2 John: Watch Yourselves

The elder to the elect lady and to her children, whom I love [1S Pres Act Indic] in truth, and not I only but also all those-who-have-come-to-know [MPl Nom Perf Act Part] the truth, 2through the truth abiding [FS Acc Pres Act Part] in us and with us it will be [3S Fut Mid Indic] forever. 3It will be [3S Fut Mid Indic] with us, grace, mercy, peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ the Son of the Father in truth and love.
4

I rejoiced [1S 2 Aor Mid Indic] greatly that I have found [1S Perf Act Indic] of your children walking [MPl Acc Pres Act Part] in truth, just as the commandment we received [1Pl 1 Aor Act Indic] from the Father. 5And now I ask [1S Pres Act Indic], Lady, not as a new command I am writing [MS Nom Pres Act Part] to you but which we have had [1Pl Impf Act Indic] from the beginning, that we should love [1Pl Pres Act Subj] one another. 6And this is [3S Pres Act Indic] the love, that we should walk [1Pl Pres Act Subj] according to his commandments. This the commandment is [3S Pres Act Indic], just as you have heard [2Pl 1 Aor Act Indic] from the beginning, that in this you should walk [2Pl Pres Act Subj]. 7For many deceivers have gone out [3Pl 2 Aor Act Indic] into the world, those who do not confess [MPl Nom Act Indic Part] Jesus Christ having come [MS Acc Pres Mid Part] in the flesh. This one is [3S Pres Act Indic] the deceiver and the antichrist. 8Watch [2Pl Pres Act Impv] yourselves, that you may not lose [2Pl 1 Aor Act Subj] what we have worked for [1Pl 1 Aor Mid Indic] but a full reward you may receive [2Pl 1 Aor Act Subj]. 9Every going-ahead-one [MS Nom Pres Act Part] and not remaining-one [MS Nom Pres Act Part] in the teaching of Christ does not have [3S Pres Act Indic] God. The abiding-one [MS Nom Pres Act Indic] in the teaching, this one has [3S Pres Act Indic] both the Father and the Son. 10If someone comes [3S Pres Mid Indic] to you and that teaching does not bring [3S Pres Act Indic], do not receive [2Pl Pres Act Impv] him into your house and a greeting to him do not speak [2Pl Pres Act Impv]. 11For the speaking-one [MS Nom Pres Act Part] to him a greeting has fellowship [3S Pres Act Indic] in his wicked works.
12

Many things I am having [MS Nom Pres Act Part] to write [Pres Act Inf], I do not want [1S 1 Aor Pass Indic] through paper and ink, but I hope [1S Pres Act Indic] to come [2 Aor Act Inf] to you and face to face to speak [1 Aor Act Inf], that our joy may be [3S Pres Act Subj] filled up [FS Nom Perf Pass Part]. 13 The children of your chosen sister greet [3S Pres Mid Indic] you.

V. 1-3: The striking thing about v. 1-3 is the prominence of how John links the themes of love and truth together. He had written of both themes in 1 John (and indeed, some of the verses from 2 John sound as though they were simply copied out of 1 John), but he never quite linked truth and love together in the way he does in 2 Johntypically truth and love had been linked with obedience and origin (being born of God or of Satan). But here, John addresses the elect lady and her children as those whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all who know the truth, because of the truth that abides 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 Fathers Son, in truth and love. We shouldnt miss the joint from (para) clauses: But there is a point in the repetition of para and in the naming of the two Givers: from God (the) Father and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. These [page] two are equal (see the exposition of I John 5:20). John purposely repeats the Father in order to convey fully what he means by Jesus Christs being the Son of the Father. The antichristian heresy of the deceivers made Jesus the physical son of Joseph, denied the efficacy of his blood, etc. 1 Right from the beginning of this letter, John wants us to begin considering the link between truth and love. What does it mean for John to love the elect lady and her children in truth? What is the difference between knowing the truth and having the truth abide in/with us? How might grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Jesus Christ Gods Son manifest themselves to us in truth and love? John Stott explains some helpful background for this letter: Such hospitality [toward travelling missionaries] was open to easy abuse, however. There was the false teacher, on the one hand, who yet posed as a Christian: should hospitality be extended to him? And there was the more obvious mountebank, the false prophet with false credentials, who was dominated less by the creed he had to offer than by the material profit and free board and lodging that he hoped to gain. It is against this background that we must read the Second and Third Epistles of John, for in them the Elder issues instructions concerning whom to welcome and whom to refuse, and why.2 Also, Lenski takes the view that John wrote this in his old age, as referenced by the term Elder. Most pooh-pooh this view, chiding us that presbyteros is an office, not an age, but Lenski (again) presses deeper into the back-story behind this letter: John is the Presbyter because the churches gave him this title in an eminent sense as we speak of the President, the Governor, etc. When they titled John in this manner the churches intended to honor the aged apostle who alone had survived the other apostles. This honor was combined with the recognition of Johns apostolic authority as being that of the one apostle who still remained to guide, teach, and direct the churches. Because he understood it in this sense John accepted the title. When one said the Presbyter, all the members of the churches knew who was meant; when here and in Third John John himself writes the Presbyter, the readers know who this is. The addition John is not only unnecessary but would also be misleading, for it would convey the thought that there were others like him, save that they had other names such as the
1

R.C.H. Lenski, The interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 559-60. 2 John Stott, The Epistles of John, an introduction and commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 199.

Presbyter this, the Presbyter that, but all were equally eminent men. This was not true; there was only this one the Presbyter, and there were no others who were to be ranked with him. 3 This is a wise letter written by a wise man in his old age, gently but firmly shepherding his flock to ensure that they would continue to walk in the truth even after he would pass away. Praise God for this letters inclusion in the canon of the Scriptures! V. 4-6: John begins his initial exploration of these questions in v. 4-6. He notes first how much he rejoiced to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as we were commanded by the Father. This is significant in that it suggests that truth is more than precise doctrinal formulations (although, as the next section will show, it is not less than that), but that truth has ethical and moral implications walking in truth is something commanded by the Father. In v. 5-6, John then reveals what we shall call the positive link between love and truth: the commandment that we have had from the beginning is that we love one another. Additionally, this is love, that we walk according to his commandments. So, the commandment is that we love, and love is that we walk according to the commandments. Love and commandments are interchangeable in this passage; moreover, if we consider this in light of v. 4, we see also that walking in truth means obedience to the commandments, which is love. Truth = Love = Obedience to the Commandments. V. 7-11: In these verses, John illustrates what we will call the negative link between love and truth. Notice how John connects v. 4-6 with v. 7-11: he writes, For many deceivers have gone out into the world In this we get a glimpse as to why John was so pleased to see the children of the elect lady walking in the truthmany deceivers have gone out into the world, and he rejoiced greatly that the ladys children were not seduced by their lies. The deception promoted by the many deceivers is doctrinal. They do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. The word coming is a participle that comes behind the name Jesus Christ in the Greek, which makes this phrase sound like 1 John 4:2: By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses Jesus-Christ-having-come-in-the-flesh is from God. There, the emphasis was primarily on the person of Jesus, not on the doctrine per se. The same thing is true herethese deceivers do not confess Jesus-Christ-coming-in-the-flesh because they do not know Jesus personally. Thus, John describes any teacher in this vein as the deceiver and the antichrist. This kind of false teaching could be more subtle than we might think. John Stott points out that: The heresy of these teachers was that they confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. We are not told that they categorically denied the incarnation, but that they did not acknowledge it (RSV, NEB). Perhaps they were subtle enough to counterfeit rather than contradict it. Nevertheless, their teaching was tantamount to a contradiction. 4 How many popular books on the Christian bookshelves do exactly thisnever explicitly denying that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, but never really affirming it? Perhaps they dont believe it, or perhaps they dont believe that it is particularly important. Both are devastating. Kruse rightly suggests that we should not be stingy in interpreting the range of Jesus Christ coming in the flesh:
3

R.C.H. Lenski, The interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 554. 4 John Stott, The Epistles of John, an introduction and commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 209.

Based on a study of 1 John, we may say that what the secessionists denied, when stated fully, was that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God come in the flesh, and the reality of his atoning death. The author of 1 John could signal this whole complex of ideas by referring to just one or another aspect of it (cf. 1 John 2:22; 4:2, 3; 4:15; 5:1, 5, 6), and it is probably best to read the present verse in the same way. The aspect of the false teaching picked up here is the reality of Jesus Christs humanity (his [page] coming in the flesh), but this cannot be divorced from the purpose of his coming in the flesh, that is, to give himself as the atoning sacrifice for sins (cf. 1 John 1:7, 2:2; 3:5; 4:10).5 Where this negative link between love and truth shines, however, is in v. 8, where John writes Watch yourselves, so that you may not lose what we have worked for, but may win a full reward. So often we are inclined to think that any repression on the freedom of thought is negative, and that people should have every right to form their own opinions. Certainly, the Christian should never oppose anyones freedom to believe something, since conversion must be inwardly, from the heart, rather than externally, from coercion. Nevertheless, we often have the underlying assumption that everyone should be entitled to their own opinion because nothing really moves beyond mere opinion to truth. Such is the postmodernism of our day. Johns plea here, though, is that these people should watch themselves because their opinions about the truth do matter. Huge issues are at stake, and Johns people are in danger of losing all that they had worked for. John cares about what his people believe about the truth because he loves them. He wants them to live obedient lives as they walk in the truth because he loves them and cares about their well being. The parent who allows a child to put fingers into an electrical socket so that the child can form his/her own opinions is considered an abusive, neglectful parent. John may be counted intolerant according to our standards, but he is a perfect picture of love. The high stakes of truth are laid out in v. 9: Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. The only way we gain God is through the Mediator, the Christ, the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth. John is warning his children that if they abandon the teaching of Christ, then they will have no part in God himself. So, John advises them to take this with the utmost seriousness possible. They are not to receive any deceivers into their house or even to give him any greeting, for doing so takes part in the deceivers wicked works (v. 10-11). Probably this refers to lending some kind of legitimacy to the ministry of these people by treating them as though they were just of a different opinion. John demands complete intolerance. John Stott gives three principles for a balanced interpretation of this prohibition on greeting the false teachers: This verse is relevant both to compromisers who refuse to withdraw from anyone and to separatists who like to withdraw from almost everybody. For a balanced interpretation of it, the following three facts need to be borne in mind. First, John is referring to teachers of false doctrine, not merely to believers in it.It is those who are engaged in the systematic dissemination of lies, dedicated missionaries of error, to whom we are to give no encouragement.
5

Colin Kruse, The letters of John, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 209-10.

Second, Johns instruction may well relate not only to an official visit of false teachers but to the extending to them of an official welcome, rather than merely private hospitality.[page] Perhaps, therefore, it is not private hospitality which John is forbidding so much as an official welcome into the congregation, with the opportunity this would afford to the false teacher to propagate his errors. He is to be treated as excommunicate (Dodd). In the third place, John is referring to teachers of false doctrine about the incarnation, and not to every false teacher. This verse gives us no warrant to refuse fellowship to those, even teachers, who do not agree with our interpretation of apostolic doctrine in every particular.It is the entertainment of antichrist which is forbidden us, the arch-deceiver who is in his teaching denies the essential deity and humanity of Jesus. If Johns instruction still seems harsh, it is perhaps because his concern for the glory of the Son and the good of mens souls is greater than ours6 Lenski is similarly shocked at the suggestion that Johns counsel is anti-Christian and anti-love: The feature that is overlooked is the fact that John is speaking of proselyters who seek entrance among Christians in order to do their proselyting among them. Where does the spirit of Christ bid or allow us to furnish them a home while they work at this wicked business and to wish them well when they come in order to do this work? Where does Christian ethics countenance anything of this kind? The doors of the [page] homes of a Christian congregation cannot be barred too tightly against such spiritual poisoners; they cannot be met at the door with too stern a rebuff. Those who speak about the tolerance noted above would in a given case bar out such nefarious proslyters just as John here tells his readers to do. To what extent do Johns words affect men who are not proselyters? To none. As occasion offers, we may do any man a kindness. We do not even ask what he believes or whether he has a religious belief at all. I may take a Jew, a Mohammedan, a heathen, a tramp, a beggar under my roof; I may bid the time of day to any and to all men. But a notorious proselyting errorist? Do you as a true believer want even the least fellowship with his works?7 But notice that even this is in loveweaker brethren and even the deceivers themselves do not see the full weight of the truth unless we refuse to legitimize it. We do not love them if we treat them as of a different opinion because we do not demonstrate in our actions that they do not have God because they do not abide in the teaching of Christ. If we want them to have God, then we will grieve over their deceptions and warn those around us not to be carried away by it. V. 12-13: As in 3 John, John cuts his letter short and explains that he wants to talk about everything else face to face. There was an urgent message to relay, and John has written all that he absolutely had to. Everything else John wants to talk with them about because he loves them and wants to interact with them in it. There is a wisdom here in how we approach technologypaper and ink are a technology, whether we think of them as such or not. John utilized technology where he had to, but his greatest desire was to physically be with his people and teach them in person. Technological communication devices are not bad, but they should be seen as stop-gaps between actual, face to face interaction where possible. We were meant to live relationally, in community, and technology is no substitute for that reality.
6

John Stott, The Epistles of John, an introduction and commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 213-14. R.C.H. Lenski, The interpretation of the Epistles of St. Peter, St. John and St. Jude (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1966), 570-71.