|
About Jesus Steve Sweetman
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
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."
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 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 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 I
have said that John was an elder in the church at 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.
John
was a Jew, who in his younger days, lived in the Roman 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 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.
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— 2 because of the truth that remains in us and will be with us forever. 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. 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 If
John was indeed the lead or head elder in the church in the city of 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. 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 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.
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. 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 other. 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. 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. 8 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.
|