Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - 2 John 1:1 - 1:3
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
( ἸùÜííïõ â . B. Cod. Sin. Several codices add ἐðéóôïëÞ , and others ἐðéóôïëÞ êáèïëéêÞ . Several have after ἸùÜííïõ : ôïῦ ἐðὶ óôçèïῦò , G: ôïῦ ἁãßïõ ἀðïóôüëïõ — ôïῦ èåïëüãïõ ).
To the elect lady, ἐêëåêôῃ êõñßᾳ ; these words have been very differently explained. Grammatically they present a perfect analogy to 1Pe_1:1 : ἐêëåêôïῖò ðáñåðéäÞìïéò , to elect strangers; êõñßᾳ therefore cannot well be taken as a proper name, which would require as at 2Jn_1:13, and 3Jn_1:1 : ÃáÀῳ ôῷ ἀãáðçôῷ ,— êõñßᾳ ôῇ ἐêëåêôῇ Cf. Php_1:2. Rom_16:5; Rom_16:8-10; Rom_16:12-13 etc. To what purpose is it that êõñßᾳ was a female proper name, as may be seen in Gruteri inscript. p. 1127. N. 11., and that this was maintained by Athanasius, and later by Benson, Heumann, Bengel, Krigele (de êõñßá Joannis, Lips. 1758). S. G. Lange, Carpzovius, Paulus, de Wette, Brückner, Lücke, Düsterdieck and others? Düsterdieck and Lücke notice a certain irregularity and inconsequence, which is not explained by but consists in the adjective preceding the noun, as long as êõñßá is treated as a nomen proprium. But the difficulty is even greater in treating ἐêëåêôÞ as a proper name, as is done by de Lyra, Cappellus, Wetstein, Grotius and al. For the sister, 2Jn_1:13, is also called ἐêëåêôÞ .—But how are we to take the elect lady? The context requires us to think of an individual: the ἐãὼ of the writer answers to the óý of the person addressed (2Jn_1:1; 2Jn_1:4 sq.); she as a mother with her children is mentioned (2Jn_1:3; 2Jn_1:6; 2Jn_1:8; 2Jn_1:10; 2Jn_1:12); her sister and her sister’s children salute her (2Jn_1:13). Epictetus (cap. 62) observes that: áἱ ãõíáῖêåò åὐèῦò ἀðὸ ôåóóáñåóêáßäåêá ἐôῶí ὑðὸ ôῶí ἀíäñῶí êõñßáé êáëïῡíôáé . Huther is wrong in saying that the term êõñßá does not answer to the German Frau [=the English Mistress, the word used to address married ladies—M.], but to the German Herrin [=the English Mistress or lady of the house—M.]; for Frau is the feminine of fro, the Master, (Frohndienst, Frohnveste, Fronleichnam), and Frau=Herrin (see Jütting, Biblisches Wörterbuch 1864, s. v. Frauenzimmer p. 61 and s. v. Frohnvogt p. 65); nor need that author designate êõñßá only as a polite form of address, nor Düsterdieck pronounce it a title only suited to worldly politeness. It may just as well be taken as the standing designation of an esteemed woman, and it is neither unworthy of a Christian, nor of an Apostle to call a church-member, according to a prevailing usage, “Frau” (lady or mistress)= êõñßá , so Luther, Piscator, Beza, Heidegger, Rittmeier, de electa domina, Helmst. 1706), Wolf, Baumgarten-Crusius, Sander and al.; a Lapide reports her to have been called Drusia or Drusiana. Carpzovius supposes that Martha, the sister of Lazarus, is the person addressed; Knauer (Studien und Kritiken, 1833, pp. 452–458), suggests Mary, the mother of the Lord—but all these views are wholly untenable. It is true, that unfortunately the name of the person addressed is not given in the address, so that one might almost feel inclined to take êõñßá as a proper name. But the name of the person addressed might be wanting just as well as that of the writer; the messenger may and probably did make up for such omission.—But the circumstance that this “note” (Handbillet-Augusti) found its way among the Catholic Epistles, should not occasion any difficulty. Just as well as the third Epistle to Caius; it is no more unworthy of the Canon than St. Paul’s Epistle to Philemon; the individual, also a woman, is worthy of due regard and consideration; I confine myself to making mention of Priscilla (Act_18:2, sq.; 26, sq.; Rom_16:3, sq.).—It is far more hazardous to understand êõñßá to signify the Christian Church in general, or some particular congregation; the former is recommended by Jerome, the latter by the Scholiast I.; they are followed by Calov, Hofmann (Weissagung und Erfüllung II., p. 321; Schriftbeweis, I., p. 226, sq.), Hilgenfeld, Huther and al. Serrarius guessed Corinth, Whiston argued for Philadelphia, Whit by for Jerusalem, the mother of all Churches, and Augusti for Jerusalem, because founded by the Lord Himself, though such a “note” would certainly be less suited to a Church than to an individual church-member. Hammond has the curious notion that êõñßá is=curia, ecclesia, and Michælis, that it designates the Church assembled on the Lord’s day. But wholly unfounded, and devoid of all possibility of proof is the hypothesis of Besser and al., that êõñßá is the ἐêêëçóßá to which 3Jn_1:9, was written, and that the 2d Epistle of John is the one there referred to. Hofmann adverts to the Church being called íýìöç and ãõíÞ in the Apocalypse, to ùׁåּìַîּéú and ùְׁìֹîֹç and to ἡ ἐí Âáâõëῶíé óõíåêëåêôÞ (1Pe_5:13). Huther also rightly observes in opposition to Ebrard, that the Church, which in respect of Christ is an obedient handmaid, may be considered both in her subordinate relation to Christ and in her superior relation to individual members, and as such be described as êõñßá by the side of êýñéïò ; but that 2Jn_1:12 requires us to understand a single congregation and not “all orthodox Christendom” (Hilgenfeld), and that our Epistle is not an Encyclical. But in that case the address ought to have given the name of that congregation. Nor would ἐêëåêôÞ exactly suit êõñßá = ἐêêëçóßá for ἡ ἐí Âáâõëῶíé óõíåêëåêôὴ is somewhat different, and, in juxtaposition with and as distinguished from ὁ ÌÜñêïò , can hardly designate the Church in that place (see Fronmüller on 1Pe_5:13, in this Commentary). The relation indicated at Gal_4:26 : ἥôéò ἐóôὶí ìÞôçñ ἡìῶí , can hardly have been applied here to a single congregation, so that it might be called êõñßá . After all that has been said, the choice lies between êõñßá as a nomen proprium, or êõñßá =lady. [Among recent English commentators, Alford takes the former view, while Wordsworth elaborates the interpretation, according to which êõñßá is a Church.—M.].
And her children ( ôïῖò ôÝêíïéò ) should be taken literally; a family is always an important circle of men! But if êõñßá is construed as a Church, the children designate Church-members.
Further particulars. 2Jn_1:1-2.
Whom I love in truth.— Ïὓò after ôÝêíá imports sons, but does not exclude daughters, the êõñßá had sons and daughters, but more sons than daughters; hence it would have been improper to say ôïῖò õἱïῖò , as Huther maintains, who, if êõñßá designates a Church, refers to Gal_4:9 ( ôåêíßá ìïõ — ïὓò ), Mat_28:19 ( ôὰ ἔèíç — áὐôïýò ), passages which fully justify the given explanation, and prove that ôÝêíá need not be sons only (de Wette and al.); nor does ïὒò refer to êõñßá and her children (Beza, Bengel, Sander [al.]). Ἐãþ emphatically asserts the Apostle’s personal relations to that family-congregation; that which makes that family-congregation the object of the Apostle’s love and of that of all believers, implies the reason of this Epistle and its importance. Though ἐí ἀëçèåßá along with ἀãáðῶ should be construed adverbially, yet it signifies more than: “in sincerity,” for it denotes also Christian love. Bengel: “Amor non modo verus amor, sed veritate evangelica nititur.” Lücke: “It designates genuine Christian love.” Ebrard: “I love thee with that love which is love in truth,” cf. 1. Joh_3:18-19. The additional clause has respect to objective truth (Düsterdieck, Huther 2d ed.).
And not I only, but also all who have known the truth.—Bengel pointedly observes: “communio sanctorum.” He assumes in his own case, as well as in the ἀãáðᾷí ἐí ἀëçèåßᾳ , the ἐãíùêÝíáé ôὴí ἀëÞèåéáí . The term ðÜíôåò must not be restricted to Ephesus and its environs, the supposed place of writing (Grotius, de Wette and al.), but only to those who were acquainted with the êõñßá and her children (Lücke), yet so that those, who afterwards might get acquainted with her, are included. The restriction lies not in the word itself, but in the situation (Ebrard). It is not necessary to think here of only one Church (Huther).—The reason of this love is stated in
2Jn_1:2. For the truth’s sake, which abideth in us.— Ἡìῖí designates the persons loving and beloved, (Huther); it must not be altogether construed in a general sense or applied, as if by implication, to the persons specified in 2Jn_1:1 (Bede, Düsterdieck and al.). This is also the ground of the definition of ἀãáðᾷí ἐí ἀëçèåßᾳ and of believers as ïἱ ἐãíùêüôåò ôὴí ἀëÞèåéáí (2Jn_1:1), not as Huther maintains, in ðëÜíïé (2Jn_1:7). The common life-sphere is just ἡ ἀëÞèåéá , and moreover not only that which is objectively sure, but also that which subjectively is securely kept. In order to note the former point, the Apostle adds:
And shall be with us forever.—The reason why the Participle, instead of being followed by a further participial sentence, is here followed by the Verb. finit., is the writer’s intention to give greater prominence to this thought. Winer, p. 600. The Future is not the expression of a wish, as Grotius, Lücke, Ebrard and others suppose, but the confident assertion of certain duration. Hence åἰò ôὸí áἰῶíá must not be restricted to the duration of the life of the persons interested (Benson and others). Ìåè ’ ἡìῶí denotes the objectivity of Divine truth as well as our subjectively developed activity. Cf. Joh_14:16; 1Jn_2:20; 1Jn_2:27; especially Mat_28:20. Hence ἐí and ìåôὰ , must not be taken as substantially equivalent (Winer, p. 430), since ἐí notes the subjective side, and ìåôὰ also the objective side.
The greeting. 2Jn_1:3. There shall be with you.—Singular, and proof that we have not to deal here with the imitation of a forger; who would have adhered to usual and current forms of expression, like the addition ἐí ἀëçèåßᾳ êáὶ ἀãÜðῃ , here Future; it is qualified by the preceding words with which it is connected. It is not= ἔóôù , but votum cum affirmatione (Bengel); the certainty of the expectation excels the wish of the greeting.
Grace, mercy, peace.—1. Tim. 2Jn_1:2; 2Ti_1:2 have also ÷Üñéò , ἔëåïò , åἰñÞíç .— ×Üñéò is free grace, which, without any merit on the part of man, lovingly condescends to men and denotes the thoughts of peace in the paternal heart of God, the mind of Him who is Love (Rom_3:24; Eph_2:4-10); ἔëåïò describes the mercy which energetically lays hold of, and enters into the misery of man (Luk_10:30-37), and denotes the act of love; åἰñÞíç is the gift of love, the effect of ÷Üñéò and ἔëåïò . [Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, p. 2John 225: “ ×Üñéò has reference to the sins of men, ἔëåïò to their misery. God’s ÷Üñéò , His free grace and gift, is extended to men, as they are guilty, His ἔëåïò is extended to them, as they are miserable. The lower creation may be, and is, the object of God’s ἔëåïò , inasmuch as the burden of man’s curse has redounded also upon it (Job_38:41; Psa_147:9; Jon_4:11), but of His ÷Üñéò man alone he only needs, he only is capable of receiving it. In the Divine mind, and in the order of our salvation as conceived therein, the ἔëåïò precedes the ÷Üñéò . God so loved the world with a pitying love (herein was the ἔëåïò ) that He gave His only-begotten Son (herein the ÷Üñéò ) that the world through Him might be saved: cf. Eph_2:14; Luk_1:78-79. But in the order of the manifestation of God’s purposes of salvation the grace must go before the mercy, the ÷Üñéò must make way for the ἔëåïò . It is true, that the same persons are the subjects of both, being at once the guilty and the miserable, yet the righteousness of God, which it is just as necessary should be maintained as His Love, demands that the guilt should be done away, before the misery can be assuaged; only the forgiven can, or indeed may, be made happy; whom He has pardoned, He heals; men are justified before they are sanctified. Thus in each of the Apostolic salutations it is first ÷Üñéò and then ἐëåïò , which the Apostle desires for the faithful (Rom_1:7; 1Co_1:3; 2Co_1:2; Gal_1:3; Eph. 1 2; Php_1:2, etc.); nor could the order of the words be reversed.”—M.].—This might be wanting soonest, since the ÷Üñéò of the Almighty, of course, cannot remain idle; see Tit_1:4; Rom_1:7; 1Co_1:3; 2Co_1:2; Gal_1:3; Eph_1:2; Php_1:2; Col_1:2; 1Th_1:1; 2Th_1:2. But it is just ÷Üñéò which is omitted in Judges 2 ( ἔëåïò ὕìῖí êáὶ åἰñÞíç êáὶ ἀãÜðç ðëçèõíèåßç ), since these two, with respect to åἰñÞíç , belong together. But the order is established. Bengel observes very well: “Gratia tollit culpam, misericordia miseriam, pax dicit permansionem in gratia est misericordia.” [Alford: “ ÅἰñÞíç is the whole sum and substance of the possession and enjoyment of God’s grace and mercy; cf. Luk_2:14; Rom_5:1; Rom_10:15; Joh_14:27; Joh_16:33.”—M.].
From God the Father, and from Jesus Christ the Son of the Father.—The employment of ðáñὰ instead of the ἀðὸ commonly used in the Pauline writings, points to the independence of our author; and so does the circumstance that the pronoun ἡìῶí is omitted after ðáôñüò . Thus, in this connection, God is to be taken primarily as the Father of Jesus Christ, especially since the words ôïῦ õἱïῦ ôïῦ ðáôñüò are annexed, and the Sonship is rendered peculiarly prominent, also since the preposition ðáñὰ is repeated, as denoting the Divine nature and character of the object desired by the Apostle, whereas ἀðὸ denotes only their procession from God; ðáñὰ designates them as the gifts of God, ἀðὸ as Divine gifts. Cf. Winer, 382 sq. Note should also be taken here of the independence of the Son by the side of the Father, as importing their equality.
In truth and love.—Also a peculiar addition; it belongs to ἔóôáé ìåè ’ ὑìῶí , the preposition ἐí denoting the two life-elements (Huther) of believers, in which the Divine exhibitions of grace, mercy and peace have to be received and enjoyed (Düsterdieck); these words contain also a reference to the contents of the Epistle (Bengel, Ebrard). Hence it is wrong to join ἐí ἀëçèåßᾳ êáὶ ἀãÜðῃ with ôïῦ õἱïῦ ôïῦ ðáôñὸò , as if it were=filio verissimo et dilectissimo (Barth. Petrus), or to explain ut perseveretis vel ut crescatis (a Lapide), or like Grotius: per cognitionem veri et dilectionem mutuam, nam per haec in nos Dei beneficia provocamus, conservamus, augemus; for ἐí is not=per, and our conduct is not the reason of the ÷Üñéò etc. (Huther).
2. By the side of the Personality of the Father the Personality of the Son is a fundamental view.
3. The grace of God is the ground of our peace.
4. Our peace is the end and aim of the Divine grace and mercy.
5. All true love rests upon the truth of revelation.
6. Love with its all-embracing power is coextensive with truth.
Starke: In Christ there is neither male nor female.—Caution is needed, not to call any man elect, of whose true and firm faith we are not sufficiently convinced.—The abuse of titles should be abolished; but their right use should be preserved; honour to whom honour is due!—What! each and every person are not to be allowed to read the Holy Scriptures? and yet the Holy Spirit caused a special Epistle to be written to a pious matron and her children!—Preachers ought to pasture sheep and lambs, to teach great and small, in various ways, the ways of the Lord.—It is a rare example to meet a whole family of pious people.—A hireling loves the sheep for the sake of their fleece; but a true shepherd only for the truth’s sake, because of God and with self-denial.—Truth is beautiful as such; but it is unprofitable, if it is not, and does not remain, in us.—Truth holds out longest.—Truth is founded on God, it has consequently an eternal root and will never perish. The greeting of Christians is a part of prayer.—None does truly receive peace, unless he have received the grace of God; hence that peace, which is not the daughter of grace, is the offspring of corrupt nature, and a carnal security.—God deems none worthy of peace or grace, who do not deem themselves unworthy of either or both, well knowing, that in virtue of his greatest misery he does not merit any thing, but that he stands in need of mercy.—The grace of God is not with us, unless it be also in us, and be worthily received by us.
Heubner: Love towards a Christian presupposes the knowledge of the truth, and the love of it. But Christ is the truth. For the truth’s sake the shepherd should love his flock.—All greetings ought to have a Christian foundation.
Besser: Every pastor is a successor to the office of the Apostles, and according to the Divine right, there is no difference between bishops, and pastors, and parsons. [On this point I beg leave to differ with the Author, although this is not the place to discuss so important a question.—M.]. Grace, which removes our guilt, mercy, which delivers us from misery, peace, into which grace and mercy translate us.
Footnotes:
2Jn_1:1. [German: “Whom I love in truth.” So Alford, Lillie.—M.].
2Jn_1:1. B. Cod. Sin.: êáὶïὐêἐãὼ ; A.; ïὐêἐãὼäὲ ; G: êáὶïὐêἐãὼäὲ . [The reading of A. may have arisen from a desire to mark the antithesis more strongly.—M.]
2Jn_1:2. ìÝíïõóáí is the reading of B. Sin. and most and the best codd. A. reads ἐíïéêïῦóáí , but is evidently an interpretation. [German: “which abideth in us.”—M.]
2Jn_1:3. [German: “There shall be with you.”—M.]
2Jn_1:3. A. omits ἔóôáéìåè ’ ὑìῶí —evidently by a mistake, occasioned by the conclusion of 1Jn_5:2. B. G. Sin. read ἡìῶí which is also occasioned by 1Jn_5:2.
2Jn_1:3. G. K. Sin. insert before Ἰçóïῦ the word êõñßïõ ; this addition, as well as the exchange of the preposition ðáñὰ for ἀðὸ are probably transcribed from the beginnings of the Pauline Epistles.