Chapter 17 2 John 4–8

Literary Context

This passage opens the body of the letter with the elder’s main concern: that his readers continue to believe and live out the truth revealed by Jesus Christ. His exhortation that they continue to love one another is explained within the context of false teaching, which is the opposite of love since it leads people away from eternal life that is theirs only in Christ.

I. Salutation and Greeting (v. 1–3)
II. An Exhortation (vv. 4–8)
1. A. Cause for the Elder’s Joy (v. 4)
2. B. Exhortation to Love One Another (vv. 5–6)
3. C. Reason for the Exhortation (v. 7)
4. D. Warning! (v. 8)
III. A Prohibition (vv. 9–11)
IV. The Closing (vv. 12–13)

Main Idea

The elder argues passionately for the truth revealed by Jesus Christ against the threat of heresy. Writing to another church at some distance, he warns his readers of those who likely went out from the elder’s church(es) to spread false teaching to the Christian churches.

Translation

Structure

The passage begins with a statement of the elder’s joy that affirms his readers and ends with an imperative that warns them not to deviate from the truth. His entreaty that they love one another is followed by a definition of love (to live according to God’s commands) and the reason for his exhortation (many deceivers are out and about).

Exegetical Outline

II. An Exhortation (vv. 4–8)
1. A. Cause for the elder’s joy (v. 4)
2. B. Exhortation to love one another (vv. 5–6)
3. C. Reason for the exhortation (v. 7)
4. D. Warning! (v. 8)

Explanation of the Text

4 I rejoice greatly because I have found some of your children walking in the truth, just as we received the command from the Father (Ἐχάρην λίαν ὅτι εὕρηκα ἐκ τῶν τέκνων σου περιπατοῦντας ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, καθὼς ἐντολὴν ἐλάβομεν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός). Following the contours of some types of Greco-Roman letters, thanksgiving or praise for the recipients typically follows the salutation (cf. Rom 1:8; 1 Cor 1:4; Phil 1:3; Col 1:3; 1 Thess 1:2; 2 Thess 1:3; 2 Tim 1:3; 3 John 2–3).

In terms of rhetorical analysis, v. 4 functions as the exordium, in which an author raises his major point by eliciting the recipients’ “attention, receptivity, and good-will” toward the author and his topic, which in this case is obedience to the truth.1 The elder elicits goodwill from the original readers by telling them how happy they have made him by walking in the truth. This implies that they would find that statement to be a valuable affirmation of their relationship with the elder and would be motivated to continue to bring him joy.

However, the prepositional phrase “some of your children” (ἐκ τῶν τέκνων) is partitive, meaning that the elder is referring only to “some” who are walking in the truth. This could be simply because he has come to know only about some of the people of that congregation, not all of them, and thus limits his evaluation accordingly. But perhaps the elder is subtly questioning some of his readers’ commitment to walking in the truth. In this way the elder raises his concern that a number of his readers may have been influenced in ways that would lead them to depart from the truth.

“Walking in the truth” is a distinctively Johannine metaphor; it means to live in a way consistent with the revelation Jesus Christ has brought (cf. 1 John 1:6; 3 John 3–4). It is “adherence to the norms that shape the author’s vision of reality.”2 More specifically here, the elder defines walking in the truth as living according the command “we” have received from the Father. The use of the first plural pronoun “we” implies the assumed unity between the elder and his readers that further establishes goodwill. The command mentioned can be defined further by 1 John 3:23, “And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another, just as he gave the command to us.” Walking in the truth involves both faith in Christ as God’s Son and love for others (see comments 1 John 3:23).

5 And now I ask you, lady—not as writing you a new command, but [as writing a command] that we have had from the beginning—that we love one another (καὶ νῦν ἐρωτῶ σε, κυρία, οὐχ ὡς ἐντολὴν καινὴν γράφων σοι ἀλλὰ ἣν εἴχομεν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους). The elder has affirmed his joy that the “lady and her children” have been walking in the truth (v. 4), but “now” (νῦν) entreats that they continue to love one another; this phraseology suggests that the topic he is broaching has the potential of disrupting relationships. He does not issue this as a command, but frames his exhortation as an entreaty, “I ask” (ἐρωτῶ), showing esteem for his readers as he repeats the respectful vocative “lady” (κυρία).

Verse 5 echoes 1 John 2:7–8, “Dear friends, I am not writing to you a new command but an old command, which you have had from the beginning. The old command is the message that you have heard. Yet I am writing to you a new command, something that is realized in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining.” The newness of the command has to do with the newness of a situation that has arisen, requiring that believers be reminded of the command to love (see comments 1 John 2:7–8).

In 1 John 2:7 it is a command that “you” have had from the beginning, but here the elder includes himself, “we have had” (εἴχομεν) from the beginning. As Watson observes, this may be meant to “buttress his relationship with the audience against possible secessionist activity which could ultimately sever it.”3

The phrase “from the beginning” (ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς) recurs again and again in the Johannine letters (1 John 1:1; 2:7, 13, 14, 24; 3:8, 11). From the repeated use of this phrase we can infer that Johannine Christianity was essentially conservative, not innovative. Holding to the tradition in which the elder stood was the touchstone of right belief. As Lieu has observed, “We may say that for the Johannine Epistles an appeal to the tradition ‘which is from the beginning’ is fundamental for understanding what it means to be a Christian in the present” (italics added).4 The elder is not bringing a new obligation or command, but a reminder of what has always stood since Jesus first gave it to his followers (John 13:34). Here this appeal aims to counteract any influence of the false teachers. In the years since, the elder’s readers as well Christians today still need to be called back to the basics.

6 And this is love: that we walk according to his commands. This is the command, just as you heard from the beginning, that you walk in it [the truth] (καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγάπη, ἵνα περιπατῶμεν κατὰ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ· αὕτη ἡ ἐντολή ἐστιν, καθὼς ἠκούσατε ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, ἵνα ἐν αὐτῇ περιπατῆτε). The definition of love may be elusive against the clamor of the world, and the elder takes this opportunity to remind his readers that genuine love for God and others means living in the way that God has designed us to live and relating to others according to God’s moral standards (1 John 5:3).

It was likely as easy then as now to claim we love others, by some subjective, relative definition of the word. But the elder grounds the concept of love in God’s moral authority. The elder alternates between “the” command (love one another) and “commands,” which Marshall explains “are the detailed requirements which unfold the structure of this central command.”5 Citing Rom 13:8–10, Marshall observes that “the various social commands in the second part of the Ten Commandments are summed up in the one rule of loving one’s neighbor, so that love is the fulfillment of the law … the elder’s point is to show that love must issue in various detailed types of actions in accordance with God’s commandments.”6

The commands in view are probably not the Ten Commandments directly, but their transposition and expansion by Jesus, which he summed up as love for God and love for neighbor (Matt 22:37–40; see comments on 1 John 2:7). John has echoed this in 1 John 4:21, “And this is the command from him: that the one who loves God must also love their brother or sister” (see comments). The apostle Paul also points to the Ten Commandments as the framework in which we understand what it means to love others; love does not steal from others, or lie about others, or murder them, or otherwise violate God’s moral law (cf. Rom 13:10; 1 Cor 13:4–8).

For the first time in 2 John, the elder shifts from the first plural “we/us” to the second plural “you.” Rhetorically this shift signifies his move from affirming the unity of his readers with him to exhorting them. After affirming that “some” of them are indeed walking in the truth and bringing the elder great joy, he now moves to the plural “you” as he exhorts all of these people to “walk in it.”

The antecedent of the feminine dative pronoun “it” (αὐτῇ) in the final clause of this verse is grammatically ambiguous. It agrees with any one of the three feminine nouns in the immediate context: command (ἐντολή), love (ἀγάπη), or truth (ἀλήθεια, reaching back to v. 4, where “walking” was done “in the truth”). Wendland sees this as intentional ambiguity here that he describes as “semantic density,” encompassing all three ideas to underscore their inseparability from one another.7 Taking “command” as the antecedent produces a tautology that is less than satisfying: “And this is the command … that you walk in the command.” Lieu softens it by paraphrasing, “This, then, is the command which, as you have heard from the beginning, you should live by.”8

The second closest antecedent is “love” (ἀγάπη), earlier in the verse: “His command is that you walk in love” (NIV 2011).9 But love was just defined as walking in his command, still yielding a tautology, “His command is that you walk in his commands.” Watson, who takes the antecedent as “love” and recognizes this as a “double tautology,” points to the sequence of love–commands, command–it (love) as a chiasm.10 However, he does not explain how this “double tautology” would contribute to the sense or rhetoric of the passage.

Kruse also takes the antecedent to be “love” (ἀγάπη) and explains that “having defined love as walking ‘in obedience to his commands’ (plural), the elder defines that obedience in terms of a single command: As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love” (bold original).11 Thatcher comments that this “circular argument” highlights “the close connection between love for God, obedience to God, and love for brothers.”12

A third reading understands the antecedent of “it” (αὐτῇ) to be “truth” (ἀλήθεια), which was mentioned in the parallel phrase back in v. 4, “walking in the truth.” This would yield, “And this is the command … that you walk in the truth,” that is, live by faith in Jesus Christ. This reading follows from the prominence of the topic of obedience to the truth that was introduced in the body of the letter, to which love for others is subordinate. As Watson notes, the exordium (v. 4) raises the main point of discussion, which is obedience to the truth, even though Watson himself sees the antecedent of “it” (αὐτῇ) not as “truth” but as “love.”13

Wendland’s analysis of lexical-thematic structure also concluded that the pronoun refers back to “truth” in v. 4.14 If the antecedent is “truth” (ἀλήθεια), this last phrase of v. 6 forms an inclusio with v. 4. Moreover, it coheres nicely with the next phrase in v. 7, “For many deceivers have gone out….” As v. 7 is giving the basis for the command, the concept of deception contrasts nicely as the antonym of “walking in the truth.” Read in the context of 1 John, the truth of which the elder speaks consists of three christological points:

1. The man Jesus is the Christ.
2. The Son of God has been incarnated as a human being.
3. The death of the Son of God is atonement for sin.

Although the elder has affirmed his readers for walking in the truth (v. 4), he now points out that walking in the truth is not optional for Christian believers but is what God has commanded. “What they have heard from the beginning should go with them to the end.”15 Moreover, the elder’s exhortation that they continue to love one another entails that they continue to walk in the truth. The next verse explains why aberrant teaching in the church is the opposite of love.

7 For many deceivers have gone into the world, those who do not confess Jesus Christ coming in flesh; such a person is the deceiver and the antichrist (ὅτι πολλοὶ πλάνοι ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὸν κόσμον, οἱ μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ πλάνος καὶ ὁ ἀντίχριστος). The need for the exhortation to love one another by walking in the truth is explained by the situation from which the elder writes: it is because many deceivers who are not walking in the truth are out and about.

This ties the elder’s concern back to the same concern in 1 John (1 John 2:18–23; 3:7; 4:3). In all the books of the NT, only John’s letters mention the word “antichrist,” and that shared word ties 1 and 2 John together historically. The initial conjunction “for” (ὅτι causal) shows that the discussion of Christology is integrally related to the exhortation to love in v. 6.

The problem mentioned here is the same in 1 John: the deceivers are those who do not believe that Jesus Christ has “come in flesh” and have left the Johannine church (1 John 2:19), and we learn in this letter they are apparently trying to influence other churches in the region. It may be that the letter of 1 John was written to the church(es) who had experienced the schism, but that as those who went out were attempting to influence other churches, it was sent to them with 2 John as a cover letter (see Introduction to 2 and 3 John).

The issue of that moment concerned the belief that Jesus was the Christ who had come in the flesh (cf. 1 John 4:2; see comments). The present participle “coming” (ἐρχόμενον) refers not to a future coming, such as the second coming of Christ, but to the past event of the incarnation.16 Wallace identifies this anarthrous, accusative participle as indicating indirect discourse following the verb of communication “do not confess” (μὴ ὁμολογοῦντες) and offers the translations “to have come in the flesh” and “has come in the flesh.”17

Although NT scholars have long taken the phrase as a polemic against Docetism, it is more likely involved in a broader debate about the source of true knowledge concerning God’s redemptive plan. The potential for deception is directly related to this issue of revealed truth. As Moberly points out, “John’s concern is intrinsic to any form of Christian faith. For where notions of divine self-revelation and corresponding human knowledge of God play a crucial role, possibilities of error and the deception of either self or others abound.”18 True knowledge of God is found only in the incarnation of Jesus Christ, for the Word became flesh specifically to reveal the otherwise invisible God (John 1:18). Therefore, everyone who has a true knowledge of God acknowledges that “Jesus Christ has come in flesh”; that is, the Son of God became a human being. Certainly this truth would argue against Docetism, but also more broadly against many forms of christological error.

The particular phrase “has come in flesh” suggests that the debate of concern to the elder probably involved the means of salvation more than the nature of Jesus Christ. De Boer has pointed out that “the verb ‘to come’ in Johannine christological contexts not only means (denotes) ‘to appear on the scene’ but also signifies (connotes) ‘to act salvifically’ ”19 (see John 5:43; 7:28; 8:42; 12:46; 16:28; 18:37). While sound Christology certainly insists on the physical incarnation of Christ as fully human, Christ’s full humanity was necessary because of his role in God’s plan of salvation as the atoning sacrifice for sin.

Therefore, the confession that Jesus Christ “has come in flesh” does not simply acknowledge that Jesus was a fully human historical person (contra Docetism), but accepts the redeeming significance of his incarnate life, death, and resurrection on behalf of the human race. The elder identifies those who claim to be Christian but teach otherwise as “antichrists,” because they implicitly oppose the person and work of Christ through a distorted understanding of him.

Although the elder rejoices that “the lady and her children” have been walking in the truth revealed by Jesus, he now has reason to be concerned that some of them have been, or possibly will be, exposed to false teaching that would cause them to wander from the truth; thus, he proceeds to exhort them strongly to be on their guard.

8 Watch yourselves, so that you do not destroy what we have worked for, but [that] you might receive a full reward (βλέπετε ἑαυτούς, ἵνα μὴ ἀπολέσητε ἃ εἰργασάμεθα ἀλλὰ μισθὸν πλήρη ἀπολάβητε). “Watch yourselves” is the first of three imperatives in the letter, though the third one (“do not greet” in v. 10) is an explanation of the second one, “do not receive.” The purpose of being on guard, expressed in the hina clause, is so that “you” will not destroy what “we” have achieved.20 As Lieu observes:

The unexpected switch to the first person plural … reinforces the seriousness of the moment. The effort has not been all their own; although the elder has endeavored to maintain a sense of the autonomy of the lady and her children, he cannot resist reminding them that they are part of a wider network and perhaps, even dependent on it…. A similar alternation between first and second person plural in verses 5–6 sets the audience within a larger community of the author and others … bound together by their common heritage of belief and its expression. Their loss would be to the loss of all those.21

While the lady and her children have brought the elder great joy, there is also the potential that they could bring him great sorrow if they do not watch out to guard the truth and live by it.

Rather than spiritual destruction, the elder wants his readers to receive a “full reward” (μισθὸν πλήρη). Both parts of the verse state the same thing, first negatively and then positively, with the rhetorical effect of amplifying the importance of this thought.22 The language of a “full reward” is not distinctively Johannine but is common in the NT writings. Yarbrough observes that it is used frequently to refer to eschatological blessing in Matt 5:12; 10:41; Mark 9:41; Luke 6:23, 35; John 4:36; 1 Cor 3:8, 14; 9:17–18; Rev 11:18; 22:12.23 This eschatological phrase heightens what is at stake in the situation against which the elder warns: nothing less than salvation to eternal life. This understanding helps to understand why he would label these errant “Christians” so harshly with the label “antichrist,” and why in v. 10 he would forbid any fellowship with them. The pressing issue is not simply a matter of a difference of opinion about some unknowable religious question; it is a matter of eternal life and death.

Theology in Application

Truth, Faith, Commands, and Love

This passage forms an interesting nexus that relates truth, faith, commands, and love. Each of these terms is isolated from the others in our modern world. Truth is most often defined in modern society either as what can be scientifically verified or as a completely relativistic construction. As Akin observes:

Truth is not as easy to find as it once was. Indeed it is in short supply, especially when we enter the realm of the spiritual. Atheist Richard Rorty boldly claims that truth is made, not found. Atheist Michael [sic] Foucault says that all truth claims are constructed to serve those in power. Deconstructionist Jacques Derrida says the author is dead and the text is dead. All meaning is the creation of the reader(s).24

In light of that, faith is often construed as merely subjective opinion—sometimes even belief against all reason. As one cynical aphorism (attributed to Mark Twain) claims, “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.” Commands are frequently thought of as being common to all religious belief. One thinks of the Jewish Sabbath regulations or the dietary laws, of the Islamic call to prayer five times a day, or of a legalistic Christianity where faith in Christ is reduced to a list of dos and don’ts. Love is relegated to the realm of the emotions, and while its power to move human decisions and behavior is assumed, its best expression is seldom seen in popular society as related to God.

Faith, Truth, and Love Mutually Define Each Other

Perhaps the genius of John’s writings is that he grounds truth, faith, commands, and love all in the revelation of God that Jesus Christ brought, and he redefines each in terms of the others such that one cannot have genuine faith without truth, and one cannot have truth apart from love, and one cannot love without living God’s commands.

God the Father loved us first and sent the Son as a human being into this world to reilluminate the truth that the fall had darkened beyond our sight. The incarnation of Jesus Christ is the hub of the wheel from which truth, faith, commands, and love emanate. The incarnation not only attained eternal salvation through the cross, but integrates our individual beings and lives now. Without the incarnation, truth does devolve into as many relativistic opinions as there are people; faith does become a blind leap; commands are reduced to futile rules and regulations that are merely human; and love is debased by sinful hearts that are self-deceived.

Remaining in the Truth

It is against these maladies that the elder warns us to remain steadfast in the revelation of Jesus Christ. Not any belief about Jesus will do. Not any practice in the name of Christianity is true. The elder preserved the true revelation of God that went back to Jesus Christ himself, and which is now preserved for us in the NT. Even now as then, there are still many deceivers in the world, people who perhaps with the best of intentions speak claims of spiritual truth. The world into which Jesus came was already noisy with the clamor of religious and philosophical claims, and the cacophony has persisted through the centuries. This does not mean that there are many competing truths about God or that truth about God does not exist at all. It does mean that truth is not found in mere claims, regardless of who makes them, but only as revealed in the incarnate Son of God, who is the Truth.