Download discussion questions:  2 John 1:1-13

---

 

Table Talk:  How do we distinguish orthodox teaching from cults or heresy?  Scripture, of course.  But lots of people use Scripture and come to very different conclusions.  How do we decide who to listen to?

[“Table Talk” is an opening question or topic for discussion at the beginning of our time together.  The intent is to help group members (around tables, with four to six at each table) build connections with each other, as well as to guide thinking in a direction related to the passage.]

The book of 2 John is just over ten-percent the length of 1 John, and after spending nine weeks in 1 John, our group spent one meeting time in 2 John.  At least two observations stand out after reading 2 John:  This shorter letter contains hints or reminders of most of the major themes of the longer letter.  However, the 2 John also includes several marked differences in form and content.  Our discussion explored both those similarities and differences.

Several themes common to both letters suggest the issues that were uppermost on John’s heart as he wrote:

• Abiding (2 John 1:2, 9a, 9b) is a familiar theme from 1 John (2:6, 10, 3:5, 9, and 19 other occurrences). All three uses in 2 John relate to truth abiding in the believer (v. 2) or the believer abiding in the teaching (twice in v. 9).  In 1 John there are similar statements about truth or teaching.  The “word of God” (2:14) and “what you heard from the beginning” (2:24a, 2:24b) are to abide in the believer.  In addition, the usage in 1 John extends to a more personal or relational aspect.  The believer abides in God (3:24, 4:13, 4:15a, 4:16b), in Jesus (2:6, 28, 3:6), in the Son and the Father (2:24c).  The mutual abiding of 1 John also describes God abiding in believers (3:9, 3:24c, 4:12, 13b, 15a, 4:16b).
• John emphasizes a “commandment” in both letters (2 John 1:5; 1 John 2:7) as nothing new, but what was heard from the beginning, the ministry of Jesus. In 1 John he spends more time on the irony that the commandment is both old and also new (1 John 2:8) in its radical application of love as laying down life (3:8).
• Both letters warn against deceivers (2 John 1:7; 1 John 2:18) who deny the full nature of Jesus as both fully divine and fully human. In 1 John the definition of deceivers and antichrists (or antichrist) is enlarged to those who deny the Father and the Son – the growing understanding of the multi-personal nature of God (1 John 2:22).
• The desire for fullness of joy is where 2 John ends (1:12) and where 1 John begins (1:4). In both letters, joy is the overflow of fellowship with one another and with the multi-personal God (2 John 1:12; 1 John 1:3).
• The relationship between the Father and the Son is carefully described in both letters. The grammatical rule described in a previous article (Granville Sharp rule) is observed in 2 John just as in 1 John.  “The Father and the Son” in 2 John 1:9 clearly describes two distinct persons (and not combined as “the Father and Son” omitting the second definite article).

These and other similarities clearly tie the two letters together.  However, there are also very noticeable differences between them.

• The form of 2 John is more similar to other first-century letters (such as those of Paul). The letter begins with a greeting that mentions the sender and the recipients (although rather vaguely, v. 1), and it ends with a more personal closing (v. 13).  In contrast, 1 John begins and ends rather abruptly, immediately starting with the writer’s personal experience, and finishing with a brusque warning against idols.
• In 1 John there are numerous affectionate references to the recipients: “children” (2:13, 18), or the more intimate “little children” (2:1, 12, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21).  While 2 John includes a traditional greeting, it is more formal:  “the chosen lady” (1:1, cf. v. 5).
• In 2 John the apostle mentions topics not brought up explicitly in 1 John. 1 John includes strong exhortations:  “Do not love the world…” (2:15); and “Whoever makes a practice of sin is of the devil…” (3:4), etc.  2 John addresses a chilling possibility:  “Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward” (1:8).  Losing and “going too far” (v. 9) are consequences not mentioned in 1 John.
• General warnings about “deceivers” are found in 1 John, but 2 John gives very specific instructions: “do not receive him” and “do not give him a greeting” (v. 10).

Since most of our group had participated in our discussions of 1 John over nine weeks, the focus now was mostly on the differences noted in 2 John.  Who is the lady?  Why the anonymity?  What is going “too far” in teaching?  Why such a harsh response to those with different ideas?  Was this letter before or after 1 John?

The Chosen Lady

The consensus of our group was that the “chosen lady” was the church that had been started by those who had read and believed the gospel account that John had recorded (see the article “The Letters of John – A Brief Introduction”).  One member of our discussion pointed out the end of the letter, to a “chosen sister” as most likely another church.  (The feminine forms for lady, kuria, κυρίᾳ, and sister, adelphēs, ἀδελφῆς, would fit with the feminine noun for church, ekklēsia, ἐκκλησίᾳ.)  Most of Paul’s letters were addressed to churches.  His letters often included greetings to those in different congregations (e.g., Colossians 4:15-16).  John was doing the same thing, writing to one church and including his loving greeting to another church.

Anonymity

However, Paul’s letters were usually very specific, naming the city and even individuals associated with the recipient church.  In 2 John, the writer does not even name himself.  Paul always identified himself and often emphasized his authoritative status.  Our discussion considered the fact that John might have preferred anonymity for himself and the church because of persecution.  One comment noted that even today, missionaries in many areas do not want their names or even photos published.  Mission report emails often end with “Please do not forward or post this online.”  John certainly knew about persecution after his years on Patmos (Revelation 1:9).  After “doing time” in exile, maybe he was on a Roman “watch list” as a possible troublemaker, so he had to be discrete.  Also, John’s letters were written about thirty years[1] after most of Paul’s letters to churches.  Things can change a lot in thirty years, like the level of persecution.  The ambiguous references and absence of identifying information in 2 John is quite understandable.

Going Too Far

The warning about “going too far” is sobering, especially in a discussion group where we often speculate and ask awkward questions about a confusing text or an uncomfortable statement in Scripture.  Do we risk going too far?  As always, context is critical.  The warning is given as part of John’s instruction about deceivers and antichrist (v. 7).  Their distinguishing characteristic is the rejection of the full nature of Christ, “Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.”  This is the same fundamental criterion found in 1 John 4:2.  The warning about “too far” is followed immediately by the reference to the multi-personal God, the Father and the Son (v. 9).  As one participant commented, John set boundaries.

We discussed the idea of the boundaries that John provides in his letters.  Certainly there are theological truths about the nature of Christ and the Triune God.  John also has a lot to say about relationships, the “new command” to love one another, as indicators of the authenticity of faith.  The boundaries John establishes consist of the nature of God and the incarnation of Christ.  How can we more clearly define the boundaries of the faith, to avoid “going too far”?  Naturally, the first answer is the Bible.  Unfortunately, heretics and cults use the Bible as well.  A basic understanding of good theology, as summarized in the creeds, provides useful boundaries to guide our study.

Our discussion about boundaries included the question, “Are they to keep people out or to keep people in?”  Boundaries or fences can serve either purpose.  Too many Christians see boundaries as exclusive, to keep “them” out, anyone who doesn’t agree with all the details of doctrine and practice.  This response may be an overreaction to other groups where “anything goes.”  A better perspective is to see boundaries as protective barriers at the edge of danger.  There is great flexibility and freedom within the boundaries.  Getting near the boundary should alert us to possible risks, but that doesn’t mean we cannot explore.  We just need to end up back within the safety of the bounded area.  Our inductive study of Scripture should be fearless.  We can ask even uncomfortable questions or suggest ideas that seem unorthodox.  As long as we understand the protection the boundaries offer, we have that liberty.  A significant benefit (on a mountain hike or in a Bible study) is having others around us to warn, “Careful, you’re awfully close to the edge!”

A Harsh Response

“Do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting” (2 John 1:10).  Those words make our modern ears cringe.  Can’t we all just get along?  As mentioned in an earlier article, we have the benefit of millennia of history and doctrinal refinement, as well as our own years or decades in the church.  We are generally aware of the difference between orthodox theology and cult distortions.  That distinction was much more blurred when John wrote.  His goal was to protect those in the church so they would not join those who “went out from us” following the deceivers and antichrists (1 John 2:19).  Assuming the “chosen lady” was a church, John’s warning was about who was allowed “a teaching platform” as one member of our group described it.  Another person suggested that the “receiving” and “greeting” John forbids may have had more significance in the first century culture.  “Greetings were an essential part of social protocol at that time, and the greeting (‘Peace be with you’) was intended as a blessing or prayer to impart peace….  Housing or blessing a false teacher was thus seen as collaborating with him”[2] or in John’s words, “participating in his evil deeds (2 John1:11).  The confusion of conflicting doctrines was chaotic enough without welcoming and affirming false teachers.

An obvious application question came up in our discussion.  How do we respond to the cult members at our door?  Do we invite them in and try to persuade them of the truth of the Gospel?  Do we politely ask them to leave?  Our consensus was that this is an individual decision.  One person described conversations at the door without letting the other inside his home.  Since John’s warning seems to be directed to the church setting (which would have been meeting in a house) the application to a private residence is not as absolute.  John’s exhortation does impose a weighty responsibility on church leadership, “those who watch over souls and will give an account” (Hebrews 13:17).

Sequence

Since the order of the books in the New Testament canon is not chronological, we can ask which did John write first, 1 John or 2 John?  Without specific internal dating references we can only consider the content of each letter.  Are there any hints or clues that suggest the sequence of John’s thinking and writing?  Having an idea (not always a certainty) about the sequence can help us as we interpret the statements, command, warnings, and exhortations John wrote.  An underlying benefit is the continued exploration of the text to answer that question!

One of the first observations in our discussion was John’s explicit aversion to writing more:  “Though I have many things to write, I do not want to do so with paper and ink” (2 John 12).  After the brief letter of 2 John, the much longer 1 John would seem to contradict that statement.  Maybe 1 John was written first, followed by a summary or reminder in 2 John.

On the other hand, many of the themes contained in 2 John are much more fully developed in 1 John.  Perhaps 2 John was written to the church with some brief, general thoughts as well as John’s indication that he hoped for a personal visit soon.  However, the news he received back was not good.  The situation was worse than he imagined, with deceivers and antichrists already drawing people away.  The situation could not wait for John to come to the church.  Instead, he wrote 1 John with much more detail about the issues of the nature of God and the person of Christ.  He included the practical relational tests for genuine faith, perhaps in response to reports of the unloving behavior of the false teachers.  The urgency to respond was so great he didn’t even waste time with a greeting, but plunged immediately into his own eyewitness account (1 John 1).

One idea that we did not consider (no one thought of it) is that 1 John and 2 John may have been simultaneous with different purposes.  Probably 2 John (“to the elect lady and her children”) was to be read aloud to the specific local church.[3]  John called himself the elder (v. 1) in that short letter “because that is, in large measure, what he was and how he understood himself at the time of writing and in that locale.”[4]  The manuscript of 1 John, on the other hand, might have been “a hortatory homily and not really letter at all.”[5]  Imagine the situation:  your church receives a brief letter from an absent leader who everyone knows.  That short letter is read to the entire congregation as a great encouragement, but with hints of several weighty themes.  Then in a second part of the worship service, a longer, more detailed sermon from the leader is read.  The sermon (the “hortatory homily”) provides much more detail and specific application about loving one another and evaluating spurious teaching.  While the writer is not actually an “elder” of several surrounding churches, he still has an affectionate connection with them, calling all who read his sermon his “little children.”  The longer document is to be circulated to the other churches and read as a sermon to those congregations as well.  “He was not ‘the pastor’ to those other churches, so he did not identify himself by that term in the document he composed for wider distribution.”[6]

1 & 2 John comprise a package, regardless of the exact sequence of the letters.  John was concerned that his readers in a particular church learn to recognize genuine teaching and apply that teaching relationally.  His concern extended to other churches in the area, and his impact has spread over many centuries.  His words about orthodoxy authenticated by relational orthopraxy are essential for us today as well, that our joy may be made full.

 

[1] For an example of estimated dating of the New Testament documents, see
http://www.biblestudytools.com/resources/guide-to-bible-study/order-books-new-testament.html .

[2] Craig S. Keener, ed., The IVP Bible Background Commentary – New Testament (Downers Grove, Illinois:  InterVarsity Press, 1993),749.

[3] Robert W. Yarbrough, 1 – 3 John (Grand Rapids, Michigan:  Baker Academic, 2008), 329.

[4] Yarbrough, 330.

[5] Yarbrough, 329.

[6] Yarbrough, 330.