretics) should be shunned, saying,” and then he directly quotes the seventh and eighth verses of this second epistle.

I do not see this as evidence that the entire epistle should be seen as scripture but only that Irenaeas was citing John’s views on how to deal with heretics of his day. But it does lend greatly to validating apostolic authorship.

In the third century the African church regarded the second epistle as the work of John.

In terms of what may be considered negative external evidence, there is some doubt whether these epistles are legit when we look to the Syrian church.

For example, the manuscripts of the Peshito (which is the old Syriac version all the way up through the sixth century) do not contain the epistle of Jude, the second epistle of Peter, or the Second and Third of John.

There is some evidence that these books ignored in the oldest Peshito were coming into favor by the fourth century Syrian church but they did not make it into canon until after the 6th Century.

Additionally, while there were doubts among many of the Fathers respecting the genuineness of these epistles, yet they were admitted in several councils of the church to be genuine.

Some view this as a positive but it makes me wonder.

In the “eighty-fifth” of the so called “apostolic canons,” and in the sixtieth canon of the synod of Laodicea; in the council at Hippo, (which was held in A.D. 393,) and in the third council of Carthage, (held in A.D. 397,) they were reckoned undoubtedly as inspired canon of Scripture.

Then, (and this to me is not a reassuring factor) but all doubts on the matter of meeting the standards of apostolic and canonical genuineness seems to have been subsequently removed in the view of Christian writers of the middle ages.

Then, some of the Reformers had doubts of their genuineness.

Erasmus, quoting the opinion of Jerome, said that it was not the apostle John who wrote these epistles but a presbyter of the same name.

Calvin seems to have entertained some doubt of their genuineness to the point that he even omitted them in his commentaries.

But as for us in our day and age such criticism are almost all but forgotten and the two epistles remain.

In terms of internal evidence there is not so much to go on due to the brevity of the letters.

What is there are apparently some fairly strong statements in terms of similar style and sentiments found in other writings of John.

Critics suggest that anyone familiar with the writings of John could compose two short epistles like these which is true but what are we to expect, John to write in a manner that is not his own?

Even though these epistles are brief there are a few passages that really sound Johnish – especially verses 5-7, then 9 then 11-12.

Then we have the fact that the writer did not affix his name to this letter – which is very typical of John to by-pass self-identification.

Paul, in every case (except in the epistle to the Hebrews which may not have been written by him) attached his name to his epistles; as Peter, James, and Jude did the same.

Except for Revelation John never does this – and we don’t know why.

Another internal evidence that some use to suggest that John the Beloved did NOT write these letter is the somewhat harsh remarks made in the epistle in regard to heretics.

The complaint is that when he writes:

“If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed.”

And also (in the third epistle verse 10) he says,

“If I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words,”

Because John has been pushing for love love love some critics think his harsh tone here in these epistles is counter to his former “beloved” advice.

To them the “one whom Jesus loved” seems to be harsh and uncharitable – especially for a man who by this time was quite old and tempered by life.

First of all, sometimes the truth, even when expressed by the most loving, must be harsh as a means to protect others.

This seems to have been the case here with John.

Another thing is we have to remember that John was named by Jesus Himself , “Boanerges (which means, “a son of thunder.

He was the one in Luke 9:54 who sought to “call down fire from heaven on the Samaritan who would not receive Jesus,” and was also the one who when he observes a man casting out devils in the name of Jesus forbade him – told him not to and assumed the authority to do it.

The truth of the matter is that as in Jesus there was a remarkable mixture of gentleness and severity in the character of John. And his words to these virulent heretics is really no surprise.

Also, because the writer uses ELDER it is thought that since he was the most elderly of elders in the faith that this is an internal indication that John was the author.

Then we might also ask who “the elect lady” he was writing to.

Lots of opinion on this one folks.

Some have supposed that a Christian matron is referred to, a friend of John, whose name was either eklekth (Eclecte,) or kuria, (as these are the Greek words used)

Others (and particularly Clement) taught that the church was denoted by this name elect lady.

Some have made the conjecture that John, in his old age, was writing to the Virgin Mary – who would have to have been fairly old at the time –so I think that is doubtful and . . .

of course many believe this is simply John writing to addressed to some unknown Christian woman well known to John, and perhaps to many others.

The reason why her name was suppressed is said to have protected her from persecution.

The question doesn’t really merit any more conjecture because we just don’t know.

All we do know is John had warm feelings toward her person, she was a mother, and that her children were believers, and she was of a hospitable character that would have likely entertained people who professed to be teachers of religion.

We also know that other epistles (written to Timothy, Titus, and to Philemon) were admitted into scripture though they were addressed to individuals.

Finally we have no idea when these letter were written or from what place or location though most believe that they were written from Ephesus when John was old
Of the time when these epistles were written, and the place where, nothing is known, and conjecture would be useless, as there are no marks of time or place in either, and there is no historical statement that gives the information. It has been the common opinion that they were written at Ephesus, and when John was old.

From the outline of the Epistle we can clearly see that is was just a personal letter and now before reading it the rough outline of it includes:

Verses 1-3 a salutation to “a female”and an expression of warm attachment to her family.
Verse 4 gives us an expression of joy and gratitude from John learning that her children had embraced the truth and were walking in it.
Verse 5-6 are an exhortation to live by mutual love, in being obedient to the great commandment of the Savior.
Verses 7-8 talk about the fact that many deceivers had gone out into the world along with a warning to be on guard against their arts.
Verse 9 offers us a test by which these deceivers might be known.
Verse 10-122 provides another exhortation that directs her to give no room at all to these deceivers, including refusing to treat them with hospitality which might suggest she was open to their teachings.
Verse 12 is a statement that he hoped to see her soon and therefore would not write anymore with ink.
And the letter ends with salutation of the children from someone he calls her “elect sister.”

Alright then, let’s read the text and then work through it verse by verse.

2nd John 1:1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;
Joh 8:32; Ga 2:5,14; 3:1; 5:7; Col 1:5; 2Th 2:13; 1Ti 2:4; Heb 10:26; 1Jo 3:18; 2Jo 1:3; 3Jo 1:1
2 For the truth’s sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.
3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
4 I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.
5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.
6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

7 ¶ For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

10 ¶ If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

12 Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.
13 The children of thy elect sister greet thee. Amen.

2nd John 1:1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;

“The elder unto the elect lady (or Lady Elekta) and her children whom I love in the truth.”

The word children is tekna so it means both sons and daughter.

Now there is an insertion of an article here that is not in the Greek and it makes it sound like John loves her and her children because they are in the truth, but removing the article makes the meaning clear – John loves them by and through attachment and since no mention is mentioned here of a husband she may have been a widow.

John adds, “And not I only, but also all they that have known the truth,” in other words, “all those Christians who had had an opportunity of knowing them are also equally attached to them.”

Because of verse ten is seems she was hospitable character and it may be she was not only well known in part at least for this but loved for it.

2 For the truth’s sake, . . .

In other words these others who know you love you and your family because they love the truth, and see it so cordially embraced and so happily exemplified in the elect lady and her children.

John adds, speaking of the truth:

“which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.”

It’s a reassuring promise – the truth, even Jesus Christ by the Spirit, dwells in us and will be with us forever, the King James says but the literal translations say:

“And will be with us through the age.”

God sent His Son to save us, lead and teach us, and to reconcile the world to Himself by and through His Son.

When this was accomplished at the end of that age, God became all in all as Jesus completed his purposes spiritually once and for all and for them throughout that age.

And now his greeting:

3 Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

This salutation is quite similar to those used in other New Testament books except there is an emphasis which is placed on the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ is “the Son of the Father.”

I think this is a great internal evidence for John being the author of this 2nd Epistle because he continues to push for the anti-gnostic notion that Jesus was the Son of God in the flesh.

We could be tempted to read that Jesus was the Son of the Father in truth and love” here but I think that would be a misappropriation of scripture as I believe that added line, “In truth and love,” refers to the Greeting of Grace be with you, mercy and peace (from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father) continuing with the greeting, . . . “In truth and love.”

4 I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.

So he is rejoicing over learning that the Elect woman’s children were walking in the truth, truth . . .

“as we have received a commandment from the Father.”

He has commanded how we are to live which is equivalent to “walking in truth” and I rejoice that your children are doing so.

5 And now I beseech thee, lady, (Kuria) not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.

Most of the translations write Lady here but the word is Kuria in the Greek and some believe that this is the womans first name

“And now I entreat thee, Cyria, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee but that which we have always had – to love one another.”

This is the commandment we are all familiar with, it’s not new and I am petitioning you, my sister, to continue in it – a VERY familiar theme in the first epistle.

As typical for John he articulates more about the subject he is entreating his sister Kuria to follow and says (verse 6):

6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

His commandment is to love and to love is to obey His commandments – walk after this – it’s the think we Christians are known by.

Now I tend to think John is prefacing his up and coming stern warning to her about the heretics with this reminder to her to continue to love.

In my estimation this was a letter of warning to a woman that John cared for greatly. He knew she was prone to loving others and extending hospitality to all.

In my opinion he has written to her to encourage her to continue in this way but (as we will see in a minute) to be on guard against the Gnostic Docetae.

John is careful to remind and reiterate the importance of love, which I believe he knew she was full of – and knowing this about her now warns her about being TOO loving and open and says (verse 7)

7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Normally the term “for” when starting a passage is in reference to the previous verse but this is doubtful in this case as it doesn’t make much sense to me to be encouraging this family to continue in love and then say:

7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Instead, this passage and the word for seems to speak of a new warning, and the for relates to the passages that follow.

My Elect Kuria, keep loving, for this is the mark of true followers of God and keepers of His commandments, however,

“for a truth many deceivers have appeared in the kosmos,” (And he describes the Gnostic Docetae whom he has been speaking of and warning about throughout the whole first epistle) “and these confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.”
….

“Keep being who you are, my Elect Kuria, but there is a group out there you need to avoid entirely – they are stealing the hearts and minds of many good believers.”
…

“Who are they? They deny that Christ has come in the flesh and as a result they are deceivers and antichrist.”

Why the warning? I mean she is an Elect friend, one full of loving hospitality, right – full of the Holy Spirit so why the warning? (verse 8 John adds)

8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.

Other translations put it this way:

2Jo 1:8 (RSV) Look to yourselves, that you may not lose what you have worked for, but may win a full reward.

2Jo 1:8 (WNT) Keep guard over yourselves, so that you may not lose the results of your good deeds, but may receive back a full reward.
2Jo 1:8 (TCNT) Take care that you do not lose the fruit of all our work; rather, reap the benefit of it in full.

2Jo 1:8 (BBE) Keep watch over yourselves, so that you do not make our work of no effect, but may get your full reward.

Be on guard – especially of these types – they are very persuasive and therefore capable of causing you to slip backward.

The results if you do?

“You will lose the fruit of our labors among you and you will not reap the full reward that awaits you.”

I am going to step out and teach you how I see this applying then . . . and now.

There is a biblical principle that I believe applies to all human beings in the face of God – we will reap what we have sown in this life.

Paul, writing to believers said plainly:

Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

Romans 2:6 says: God will render to every man according to his deeds:

2nd Corinthians 9:6 addresses the principle and says, “But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.”

Colossians 3:23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;
24 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.
25 But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.

John is writing to a people at the end of that age. Jesus promised something relative to his return to them of that age – He was coming back with rewards for them that sowed in righteousness and loss for those who sowed in wickedness.

At the end of the Book of Revelation we read Jesus say:

Revelation 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; (in the Greek, WITHOUT DELAY) and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

This promise is what John is referring to here – Jesus is coming with His reward.

Though people disagree I believe that Paul touches on this very thing for the saints in 1st Corinthians 3 saying at verse 11:

11 “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.
14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.”

So I think this is what John is saying to this elect friend – “Don’t entertain these anti-Christs because if you do you run the risk of harming the fruit of our labor among you and you will NOT reap the FULL reward that awaits you.”

We note a few things about this interpretation that I have given –

John does not tell the elect lady that she would lose here salvation – but that she would NOT receive the FULL reward that awaits her.

That is interesting.

Additionally, Paul alludes to this to when he says in 1st Corinthians

15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.”

I believe that this is exactly what occurred in the day of Jesus return in 70 AD – that those who were His and kept the faith received their full reward and those who did not keep the faith suffered loss and were saved, but suffered loss by fire.

I am equally committed to the idea that these verse and this model has application to every single person today as well – but spiritually.

First, that we cannot deceive ourselves – what we sow we will reap. When?

At death – all of us – believers and not.

I would suggest that there is a full reward awaiting all of us but it will be reduced or possibly all-together eliminated by and through our sowing in this life.

I would suggest that every person has the fullness of God offered them by the Holy Spirit through Christ’s victory over the sin, death and the grave.

I would also suggest that upon belief all material creations of God are spiritually resurrected and become part of the Kingdom of God while here on earth.

And I would suggest that as they sow in the spirit they will reap spiritual rewards unto themselves that will extend into the Kingdom after this life.

I would finally suggest that those believers who receive resurrection unto life but fail to sow in things of the Spirit will also be saved but as by afterlife life, the fire that is God, and finally I believe that those who die as creations will, after this life, confess Jesus as Lord and be fitted with some sort of afterlife resurrection commensurate with what they sowed in the Spirit here.

This remains a mystery to me. In any case, let’s get back to John’s letter to this elect lady and her family as he adds a reminder (possibly even a warning) which he plied us with in the first epistle, saying:

9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

And then he specifically gives her a strong warning and piece of advice in verse 10

10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine (the doctrine provided in the previous verses about Christ coming in the flesh and the command to love) receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

I think we can assume with great confidence that she was accustomed to providing hospitality to teachers and maybe even strangers. John being intimately acquainted with her would know this and directly warns her again receiving these Gnostics, saying:

“Receive him not into your house.”

Now, zealots of the New Testament today have taken this passage and assigned it to themselves in their treatment of ANYONE who is at odds with how they see things.

Contextually this is not reasonable nor fair.

This was a specific letter written to a specific woman and her family at a specific time which was warning her (and her potential vulnerability to being seduced by heresy) to not let these Gnostics into her home.

This cannot possible mean that Christians are to withhold all acts of kindness, in every circumstances, to all divergent persons.

Unfortunately this is how this advice is often interpreted. John adds:

11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

The phrase, bid him God speed in the Greek is better translated, “do not wish him joy; do not hail, or salute him.”

It was a common salutation where a person was blessed with health, success, prosperity and again, in context, it would be akin to saying to these Gnostics:

“Well, while you can’t come in my house I wish you all God’s blessing and success in the spread of your lies.”

Such a blessing could be taken as she was approving of their views and ways.

This advice can be taken as harshness here but I understand the intent. To me, when someone is off the mark, and preaching a truly false ideology, I hope they will come around to the truth peaceably but if not that they will suffer immeasurably until the light comes on.

Such a stance could be considered mean spirited but in reality it is based on love. John concludes

12 Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.

Of course where the King James says paper this means papyrus as paper was not available to them.

. . .

I have a lot to say but am not going to write it all here but look to seeing you face to face and in this our joy may be full.

And John concludes with another personal insight, saying:

13 The children of thy elect sister greet thee. Amen.

We know no more about this sister than we do the recipient. We do know that John calls her elect and that she too has children (whom John knows) who send their greetings to their aunt by way of John.

I’m not sure if Amen is in the original mss but it is included in all the authorized versions but not in the revised.

It means sure, this is trustworthy, so be it, and verily.

Next week, 3rd John and part of Jude.

Q and A