Observations on 2 and 3 John
(avg. read time: 8–15 mins.)
When I was first working on what became my 1 John article, I had joked with my friends that, given how short the commentaries on 2 and 3 John are, you could spend two to three weeks of dedicated work and become an expert in 2 and 3 John. Unfortunately, I have never set aside that much time dedicated exclusively to 2 and 3 John, although these are texts I will obviously revisit. Much like Philemon, these letters are not as directly pertinent for my project on resurrection, and although they will be included in one of the volumes, there will not be a great deal to say, even in the more expanded versions. Based on what we covered in the last post on 1 John, there will be some controversy to address on 2 John 7, but I did not think that was going to be sufficient for this post. Other points that can be connected with resurrection in terms of the framework of cosmic conflict would require going too far afield for my purposes in these posts to identify the pertinent connections. Instead, like with Philemon, the plan for this post is to go through a series of observations about the two shortest letters in the NT.
2 John is bookended by figures described with the adjective ἐκλεκτός (“chosen/elect”). The adjective is applied to one Elect Lady and her children who are the recipients of the letter and to her Elect Sister and her children on whose behalf John “the Elder” greets the Elect Lady. I once accepted the interpretation that the Elect Lady and the Elect Sister were ways of referring to churches, with the children of each being the congregation members. After all, in this interpretation, the phrase would combine two kinds of language associated with God’s people: 1) describing the people as elect/chosen (Deut 4:37; 7:6; 10:15; 14:2; Pss 33:12; 105:6; Isa 43:20; 45:4; 65:9; Tob 8:15; Wis 3:9; 4:15; 4 Ezra 5:23–30; LAB 28:4–5; 30:2; As. Mos. 4:2; Ps 155:21; Pss. Sol. 9:8–11; 18:3; 1QpHab V, 3–4; 4QpPsa II, 4–5; Matt 24:22, 24, 31; Mark 13:20, 22, 27; Luke 18:7; Rom 8:33; Col 3:12; 2 Tim 2:10; Titus 1:1; 1 Pet 1:1; 2:9); 2) referring to the chosen people or Zion specifically as women (Isa 26:17–18; 54; 66:7–8; Jer 4:31; 6:24; 13:21; Mic 4:9–10). There is also precedent for it in the similar description of God’s people as the bride/wife of God/Christ (Isa 49:14–18; 54; 61:10; 62:1–5; Jer 2:2; 3; Ezek 16; Hos 1–2; cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Gal 4:25; Eph 5:21–33; Rev 12:17; 21:2). The Elect Sister would thus be a sister congregation who shares in the reality of being elect. Indeed, a few Latin manuscripts perceived this point and tried to make a more explanatory translation to bring it out.
However, this interpretation runs into a problem of a complete lack of precedent in the NT and even in subsequent literature. No congregation is referred to as “lady” (κυρία). But this was a common way in the ancient world for women to be referred to with honor as the feminine equivalent of κύριος (Gen 16:4, 8, 9; 1 Kgs 17:17; 2 Kgs 5:3; Ps 123:2; Prov 30:23; Isa 24:2; Josephus, Ant. 17.137; J. W. 1.71; Acts Paul 10.8; and more than a dozen times in Shepherd of Hermas). And if it is meant to be a complement to this honorific for Jesus, it is curious that this point is never accentuated by the actual appearance of the term κύριος anywhere in 2 John, or 1 and 3 John for that matter.
It is true that there are second-person plural addresses here (6, 8, 10, 12), but those who make this point, like I used to, seem to forget that that the letter is addressed to the Elect Lady and her children, so obviously when referring to the group as a whole a plural would most naturally be used, whereas there are singular uses that fit more naturally with the Elect Lady being singled out (4, 5, 13). Nor does it make sense to say the Lady is the church and the children are the congregation, since these are one and the same, and both English terms translate the same Greek term.
Rather more likely, both the Elect Lady and the Elect Sister are leaders who host churches in their houses. That is, the “children” are the spiritual children (as is common in the NT, and especially in John’s letters) who gather with her and her sister. The sister may be a biological sister, or it could refer to a fellow Christian woman who likewise hosts a house church. In this way, they are both like Euodia and Syntyche (Phil 4:2–3) with how they are addressed and spoken of in exalted terms. At a minimum, others in the NT who hosted churches in their house were Nympha (Col 4:15), Priscilla and Aquila (Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:8), and Philemon (Phlm 1–2). It could also be true of Chloe (1 Cor 1:11), Aristobulus (Rom 16:10), Narcissus (Rom 16:11), Onesiphorus (2 Tim 4:19), and a rich person like Phoebe (Rom 16:1), but these are less clear. What differentiates the Elect Lady and her sister from them is that they are unnamed. They were known to John, but not to us. Their names were not written for us, but they are written in the book of life, and the day will come when we can meet them and know them.
Due to the shortness of 2 and 3 John, the amount of repetition of certain words highlights their importance even more. While 1 John is the NT text with the most frequent use of “love” language (whether in the form of a noun, verb, or term of address), 2 and 3 John are the texts that use “truth” language most frequently in relative terms (five occurrences in 245 words in 2 John and seven occurrences [including one of ἀληθής] in 219 words in 3 John). Truth expresses the nature of love (2 John 1; 3 John 1). Truth abides in the believer as the believer abides in the teaching of/about Christ (2 John 2–3; cf. 9). One abides in the truth by walking in the truth (that is, by living in obedience; 2 John 4; 3 John 3–4). Truth is thus a matter of character as the enactment of fidelity (3 John 3). Truth is a shorthand for the spread of the gospel and the training of discipleship contained therein (3 John 8). Truth is both the subject of testimony and a characteristic of it (3 John 12). On one level, one might expect this prevalence because “truth” terminology is more prominent in Johannine literature than elsewhere. On another level, this focus on such language seems to be in response to the problem of deceit that could potentially plague his audience. He wants to keep calling them to the truth that they already know, lest they be persuaded to follow a false narrative and court death. After all, life, light, love, and truth are all of one piece in Johannine theology as they all are from God, and deviating from any of them allows the enemies in the cosmic conflict to gain a foothold.
Likewise, love language (specifically, language based on ἀγαπή) is prevalent in these short letters (the noun, verb, or address form appears four times in 2 John and six times in 3 John). Love and truth define the sphere of existence in which the church abides in 2 John 1 and 3. The commandment to love one another defines the character and identity of the church (5) and that love is to walk according to God’s commandments (6). Similarly in 3 John 1, love and truth define the sphere of existence that John shares with Gaius. As in 2 John 1 and 3, such phrasing indicates the truthfulness/genuineness of the love, but it also defines the context of love as the truth of the gospel in which they abide. 3 John 6 describes love as the foremost virtue of Gaius to which the itinerant Christian siblings have testified. But most often, the love language appears in the form of the address “beloved” (ἀγαπητός; 1, 2, 5, 6, the last three of which are in the vocative form). This indicates that love defines the nature of their relationship to such a degree that it explicitly shapes how John addresses Gaius.
John conveys a similar idea in 2 John 5–6 as is present in 1 John 2:7–8, which in turn draws on ideas represented in John 15:10–12. That is, the commandment to love one another is “not a new commandment,” but the one that followers of Christ have had since the beginning. This language establishes the kind of continuity with Christ that John similarly urges on his audience while also establishing the authority of the commandment, since John is not innovating here but drawing on the authority of established teaching/tradition. In both of these ways, this text brings to a precise point of stress what he wants to tell his community about the importance of remembering the truth that they already know and walking in it by loving one another, which is obedience to Christ’s commandment.
How then does this language function in 3 John? After all, this is not a primarily theological letter, but it is more socially concerned about being hospitable to missionaries. Still, the four references to Gaius as “beloved” stem from his faithfulness to what he has been taught and from the love that he has shown primarily through his hospitality to the itinerant preachers who declare the truth. As such, he once again shows the interlocking nature of love, obedience, and adherence to the truth.
On that point, John envelops the thesis statement here with different ways of conveying the deeply interwoven nature of truth, love, and obedience. As is stated elsewhere in Johannine literature, to walk in truth is to love, to love is to keep the commandments of Jesus, to keep the commandments of Jesus is to walk in truth, and so on this Gordian knot of theo-logic goes (2 John 4–6; 3 John 3–4; cf. John 15:10–12; 1 John 2:3–6; 3:23–24; 5:3–4). Such is the logic of theological ethics where the common sentiment of “it doesn’t matter what you believe; it only matters what you do” has no place. Orthodoxy and orthopraxy are inseparable. This is why John is so adamant about sounding the clarion call of truth, for he sees that deceit leads into hate, darkness, disobedience, and ultimately death.
The central controversy in 2 John is indicated in v. 7, wherein it states that the deceivers who have gone out into the world do not profess Jesus Christ coming in the flesh, and thus they are deceivers and antichrists. There are multiple points worth noting here. First, in line with other Johannine texts we have seen, v. 7 is part of an enthymeme that is supplied its conclusion in a roundabout way in v. 8. The takeaway is that believers should watch out for their deception and to continue walking in truth and love. Second, these deceivers have gone out into the κόσμος, which is actually their appropriate abode. They are going out to where they belong, because the κόσμος in Johannine literature is typically the world order arrayed against God’s order. Third, the nature of their deceit—which it was once popular to interpret as a kind of Docetism or Gnosticism, that it is a denial that Christ has come in the flesh—is perhaps more likely a denial that Christ (i.e., the Messiah) has come in the flesh. In other words, it is a denial of (at least) one of the fundamental identity statements about Jesus. There is probably more to this deceit than we can reconstruct (as the phrasing is probably shorthand for teaching that John’s readers would have recognized and John would not need to expound upon further), though it would make sense for some associated Jewish group (constituting the secessionists/schismatics) to make such claims. But at the least John intends for us to understand that these teachers are denying the gospel itself. At the least, this involves a denial of the incarnation in essence (that is, that God the Son became incarnate), it may involve a denial of the resurrection (which could possibly be more prominent, depending on arguments we have examined previously and will revisit another time), and it is effectively a denial of the gospel as a whole. Fourth, because these teachers are denying the gospel and therefore setting themselves in opposition to God and Christ, John sees their threat as being that of an anti-Christ (note that there is no reason in this text to spell it with a capital A). As 1 John makes clearer, this defines these teachers as having allegiance to a world that God has already instituted victory over in Christ (and which Christians have victory over via their participation in Christ).
One of the more well-known aspects of 2 John is the instruction that the false teachers should not be received into the house or greeted (cf. Did. 11). This teaching often gets brought up in the question of how to deal with Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses when they come to your door. The danger in misinterpreting this teaching is that Christians may end up treating these sects like vampires, where inviting them into your home gives them power over you and invites your own (spiritual) death. Such a teaching is not only unnecessarily callous, inhospitable, and insular in opposition to evangelistic instructions and the theology of Christ’s victory, it is also not what 2 John is saying. It is certainly true that the implied conclusion of vv. 10–11 is that inviting the false teacher courts disaster and can lead more to go astray. This is so not because the false teachers are vampires, but because “houses” in this case are functioning as house churches, where invitations would be opportunities for sustaining or establishing ministries. Likewise, the “greeting” is not a standard greeting (ἀσπάζομαι, which even this letter features in v. 13), but more of a joyful greeting (χαίρω) that gives the impression of good standing in the community. This instruction is about being discerning and not giving unthinking endorsement to any teacher and teaching that would destroy them with their endorsement.
The obverse of the teaching on not welcoming false teachers in 2 John is the instruction on sending and supporting the itinerant teachers in 3 John 5–8. Gaius, and others who follow this instruction, will show faithfulness, love, and hospitality, thereby proving the walk in truth, by giving the teachers their needed welcome, and sending them on their way with support of funds and supplies. Furthermore, John uses a contrast between Gaius and Diotrephes to uphold this point. Diotrephes has carried out the approach instructed in 2 John, but his disposition and the recipients of this action are all wrong. Gaius, on the other hand, is to show proper wisdom in relation to the truth, as well as love demonstrated in obedience, so that he will continue to be worthy of his reputation. The outcome of such hospitality will be that Gaius will be a “coworker” (συνεργός) of the gospel. This term is used of other honorable individuals in Paul’s letters, such as Priscilla, Aquila (Rom 16:3), Urbanus (Rom 16:9), Timothy (Rom 16:21; 1 Thess 3:2), Titus (2 Cor 8:23), Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25), Philemon (Phlm 1), Clement (Phil 4:3), Aristarchus, John Mark, Jesus/Justus, Demas, and Luke (Col 4:11), as well as the Corinthians (2 Cor 1:24). In the other instance—1 Cor 3:9—it refers to the gospel ministry in general, describing the people who proclaimed the gospel to and taught among the Corinthians—including both Apollos and Paul—as God’s coworkers in the proclamation of the gospel. People have various roles to play and gifts to contribute in the proclamation of the gospel. Providing hospitality to those who proclaim the truth is one such way of participating in the larger work of God in collaboration with others he is working through.
Interestingly, there is a direct contrast between 2 John 7 and 3 John 7, which further accentuates the contrasting responses required toward the two groups in question. The same verb in the same tense applies to both groups (ἐξῆλθον) and they are contrasted in that the first group goes out not confessing that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh while the second group goes out for the sake of the Name (i.e., of Jesus Christ; cf. Acts 2:38; 3:6, 16; 4:10, 12; 5:41; 8:12; 9:16, 21, 27–28; 10:43; 16:18; 21:13; James 2:7; 5:10, 14; 1 Pet 4:14–16; 1 John 3:23; Rev 2:3, 13; 3:8; 14:1). One group consists of antichrists who speak in opposition to the truth of Christ, while the other consists of those who speak on behalf of the one who bears the Name of Christ.
As in almost all of the Johannine works, testimony is an important motif in 3 John (3, 6, 12; cf. John 1:6–8, 14–15, 29–34; 3:26–30; 4:39–42; 5:33–35, 39, 45–47; 9:8–34; 12:17; 15:26–27; 16:7–11; 19:35; 20:17–18; 21:24; 1 John 1:2; 4:14; 5:6–11; Rev 1:2, 5, 9; 2:13; 3:14; 6:9; 11:1–13; 12:11, 17; 17:6; 19:10; 20:4; 22:16, 20). In this letter, the testimony concerns particular believers: Gaius and Demetrius. The testimony is the attestation of their faithfulness and endorsement of their virtue. The ones who testify on behalf of Gaius are the “friends,” the itinerant teachers. But Demetrius has a more interesting set of witnesses attesting to his faithfulness and quality of character. Along with “everyone,” John himself testifies, and “the truth” also testifies on Demetrius’s behalf. This is a set of three witnesses to indicate the super-adequacy of the testimony in his favor. The second witness—the truth—is particularly interesting, as it signifies that Demetrius had embodied the truth in how he lived. It could also be that this witness is a roundabout way of referring to the Holy Spirit. This idea would comport with the function of the Spirit as witness to the truth stated in John 14. It also would not be surprising for the Spirit to be obliquely present in this text, considering the important role of the Spirit in the rest of the Johannine corpus.