The Epistles of John, Part 28: Playing with Fire

The ancient Greeks told many tales of myth and fable set against a backdrop of gods, goddesses, demi-gods, heroes, and monsters.  One such story is that of Icarus.  He and his father, Daedalus, were imprisoned by King Minos of Crete in the labyrinth that Daedalus had designed for the purpose of keeping the monstrous Minotaur away from society.  To escape, Daedalus designed and crafted two sets of wings, one for him and one for his son.  These wings were constructed of feathers attached to a wooden frame with wax.

Daedalus cautioned his son not to fly too close to the sun because the wax would melt, causing the artificial wings to fall apart.  But Icarus, overcome with the exhilaration of flight, chose to ignore his father’s warning.  Rising too high, the heat of the sun did indeed cause his wings to be rendered useless, and Icarus fell to his death in the sea.

The point of the myth is to warn of the dangers of hubris.  But what I find interesting in light of 2^nd John is the aspect of heat and the damage it causes.  Heat requires a source to generate it, such as the aforementioned sun or a fire.  The heat then moves outward from its source in waves, eventually dissipating in the air.  What is fascinating about this is that the heat itself is all that is necessary in order to be in danger and to sustain damage.  It is not required to put one’s hand directly into a fire in order to be burned.  One just has to get too close and, as with Icarus, disaster will strike!

The principle I’m talking about is not limited to heat.  It really applies equally well to many forms of danger.  A fatal fall from a high cliff need not be preceded by a willing leap over the edge.  The foolish person courting death merely has to get too close to the precipice and either through their own disorientation resulting from vertigo or the erosion of soil resulting in a weak cliff face, they may find themselves in free fall unwillingly. 

Of course this idea is particularly relevant theologically in the form of sin and the tempting dangers it poses when we merely come close to it.  Paul warned Timothy twice of the need to not just avoid temptations but to actively and aggressively flee from them.  In 1^st Timothy 6:11, in describing false teaching, greed, envy, strife, and abusive language, he tells his disciple to: flee from these things, you man of God, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance, and gentleness.  Later, in 2^nd Timothy 2:22, Paul again urges his protégé to: flee from youthful lusts and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.  It was critically important to Paul that Timothy learn this lesson well.  The reason is because of the swift and sure path that leads from lust and temptation to sin and death that James speaks of in James 1:14-15: But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.  Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.  Indisputably, the Bible teaches us to run away from spiritual danger as fast and as far as we can.

In the last part of 2^nd John I think we see another example of this timeless biblical principle.  He begins in verse 9 by outlining the situation: Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.  The phrase “goes too far” is an interesting one and bears some discussion.  It stems from a single Greek word, “proago” (pro-ah-go), and is alternately translated as “runs ahead”, “goes on ahead”, or even “transgresseth”, depending on the translation being consulted.  “Proago” only appears 20 times in the New Testament, limiting our ability to gain a wide angle view of the word through cross referencing.  However, the occurrences we do have are more than sufficient to give us the sense in which John must have used it.

In Matthew 2:9 we read of the magi from the east, who are seeking the Christ child in order to worship Him.  The text states: after hearing the king, they went their way; and the star, which they had seen in the east, went on before (“proago”) them until it came and stood over the place where the Child was.  This verse illustrates the most common pattern of usage in Scripture for “proago”.  It means to lead, to go before, or even to be sent on ahead.  But this seems too mundane for John’s purpose, considering the context of how he is using it.  He is clearly describing false teachers; those who deny the teaching of Jesus and, rather than remaining in them, choose to depart and go another direction.

It is in this light that 1^st Timothy 5:24 is helpful: The sins of some men are quite evident, going before (“proago”) them to judgment; for others, their sins follow after.  The point that Paul is making to Timothy is that sometimes the evil that people do is clearly seen in the “light of day”.  Either because their sins are so flagrant and grandiose that it is impossible to hide them or because the sinner just doesn’t care enough to attempt concealment, all who observe them can clearly see the wrongdoing they are responsible for.  Thus it is obvious such a person is headed to judgment and torment.  In a sense, the sins they have previously committed are paving the way to their destruction.  This usage by Paul casts “proago” in a decidedly negative light.  No longer is it simply a word of neutral leading and following.  Suddenly it takes on an overtone of a duplicitous and ultimately destructive leading or moving away from righteousness.

The third angle in the New Testament, and I believe the final piece of the puzzle, is found in Hebrews 7:18: For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former (“proago”) commandment because of its weakness and uselessness.  The context of this passage is a discussion of the priesthood of Christ relative to and contrasted against the Levitical priesthood of the Mosaic covenant.  In verse 18 we can clearly see the idea of something new coming along and replacing something old.  The latter usurps the former, in the case of Christ, righteously.  But this usurpation could also be done unrighteously, as we will see in a moment.

I believe in John’s use of “proago” in 2^nd John 1:9 we see all three of the aforementioned elements at work.  Let me summarize.  “Proago” indicates leadership.  It is sometimes combined with an unrighteous motivation leading to the destruction of those who follow.  Additionally, there is the idea of a departure from something former, such as rules or practices.  I believe these building blocks are inclusive to the way in which John uses “proago”. 

The person being described is one that “does not abide in the teaching of Christ” (v.9).  He has departed from the true faith and is straying into realms of human wisdom, satanic fantasy, and godless apostasy.  This person is devoid of a relationship with God.  In stark contrast to a true child of God, who is “in Christ”, this idolater “does not have God” (v.9).  He does not possess life in Christ (1^st Jn. 5:12).  He does not love God and God does not love him (1^st Jn. 2:15).

But the situation is even worse than that.  John is not describing someone who “merely” goes astray.  Rather than limiting his disobedience to himself alone, this person leads others away from the teachings of Christ.  He transforms leadership, which should be noble and honorable, into a toxic parody of itself.  Christ beckoned “come, follow me” and led His disciples into the Kingdom of Heaven.  But this person that John is describing beckons “come, follow me” and like the fabled Pied Piper of Hamlin, leads his followers straight into the pits of Hell.

He stands in direct opposition to the truth of God that has been previously set forth and handed down from ages past.  I think there is a distinction implied by John in the false teacher of verse 9 and the faithful disciple of verse 6.  Unlike a true child of God who obeys the commandments that have been given to us from the beginning, the enemy departs from them and moves to a new doctrine.  He presents a new teaching.  He twists the commands of the Lord and is in every way the antichrist and deceiver that John warned us about in verse 7.

Such a one presents a serious threat to the church.  This is the framework around which 2^nd John is structured; this wider theological war that is raging for the soul of the body of Christ.  So is no wonder then that John not only unilaterally condemns a leader like this but proceeds to blast anyone who associates with him in verses 10 and 11: If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.  Our adversary has been clearly identified in the preceding verses.  We know who we are dealing with.  Now then, what exactly is John telling us to avoid in response to this situation?

First of all, we need to understand that John is once again turning to the Greek imperative mood here.  Both the phrase “do not receive” and “do not give” are placed in the imperative.  For anyone who has been with me from the beginning of John’s first epistle, you will recall that this is the Greek mood of command.  When a writer uses the imperative, whatever they are saying passes from good advice or gentle exhortation into explicit and unyielding authority.  In John’s case, he is bringing all of his apostolic authority to bear and barking out a sharp, no nonsense order that we had best heed for our own sake.

To make sense of this and interpret it into present day application, I believe we need to focus on the two phrases I mentioned above.  First, “do not receive”.  What does it mean to receive something in the way John is using it here?  The word in Greek is “lambano” (lahm-bahn-o).  Cross referencing that word with John’s gospel I believe we can find an answer in chapter 1, verse 12 and chapter 3, verse 11.  In the first passage John is giving a summary or an overview of the ministry and work of Christ.  And he says in verse 12: But as many as received (“lambano”) Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name.  These people did more than listen attentively to Jesus and concede the value of what He was teaching.  They accepted the teaching deep within their hearts.  They bought into His identity as God in the flesh.  They gave themselves over in surrender to a new way of life, completely subsumed in their new identity in the god-head.

In stark contrast and opposition, we find Jesus conversing with Nicodemus.  Unlike the people described back in chapter 1, Nicodemus, much like his fellow Pharisees, is reluctant to accept the message of repentance that Jesus is bringing.  In 3:11 Christ says: “Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept (“lambano”) our testimony.”  Although there is evidence later in the gospel that Nicodemus eventually came to repentance, at this point he would not “receive” the true gospel.  He refused to take it into his heart and make it a part of himself.  He could not conceive of submitting himself to the radical message of this upstart Galilean rabbi.

So I think that to receive someone the way John is meaning is to welcome them joyfully and unreservedly into the inner sanctum of our life.  It is to take them deep into our confidence and make them a close associate we are bound to.  To put it another way, what John is teaching here is that we should receive the message of the false teachers he is warning of exactly the same way Nicodemus and the other Pharisees received the message of Jesus.  The shoe has been placed squarely on the other foot and it is now true Christians who should stand in opposition to the enemies of the gospel.

The second phrase that bears examination is “do not give them a greeting.”  Again we must ask what is John’s meaning here.  The answer is easier to ascertain this time.  Backing up just a few verses to 2^nd John 1:4 we find the apostle describing his reaction upon finding the Christians at his sister church walking faithfully according to the truth.  John says he was “very glad”.  In John 16:22 Jesus was soothing His disciples against the time of grief and mourning that was rapidly approaching with His betrayal, arrest, and death.  He said: “Therefore you too have grief now; but I will see you again, and your heart will rejoice.”  Both “very glad” from 2^nd John 1:4 and “rejoice” from John 16:22 are the same word as “greeting” in 2^nd John 1:10.

Imagine the disciples on the darkest night of their lives.  Everything they thought they knew and understood has suddenly been stripped away from them.  Perhaps it occurred to them that the last three years of their lives had just been poured out upon the ground like water in the middle of a desert.  They would have been experiencing loss, disorientation, distraction, and a profound sense of aimlessness.

Now imagine this same group of men when Jesus appeared in their midst three days later.  In an instant, all of their grief, all of their sorrow, all of their confusion, all of their anger melts away in a single moment of the sweetest euphoria they will ever experience this side of heaven.  Suddenly all the teachings of Christ over the past three years crystallize into a splendor of joy and a firm resolve of perseverance.  After taking them through the deepest valley imaginable, Jesus has just led them by the hand and caused them to scale the mountaintops of victory.  From this point forward, for the sake of this Man, these men will be willing to go through the middle of a fire while smiling joyfully at the adversaries all around them.

I think that is the sense John is conveying here in his negative command.  He does not want us to respond to these false teachers in this way.  He does not want us to experience this kind of joy and elation when we are confronted with their insidious message.  He instead wants us to respond with revulsion and loathing.  But such responses must be handled carefully and pointed in the right direction and at the right target.

Namely, it is the false teaching we are to stand in opposition to.  The Christian’s mission in life is not to attack the messenger but rather to attack the message.  Jesus told His followers that He came not to bring peace but a sword (Matt. 10:34).  But it is the message of truth that is divisive, not the messenger who bears the truth.  Jesus calls us to be salt and light (Matt. 5:13-16).  Our mission is to bring spiritual flavor to people’s lives and provide the light of the gospel to show them the path to salvation.  Jesus calls us to offer our other cheeks to those who slap us (Matt. 5:39).  Our mission is to welcome the persecution we receive as an opportunity to partake in the sufferings of Christ and as a means to point our enemies to Christ with our selfless conduct.  Jesus calls us to pray for those who persecute us (Matt. 5:44).  Our mission is to recognize the horror of our enemies’ lives, whether they understand it or not, and long for them to come to repentance and discover true joy.

In the same way as his Master, John is not instructing us to be rude, hostile, or belligerent to the false teachers he is warning us about.  Nowhere does the apostle say we are to be aggressive and attack the false teachers for their heresy.  All he has said is that we are to avoid bringing them into our confidence and we are to refrain from any sort of glad expressions of joyfulness in response to their teaching. 

If we take John’s teaching here and construe it into some sort of mandated campaign of hostile aggression against those who deny the teachings of Christ, as some in our modern day have done, we are butchering the text and in a supremely ironic twist, ourselves departing from the teachings of Christ; the very thing we are being warned against in the first place! 

How horrific to think that we might become that which we despise.  Even secular writers understand the danger of such tendencies.  Friedrich Nietzsche, a devout atheist to his death, famously wrote “He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster.  And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”  If someone as profoundly godless as Nietzsche understood such paradigms, how much more should we, who have the likeness of Christ, understand and avoid them.

As if that was not terrible enough to contemplate, in verse 11 John gives the ultimatum which lies at the core of his warning.  If, he says, we disobey his teaching and do in fact invite false teachers into fellowship and greet them joyfully then we are guilty of the same crimes they are.  There is a guilt by association implicit in this verse.  Whether we are the ones bringing the false teaching or not is irrelevant.  By condoning the actions and behaviors of these enemies of the gospel we might as well have committed their atrocities ourselves.

A similar yet distinctly different nuance to this truth can be found in 2^nd Thessalonians chapter 3.  Paul is instructing the church regarding the pursuit of hard work and avoiding gossip.  In verses 14 and 15 he writes the following: If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame.  Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.  Paul is very clear that the expectation for disobedient Christians is to shun their behavior.  The hope is that through experiencing the condemnation of the church the wayward brother will be brought to embarrassment leading to repentance.

Yet, Paul says, even in the midst of this orchestrated shunning we are still to regard our brother as truly a brother in Christ.  We are not to treat him as we would treat an enemy.  We are still to be kind to him even as we rebuke his disobedient lifestyle.

But here is the distinction between Paul’s instruction in 2^nd Thessalonians and John’s teaching here in 2^nd John.  The false teachers John is warning us about are clearly not brothers in Christ.  The situation Paul is describing to the Thessalonians is one of a sin of omission.  The brother in question is not controverting the teaching of Christ by actively opposing Him and leading others in such a course.  He is instead simply refusing to follow the instructions he has been given.  But in 2^nd John we are faced with a very different kind of animal.  As stated previously, this is someone who is intentionally putting themselves in a position of leadership for the purpose of drawing others away from the faith.  They themselves are undoubtedly not of the faith because they are not abiding in the true teachings of Christ at all.

So you might say that the unrighteousness on display in 2^nd John is of a much greater magnitude.  This is why John warns us so urgently to completely avoid and distance ourselves from such men.  If we welcome them, we may quite possibly unwittingly give the impression that we approve of their teaching and so cause others to go astray because they believe we are in agreement with the unbiblical lies being espoused by these enemies of God.

Now then, with all of this being said, I think a very important question remains.  Namely, how do we recognize these false teachers?  To answer this, we can follow the train of logic that John has given us.  He said in verse 9 that the criteria for identification is a failure to abide in the teaching of Christ.  What is the teaching of Christ?  In the context of this letter it is to love one another and to acknowledge Him as the Messiah, or God in the flesh.  But in the broader context of Scripture there is more to the teaching of Christ.

In Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus taught: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.  For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”  Jesus was referring here to the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures.  He is making the claim that His ministry is the fulfillment of all the oracles of God that have come before.  So His teaching is literally the whole of the Old Testament made manifest.

Beyond that, the gospels describe His ministry, the Apostles continued His ministry, and their body of work that constitutes the New Testament is based entirely on His ministry.  Thus the teaching of Christ is literally the whole of the New Testament as well.  So it is quite fitting, accurate, and appropriate to state that the teaching of Christ is the whole of recorded Scripture.

Therefore, our test for false teaching is, quite simply, to match it up against the Bible and see if it holds water.  Obviously, we cannot do this unless we know what is in the Bible.  So it follows that in order to obey John’s commands here we must be good students of Scripture in our own right so that we can properly discern truth from falsehood.  As he pointed out in 1^st John 4:1: Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.  We must remain on our guard against such as these.

There is one more component of John’s instruction in this letter.  It is a particular aspect that is important both for walking in truth and love as well as guarding against false teaching.  And it is something that is perhaps in more danger in our modern high technology rapid information age than ever before; it is the human element.  John describes it in verses 12 and 13 as he closes: Though I have many things to write to you, I do not want to do so with paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, so that your joy may be made full.  The children of your chosen sister greet you.

It is fascinating to me that the Apostle John would make such a significant point out of meeting with his fellow Christians in person.  Not that this is surprising, coming from John.  He has repeatedly expressed his fondness for other Christians.  He called them “my little children” repeatedly in 1^st John (2:1, 2:12, 2:28, etc.).  His first century audience were his “beloved” (1^st Jn. 2:7; 4:1, 7).  He considered them his brothers (1^st Jn. 3:13).  So it is entirely anticipated that these people, for whom John had such deep and abiding affection, would be the object of his desire to visit personally.

However, it must be acknowledged that personal visits and cross country travel were certainly not as easy or efficient as they are today.  It would most likely have taken John weeks to travel to this church.  The journey would not have been comfortable, and may have even been dangerous.  Nature, the possibility of encountering brigands, and old age would have presented considerable obstacles to the idea of John actually pulling such a trip off.  So then, even if John’s desire for such a visit was strong, his means to do so may have been lacking.

This makes it all the more interesting that he would place such emphasis on something so difficult.  It would seem that John saw great value in communing in person with his brothers and sisters in Christ.  Remember how he began his first epistle.  In 1^st John 1:3-4 he wrote: what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.  These things we write, so that our joy may be made complete.  The similarities between that passage and this one are striking.  The concept of joy being made full or complete in Christian fellowship is a recurring theme for John. 

The phrase he uses here in his second letter to describe such a meeting, translated as “face to face”, is literally “mouth to mouth” in the Greek.  John believed that in order for the church to experience complete joy as Christ had intended there must be intimate inter-personal interactions between believers.  Letters were insufficient for this task in John’s mind.  He wanted to experience community with his fellow Christians in much the same way he had experienced Christ Himself: through hearing, through sight, through examination, and through touch (1^st Jn. 1:1).

Not only that, but notice in verse 12 John’s ulterior motive for arranging such a visit.  It was to teach and instruct.  He had already written so much goodness and truth to this church.  But he was full to bursting with additional teaching.  He longed to impart his wisdom and knowledge of God the Father and His Son to these Christians.  But he wanted to do it in person.  He wanted to interact with them “in the classroom”, as it were.  John was not satisfied with having them read his words.  He wanted them to hear him speak, watch his facial expressions, hear the inflections in his voice, understand his word pictures, and so on.

With this in mind, let us turn our attention to our present day.  Some Christians would espouse the value of distancing themselves from a local church.  They would find fault, perhaps rightly so, with the problems that are sure to abound any time two or more sinful human beings are placed in close proximity.  Such problems exist in all social groupings, whether it is biological families, work associations, or even churches.  But some believers seem to consider church as an optional member of that list.  In spite of the difficulties experienced within families they stick it out because it’s family.  Regardless of problems faced at work they remain employed because a paycheck is necessary to live comfortably.  Yet they are not willing to extend that same level of importance to a local church.

The advent of technological advances in the past half century have only aided and abetted such notions.  If you don’t care for your local pastor’s preaching style or ability, why bother to submit yourself to him?  After all, you can easily gain access to a treasure trove of sound preaching from the best teachers God has gifted us with today, at the click of a mouse button.  And for good measure, is the worship leader at your church not as skilled as you would like?  No problem!  All the best contemporary worship songs can be found and played in the comfort of your own home.  Why bother with the fuss and hassle of attending church?

Now, I recognize that what I have just described is an extreme case.  Most people, even if they feel some antipathy toward church attendance, are not going to go that far.  But even for those of us who do place a high value on being present with our bodies at a local gathering of believers, we still face the difficulties inherent in any inter-personal relationships.  People annoy us, we annoy them, we disagree, we offend, we are insensitive, we mock, we gossip, and we harbor bitterness.

But in spite of these difficulties, John says it is worth it.  With his stated desire to come to this church in person he communicates loud and clear the value of being together in fellowship.  We have looked at it before, but the Greek word for this kind of togetherness is “koinonia” (koin-o-nee-ah).  It is an intimate bond between people.  It is a joyful celebration of like-minded values.  It is communion in the best and most sacred and most holy sense of the word. 

And this is the real point of attending church.  It really is not about the building, or the service times, or the structure of the corporate worship, or the quality of the preaching, or the taste of the coffee, or the paper the bulletins are printed on, or the ambient lighting, or the comfort of the pews, or anything else. 

In fact, the word we translate as church is “ekklesia” (ek-le-see-ah) in Greek.  It never refers to a structure or a building in the Scriptures.  It always is used in reference to a gathering of people.  The biblical purpose of attending a local church “building” is so that the real church, the people, can be assembled together in “koinonia”.  John understood this.  He preached it and longed for it.  He purposed to engage in it, even at great personal cost to himself and at a very advanced age.  Do we place the same value on joining together with the “ekklesia” in “koinonia”?

We must see participation in a local church this way.  We must cultivate a profound and earnest lifestyle that engages the body of Christ, the church, in an intimate sharing of lives.  Our love for God’s people must be of such a high caliber that it is more important to us than every carnal pleasure and desire.  We must be willing to stand up for the truth of Scripture so as to protect this “ekklesia” we are a part of.  We must do this even if it means that we have to sever some ties with those who are found to be leading others into false doctrine.  To do otherwise is to play with fire.  And when you play with fire, eventually you get burned.

The Epistles of John, Part 27: Walking the Walk

In the late Fall of 1633 audiences in London, England, heard the following lines of dialogue sound forth.  “Tush!  Fear not, my lord, we will not stand to prate; talkers are no good doers: be assured we come to use our hands and not our tongues.”  The speaker was a character known only as the “First Murderer”.  He was in the employ of Richard III, Duke of Gloucester, in William Shakespeare’s historical play, titled simply “Richard III”.

In the context of the play, this character has been hired by Richard to murder his brother, George, the Duke of Clarence.  This is all in pursuit of Richard’s mad scheming to gain the English crown through betrayal, murder, false accusations, and bribery.  In short, Richard is the very embodiment of evil.  And the character of the murderer, in the dialogue above, wants to assure his employer that he will follow through with his gruesome task.  He will, rather than simply talking about murdering Clarence, actually do it.

This concept, that of following words with correlating deeds, predates Shakespeare by over a millennium.  It is an eminently biblical concept.  Of course, when expressed from the standpoint of Scripture, it refers not to the resolution of nefarious deeds.  Rather, the idea is to obey the Lord with concrete and definable actions.  One such example of this idea can be found in James 1:22, a familiar passage which reads: But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.  In other words, it is utterly insufficient to merely hear the commands of God delivered through Scripture.  We must, in addition to hearing God’s instructions, actually obey those same orders.  To cast this into a more modern vernacular, we must “Walk the walk, not just talk the talk.”

As we continue our short-lived sojourn in John’s abbreviated second epistle, we find yet another example of this same teaching.  The Apostle has finished his gloriously God honoring and Christ exalting introduction, that we have looked at previously.  And now he begins to dive into the heart of his reason for writing to this unknown 1^st century sister church.  John’s purpose, as stated before, is predicated upon the larger issue of the conflict between authentic and false disciples, or followers of Christ and antichrists.

And in light of that spiritual battle that is already raging, John wants to exhort his fellow Christians to stand firm against the onslaught.  Much like his fellow New Testament writer, James, John wants Christians to “walk the walk”, “put up or shut up”, and so on.  This is a letter of exhortation rather than rebuke.  We can see as much in the fourth verse of the epistle: I was very glad to find some of your children walking in truth, just as we have received commandment to do from the Father.  There are two points I want to draw out from this verse.  The first is grammatical while the second is pastoral.

The phrase “some of your children” is a curious translation.  Most modern English Bibles render it this way.  But the interesting thing is that the word “some” is not in the original text.  Instead we have the Greek “ek”; a preposition meaning out of, from, or away from.  So a literal reading would be something like the following: have discovered from the children of you walking in truth.  In other words, John has knowledge that from among the “children” (i.e. the saints) of “the lady” (i.e. the church he is writing to) there are those who are walking in truth.

So why have most translation teams supplied the English “some” in place of a more precise translation of “ek”?  The reason is because they view “ek” as a partitive preposition, or a preposition that separates or divides something.  This is not inaccurate.  “Ek” certainly does have the idea of something coming out of something else, with a necessary effect that the two components are now separated from each other.  Thus, supplying “some” in the passage is an effective and clean method of presenting John’s words in a non-cumbersome manner.

But my concern, and the reason I am drawing out this point, is that I am uncomfortable with the implication that results from this translation choice.  When one reads: I was very glad to find “some” of your children walking in truth, I think there is an unspoken assumption that if some were found walking in truth then others must have been found not walking in truth.  And while this is grammatically possible, it is not necessarily what John meant.  To be sure, the goal of this letter is to highlight divisions within Christendom and warn a sister church against the enemies who are on the attack.  Therefore, it is definitely possible that such divisions already existed in the church in question, precipitating the letter from John in the first place.

But while all this is possible, it is also quite a lot of conjecture.  The simple fact of the matter, as I understand it, is that John is simply communicating his appreciation that he knows specifically about some of the Christians in this church who are walking according to the truth.  He does not ever state that he knows of the opposite: that there are some Christians in this church who are not walking according to the truth.

Furthermore, as stated previously, I do not find the overall tone of the letter to be one of rebuke.  John is not confronting sin and evil that presently exists within this church, as Paul does in 1^st Corinthians.  Rather, he is providing a stern warning to be watchful and discerning in case the opponents ever come knocking.  The Bible provides plenty of strong refutations of existing sin issues.  It pulls no punches in condemning evil where appropriate.  But I do not see the need to supply such language when no need for correction exists.  This is a positive letter.  It is a rallying cry.  It is a pre-game speech or a half-time pep talk.  I believe we should see the whole of it in such a light, based on what John actually wrote.

Such a predominant tone of affirmation can be seen even in this very same verse, which is my second and pastoral point.  Notice John’s response to finding saints who are truly walking with the Lord in truth.  He was “very glad”.  This is the Greek “chairo”.  It can mean variously to rejoice, be glad, or even to rejoice exceedingly.  John uses the same word in John 3:29 as he records the words of John the Baptist: The one who has the bride is the bridegroom.  The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice.  Therefore this joy of mine is now complete.

In this passage, John is explaining his relationship with Jesus to some of his own disciples.  In his word picture, Christ is the bridegroom and the coming church is the bride.  John himself is merely the friend of the bridegroom.  In Jewish culture, on the wedding day, the bride and groom would go into their chambers to consummate the marriage while the guests and wedding party remained outside in the courtyard.  The friend of the bridegroom, what we would call the best man, stood at the doorway of the newlywed couple’s room.  His job was to bar entry to anyone seeking to disturb them, but also to listen for his friend’s voice raised in exclamations of pleasure.  This was not some weird Jewish voyeuristic custom.  Rather, it was a joyous occasion for the friends and family to know that the marriage relationship had been consummated through physical union.  They delighted in the delight of their loved ones.  And it was the best man’s job to let everyone know that the time of celebration had come.

Moving back to 2^nd John, when the apostle writes that he “chairo” to find the children walking in truth, he places it in the passive voice.  This means that he views himself as the recipient of the action brought on by the rejoicing.  In other words, he is overwhelmed and consumed by the joy that washes over him upon discovering the state of affairs in this sister church.

I think the point is this.  Do we experience this level of joy when we find our brothers and sisters in Christ truly walking with the Lord and standing confidently to confess His name among the nations or the community?  Which are we more likely to pursue; rejoicing with great joy over the righteous conduct of a friend or finding ourselves critically appalled at the unrighteous behavior of the same person?  To say it another way, are we prone to build up or tear down?  Do we prefer to praise or criticize?

Sometimes criticism and rebuke is necessary.  But I find in my heart a propensity toward imbalance in favor of the condemnation rather than the affirmation.  And I think in this simple example from the Apostle John we find a picture of Christ that is often absent from our daily lives.  At least, it often is from mine.  And I doubt that I am alone.

Now then, a question we must ask for our own edification is this.  What exactly did it look like when these children of the chosen lady were walking in truth?  Thankfully, John supplies the answer for us immediately.  He presents us with such a description at the end of verse 4 and on into verse 5, as follows: just as we have received commandment to do from the Father.  Now I ask you, lady, not as though I were writing to you a new commandment, but the one which we have had from the beginning, that we love one another.

From John’s point of view, this pattern of walking in truth is not merely a best practice.  It goes beyond a nice suggestion and dwells squarely in the realm of an order from God Himself.  John says that the Father has commanded us to walk in truth.  And the image of such a walk is the visible evidence of our love for one another.  This is a familiar refrain for John.  Throughout his first epistle he repeatedly pounded the importance of brotherly love.

In 1^st John 2:7 he wrote that: I am writing you no new commandment, but an old commandment that you had from the beginning.  In 3:11 he clarifies what this old and new commandment is: for this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.  The elder’s chief concern in his old age was that we love each other.  He desired greatly that we, through this practice, exhibit the genuine character of Christ.  And he received such a message of love directly from the Master Himself, in John 13:34: “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.”

I think our tendency might be to conclude that John is over-stating his case.  He harped on this subject of Godly love being born out in the believer’s life over and over in 1^st John.  We might be tempted to think this additional exhortation is unnecessary.  We perhaps wish that John would cut us a break and switch to something different.  But I think John knew very well that this message of love was and is diametrically opposite of our ingrained natures.  Being born in sin as we are, it is as natural as breathing for us to focus on self.  It is instinctive within us to prioritize our own interests above those of others.  And the only medicine for this diseased condition of the mind and soul is a constant, steady diet of contrary truth.

I think John knew the difficulty he faced in getting this lifestyle of love to actually stick and hold in his beloved children’s brains.  And furthermore, I think John recognized the monumental importance of such a pattern of behavior.  You see, we are not called to love each other merely so that we will have nice churches where peace reigns.  We are not commanded to love primarily so that our stress level might decrease.  Rather, the instruction that John and the other apostles received from Christ was that they love as a powerfully effective tool of evangelism.  Consider the next verse from the John 13 passage above: “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

How does this work?  It’s simple, really.  What is the purpose of evangelism?  Is it to get people saved so they can escape the fires of hell?  No, it is not.  The reason we are instructed to share the gospel and call sinners to repentance is so that the character of God might be more fully revealed and exalted in the world.  Consider Paul in his letter to the Romans.  Chapter 1, verses 16 and 17 read: For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.  For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith.”

The “it” which is the third word in verse 17 is the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Paul says that in this gospel the righteousness, or the holy conduct, of God is revealed to mankind.  Put simply, the purpose of salvation is so that God will be known and loved and treasured.  Now then, if this is so, how does our love for one another accomplish that?  How will people know that we are disciples of Christ just because we love each other really well?  Because He did it first and did it better. 

Going back to 1^st John, in 3:16 we find: We know love by this, that He laid down his life for us.  And cross referencing once again with the Gospel of John, this time chapter 15 and verse 13, we are told: greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.  The quality of love, sacrificial and selfless and joyous love, is perfectly seen in the person of Jesus Christ.

Moving back to 2^nd John, and just in case anyone remains confused on what genuine love looks like, John anticipates the problem and provides the gem of verse 6: And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments.  This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.

There is a delightful economy of purpose bound up in John’s description of God’s commands.  It has a two-pronged emphasis.  The first we have already seen; that we love one another.  But here in verse 6 John highlights another aspect of God’s instruction to His people.  Namely, that we obey.  Now, on the surface perhaps that doesn’t seem particularly remarkable.  After all, isn’t it obvious that commands are to be followed?

Police officers issue orders to civilians and the expectation of obedience is bound up in the need to maintain control over potentially chaotic situations.  Managers give instructions to employees and they are obligated to comply so that the business can maintain a productive financial trajectory.  Parents provide expectations to their children and the responsibility of the young person to obey is necessary to their development as an industrious member of society not to mention a human being that showcases the righteousness of God.

But in every one of those situations, the command and the obedience are separate philosophical entities.  A perpetrator stopping in his tracks is not the same thing as the cop yelling “Freeze!”  A grocery store clerk stocking shelves with the correct products is related but separate to the store manager instructing him to go and complete said task.  A child cleaning their room properly is not equal to the parent telling them to do it.

That is what makes verse 6 so fascinating.  You see, in John’s mind and therefore in God’s mind due to the super-intention of the Holy Spirit which washed over and carried along the authors of Scripture, the command of God is both the command and the obeying of the command all at the same time.  John has already clarified for us what the specific details of the commandment consist of; that we should love one another.  He could have easily stopped there.  But he goes one step further.  He goes on to provide an ancillary definition of the commandment.  Namely, that we do it.  That we walk in it.  That we obey it.

God’s marching orders for His children are not separate from our dutiful obligation to follow those orders to the letter.  God’s character cannot be separated from His commands in Scripture.  The reason is that those commands are not an arbitrary list of expected behaviors that God thinks will be best for us to follow.  He does indeed know that it will be best for us to obey Him.  But the reason is that in our obedience we are really emulating Him.  The basis of God’s commands is His own attributes.  He tells us what He is like and then asks us to copy Him because He knows that is the only pattern of behavior in the universe that is both acceptable to Him and ultimately most profitable for us.  He is His own best paradigm.  When it comes to the quality of sacrificial love God is both the ultimate example and the only true source.

John, our apostle, is consumed with the desire to see people come to a realization of the importance of this kind of love.  He is desperate to have his fellow saints begin to practice the love of Jesus toward each other.  And so he pounds the point.  He picks it back up, dusts it off, and throws down the gauntlet once again.  And he perhaps literally jumps for joy when he finds people living this way. 

John challenges us over and over to this kind of extreme lovingly sacrificial lifestyle.  It is a lifestyle that is so utterly contrary to the world system we live in that it must, by very nature, be completely shocking and strange to anyone observing it.  To state the matter bluntly, if your love toward others is not significantly dissimilar from the norm; if it is not of a sufficiently zealous nature so as to be noticeably different from the world around you and therefore be the means for evangelism that it should be, then you are not living and practicing the love of Christ that John is talking about.

It should already be apparent to you why such an authentic modeling of the character of Jesus is so critically important to both the life and mission of the church.  John has clearly laid out for us a picture of loving Christian conduct that should form the warp and the woof of the tapestry of our lives.  On a personal level, sacrificial love will produce a quality of life, in emulation of Christ, that is far superior to any other. 

But John is not done yet.  He knows there is more to this lifestyle of love than just our interpersonal relationships within the body of Christ.  So he is about to up the ante considerably in verse 7 and tell us why love is so important to our very safety: For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh.  This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 

That first word, “for”, alternately translated as “because”, is the hinge upon which this whole letter swings.  It forms the link between what we have just read and what we are about to.  In Greek it is known as a dependent clause and it shows a causal purpose.  In other words, John has already provided us with the “what” of his letter; to love in obedience to God’s command.  Now he is giving us the “why”.  And it is probably not what we would expect.

The reason we are commanded to love is because many deceivers have gone out into the world.  On the surface these two elements seem quite disparate.  What does the brotherly love of the body of Christ have to do with deceivers who deny that Jesus is the Christ, God in the flesh?  To answer that question we need to consider what is at the heart of the problem caused by these deceivers.  Why is their denial of Christ such a pivotal issue?

The reason is that God’s purpose, His activity in the creation, His desire for all that exists, His end game stratagem from the very beginning, has been to display Himself.  It has always been God’s ultimate purpose to tell us truly who He is so that He can be properly reverenced and worshipped.  This was true at the beginning of time, as seen in Romans 1:20: For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen. 

We can also see God’s purpose of self-revelation in the incarnation of the Son of God, described for us by John in his gospel.  John 1:4, in describing Christ as God, says: in Him was life, and the life was the light of men.  Light is that which illuminates, or makes clear.  Thus by describing Jesus as light John makes the implication clear that without God we cannot see truly.  His very nature is the only possible source of true understanding and unfettered joy. 

And we can even see God’s desire to tell us who He is in Isaiah’s prophetic description of future heaven, found in the 60^th chapter of his book, verse 20: “your sun will no longer set, nor will your moon wane; for you will have the Lord for an everlasting light, and the days of your mourning will be over.”  The glory of heaven will be that God will finally, once and for all, be on full display for us.  There will no longer be any competition for our attention.  He Himself will shine brighter than the sun and reveal everything to us.

Now then, in opposition to this divine mandate stands Satan, the great adversary and the infamous slanderer.  From the very beginning it has been his purpose to discredit and call into question what God has said.  The shape of his words to Eve, in Genesis 3:1, reveal the truth of this: “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”  

 In other words, “Are you sure that what God has said is really true?”  Or perhaps, even more subtly, “Are you sure you heard God correctly?  Allow me to tell you what He really meant.”  And since everything that God says provides some aspect of His image, by questioning God’s words Satan questions the nature of God.

This, then, is the heart of the battle that is raging in the world.  It is a war, not of bullets and bombs, but of truth and lies.  It is a deliberate attempt by Satan to discredit God’s character.  And it is the willing duplicity of the human race in acting as Satan’s accomplices in this matter.  The battle lines of the armies of heaven and hell are formed by this divide. 

On one side stand the holy angels and the church.  We take up arms by showcasing an accurate image of God’s love.  We speak both with and without words the truth of who He is by the revelation of who we are in Him, demonstrated in the Godly love we bear for one another.  At our head, as the blazing center of our vanguard, stands the God-man, Jesus Christ, who eternally reveals the fullness of God to the entire universe.

Opposed to us is the mass of rebellious humanity who suppress the truth about God in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18), who stand as deceivers and antichrists, as seen here in verse 7.  Leading this army of evil is the chief deceiver, the enemy of God whose name in Hebrew means adversary, and who is described in Scripture literally as a devil, or one who slanders.

This is why it is absolutely critical that we love.  The scope of this war is the reason we have been reconciled to God in the person of Christ.  He did not rescue us from sin and death primarily for our benefit.  Certainly, God delights in saving people.  He takes great joy in granting sinners the gift of repentance (1 Tim. 2:25).  But His main goal is to proclaim who He is through us in our new birth.  Therefore, loving like Christ and thereby showing God to everyone around us, is not merely for the edification of others.  It is not simply for our own sanctification.  It is quite literally our orders from high command in heaven, as part of the greater battle plan of God.

And the stakes for us are indeed quite high.  John warns us in verse 8 about the danger of letting down our guard and falling prey to the efforts of our enemy: Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward.  Now, this is an interesting verse, and one that bears careful examination so as to make sure we do not misunderstand John’s point.  Specifically, what is it that we are in danger of losing if we become careless in battle?

The Greek word that John used here for work, translated above as “accomplished”, is “ergazomai” (err-gahtz-o-my).  To understand his meaning it will help if we turn to his final letter; 3^rd John.  In verses 3 and 4 John expresses delight, much as he does in 2^nd John, that Christians were found to be walking in truth.  As we have already seen, to walk in truth, according to John, is to engage in the two-pronged accomplishment of both God’s command to love one another and His expectation of obedience.

Then, in verse 5 we read: beloved, you are acting faithfully in whatever you accomplish (“ergazomai”) for the brethren.  So, taking the context of the letter into account, John is saying that the mutual lifestyle of love, and the specific tangible fruit it bears, is the work that the Christians have accomplished. 

Now, with that in mind, consider what the outcome would be if Christians, who are called to love one another as the weapons and battle plans of their spiritual warfare, fail to pay attention to the war raging around them and consequently fail in their mission.  All the fruit that had been borne on the tree of the church by this mutual love; would it last?  All the “work” of love that had been accomplished in the name of Jesus; would it stand the test of time?  If we stop loving each other will we be able to somehow coast along to heaven, riding the waves of the love that had gone before?  Of course not.  If we suddenly ceased to love, it would not take long at all before no one remembered our former acts of selflessness, causing the legacy we leave behind to be one devoid of affection. 

We would be exactly like the Ephesian church who had remembered truth but forgotten love.  In Revelation 2:5 Christ, through John His messenger, blasts this church for their failure: ‘Therefore remember from where you have fallen, and repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remove your lampstand out of its place – unless you repent.’

Notice who the object is that John says we must watch.  He does not instruct us to watch the enemy.  He urges us to watch ourselves.  The reason is that he knows it is our own sinful flesh, rising up like a traitor from within us, that has the potential to cause us to abdicate our responsibility to love.  And if that happens, John is saying, all of the hard work we have accomplished in building up the body of Christ will be blown away like chaff in a strong breeze.

What would be the outcome of such a situation?  How would the loss of the full reward that John speaks of play out in a particular church or a specific Christian’s life?  We can turn to John’s contemporary, Paul, for a thorough description of such a state of affairs.  In 1^st Corinthians 3:14-15 he shows us what both sides of this situation will look like on the day of judgment: If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.  If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

It is really quite a simple equation to understand.  We are commanded to love sacrificially, as Christ did first.  This is both our ministry and our mission.  It is the weapons of our warfare as well as our defense against the dark.  If we remain vigilant God will reward us in the due course of time.  But if we stray from faithfulness to our task, the work of love we had accomplished prior to our failure will be forgotten, leading to the poisoning and eventual decay of that spirit of love.  Not only that, but our full reward will be lost and we ourselves, while still gaining entrance to the kingdom of God, will be burned with spiritual fire at the judgment day of Christ.

The bottom line is this.  There is a war raging in the universe.  John knows it is on the horizon.  It may already be on the doorstep of your church.  In fact, it may have already penetrated into the inner sanctum.  And he wants us to recognize the danger we are in, strap on our armor, pick up our swords, and prepare for battle.  Then, having prepared ourselves, we are expected to wade into the fray, loving tenaciously and sacrificially, so that God, through us, might achieve victory.  This mandate extends to every Christian.  We must not relax our watch.  We must stay on the alert against the traitorous tendencies of our own flesh.  We must faithfully guard what has been entrusted to us against the external and internal onslaught of Satan and his agents.  This is your mission from God.  He expects you to walk what you talk and not, in the words of Shakespeare’s character, “stand to prate”.  Recognize your role in the supernatural struggle raging around you and rise to the occasion, for the glory of Christ.