TEXT: II John

SUBJECT: Exposition of II John

John's Second Epistle is one of the briefest books in the Bible, and also one of its most personal. But its brevity must not be confused with a lack of content; and its personal address with irrelevance for us. For II John is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and so, "profitable"--for us no less than for the first readers.

By way of outline, the Epistle is divided into four parts: the greeting, (vv.1-3); an encouragement (vv.4-6); a warning (vv.7-11), and a farewell (vv.12-13). Tonight, if the Lord helps us, we will try to expound the whole letter.

The greeting is usually the easiest part of an Epistle to address. It consists of sender, recipient, and blessing. This one is no different in form. But its content is beset with problems.

Who wrote it? Tradition tells us John the Apostle. But the Epistle does not--at least not explicitly. He identifies himself only as "the elder". Who is he? Is there any way of knowing? There is. And we don't have to appeal to the church fathers, as valuable as their testimony may be. For the language of this Epistle is strikingly similar to I John. And the language of I John is quite like that of the Gospel of John. Hence, the same man wrote all three. And who is that? There is no question, John, the son of Zebedee, and brother of James. He was one of the Twelve--and at the time of this writing--maybe the last surviving Apostle.

But why does he call himself "the elder"? Obviously, to identify himself. But how does "elder" translate into "John"? There are two opinions. Some say that he uses the word officially, i.e., he is "the elder" (or pastor) of a church. But this is doubtful, for there were many "elders", yet he uses the definite article, the elder.

Thus, I take it in a more general sense, as "the aged one"--the "Old Man" you might say. This fits the historical context, for John is old at the time he wrote the Epistle, and as the last living Apostle, he was part of an earlier generation. It also agrees with his style, which is quite fatherly. And it adds weight to what he has to say. Our culture exalts youth, but the Hebrew world respected age. Leviticus 19:32, for example, says: "You shall rise before the gray headed and honor the presence of an old man, and fear your God". Disrespect for age was a religious crime, a slighting of God who is, after all, "The Ancient of Days".

And so, John writes the letter with a grandfather's affection and authority.

To whom is he writing? "To the elect lady and her children..." Who are these people?

Some take the words figuratively, as a church. The argument is "the church is the bride of Christ" and "Chosen by God", and so "the elect lady". But if this is true, who are "her children"? Roman Catholics have a ready answer: the communicants. This makes sense in their theology, because the "Church" is the hierarchy (Bishops, Cardinals, and the Pope). But is this what the New Testament teaches? It does not; the church is both officers and members. The members being more basic than the officers, for a church can exist without officers, but officers cannot exist without a church. But maybe it's a parallel; maybe "the elect lady" and "her children" are equivalent. From the first verse, this is possible. But when you come to v.4, you find an "I-thou" relationship between "the lady" and "her children".

And so, although many fine expositors adopt this interpretation, I respectfully disagree. It is not a church to which John is writing.

I take "the elect lady and her children" literally. Why not? The Apostles wrote personal letters (see Timothy, Titus, Philemon); they cared for women as much as men (Paul greets several of them by name in Romans 16); mothers were concerned for their children, and appreciated the sympathy and help others could give--especially John. Plural pronouns appear in vv.6,8,10,13, which one book argues, suggests that John was not writing to one woman, but to a church. But all you have to do is re-read the address. John is not writing to a single woman--but to "the elect lady and her children".

John next commends his love to her, v.2, "whom I love in truth". This does not mean "whom I truly love"; but "whom I love because of the truth". John had a high regard for this woman (and some of her children) because of their commitment to the truth. The content of this "truth" is indicated in the verses to follow: "the doctrines of Christ". And so, John assures them of his loving approval. But it doesn't come from him alone "but also all those who know the truth". This family is well-known for its doctrinal stand. And every orthodox believer admires them for it. This "truth" is no passing fancy, but "abides in us and will be with us forever".

The blessing is then offered, v.3, "Grace, mercy, and peace be with you from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father in love and truth". The blessings come from both God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. In using the double "from", John is making a doctrinal point: Jesus is God. Not "God was with Jesus" in some special way; but Jesus is "very God of very God".

Having now greeted his lady friend and her children, John comes to the body of the letter, which begins with an encouraging word, vv.4-6. John is happy to hear that "some of her children are walking in the truth". The word "some" is not in the original, but the idea certainly is. By "walking in the truth", he means that they are both believing the right things about Christ and living consistently with those doctrines.

John is happy with them, but not satisfied. He wants them to continue and step up their "walking in the truth". This will be done, v.5, as they "love one another". And John reminds them that this is no "pet doctrine" of his own, but "the commandment...which we had from the beginning". Beginning of what? Beginning of the Christian era; it was the hallmark of Christ's preaching. This "love" is not "a warm and fuzzy feeling", but a principled life; it means to "walk according to His commandments", v.6.

Negatively, it means to "work no ill" to fellow believers. Positively, to do them "good, as you have opportunity". And this duty must be both "heard" and "walked in".

This duty is of the highest importance and urgency because of our common enemy. Christians differ from one another, but are not enemies. Others are. Who are they? The warning of vv.7-11 makes it plain.

They are heretics. Their doctrine deviates from the truth at the most critical point: Christology. They "do not confess Jesus Christ coming in the flesh". In other words, they deny His humanity. By doing this, they become "deceivers and antichrists". They also give up any hope of being saved so long as they remain in the error. For only he "who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son".

These gnostic heretics (it seems) had seduced some of the Elect Lady's children from the truth. How, then should she (and her faithful children) react to them?

Having now made his point, John bids his lady friend and her children adieu', vv.12-13.

He has more to say, but cannot at the moment. But he longs to be with them all again, so that they might excite each other to Christian joy. They would be grateful to hear what God is doing with him, and he would feel the same about them. He closes with a greeting from her nieces and nephews who are with John at the moment.

In closing, I want you to notice the agreement between "truth" and "love". Some think of them as incompatible. And painful experience would seem to bear it out. For the "loving Christians" I know are often indifferent toward doctrine. "It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you love" seems to be their motto. And the "doctrinal Christians" I know are often unloving. "It doesn't matter if you love as long as you know the truth". To some, "love" is everything; to others "truth" is everything.

But to the Apostle, it wasn't either/or, but both/and. The Holy Spirit wants us to be "loving theologians" or "theological lovers". It is He who has joined to love and truth. And...

"What God has joined together,

Let no man put asunder".