2 John
The second Epistle of John warns the faithful against the reception of those who do not teach the truth respecting the person of Christ. The third encourages believers to receive and help those who teach it. Accordingly, they both, and the second especially, lay stress on "the truth."
The Apostle loved this elect lady, "in the truth;" as did also all those who had known the truth, and that for the truth’s sake. He wished her blessing in truth and in love. He rejoiced that he had found some who were her children walking in the truth. He desired that there should be mutual love among Christians, but this was love, that they should keep the commandments; for many deceivers were come into the world. Now, whosoever transgressed, and did not abide in the doctrine of Christ, had not God. He ends his epistle, of which we have given an almost complete summary, by exhorting this lady, in case any one should come and not bring this doctrine, not to receive him into her house, nor say to him, "God bless you, or be with you," or "I salute you." For to do so, would be to make herself a partaker in the evil he was doing.
The false doctrine which was abroad at that moment was the denial of the truth of Christ come in the flesh; but the Apostle says, in a general way, that if any one transgressed and did not abide in the doctrine of Christ, he had not God.
We learn several important things in this little epistle. The mission of a man who went about preaching was never brought into question, but the doctrine which he brought; if he brought sound doctrine, he was welcome.
A woman having the Word—as this epistle, for example -was capable of judging his doctrine, and responsible to do so. Inexorable rigor was to be maintained, if the doctrine as to the person of Christ were touched. The door was to be shut against whoever falsified it. They were not even to say to him "I salute you;" for they who did so, became partakers of his evil work. It would be to help on the deceits of Satan.
Moreover, the semblance of love which does not maintain the truth, but accommodates itself to that which is not the truth, is not love according to God. It is the taking, advantage of the name of love, in order to help on the seductions of Satan. In the last days, the test of true love is the maintenance of the truth. God would have us love one another, but the Holy Ghost, by whose power we receive this divine nature, and who pours the love of God into our hearts, is the Spirit of truth, and His office is to glorify Christ. Therefore, it is impossible that a love which can put up with a doctrine that falsifies Christ, and which is indifferent to it, can be of the Holy Ghost-still less so, if such indifference be set up as the proof of that love.
The doctrine of the reward and crown of glory which the laborer possesses in the fruits of his ministry, is presented in a very strong light in the eighth verse. This second epistle puts Christians on their guard against all that is equivocal with respect to the person of Christ; and exhorts to an unwavering firmness on this point.
3 John
The third Epistle encourages the believer to the exercise of hospitality whether towards the known brethren or strangers, and to all benevolent care in. furthering their journey when departing, provided that they come with the truth and for the truth’s sake, without salary or provision. Gaius received them, as it appears, and was helpful to them, both in his own house and on their journey. Diotrephes, on the contrary, did not love these strangers, who went about, as it is said, without a formal mission, and without any visible means of subsistence. They had gone forth for the Lord’s sake, and had received nothing from the Gentiles. If in reality they came out of love to that name, one did well to receive them.
Again, the Apostle insists on the truth, as characterizing real love; "Whom I love in the truth," he says to Gains. He rejoiced when the brethren (those, I imagine, whom Gaius had received into his house and helped on their journey) testified of the truth that was in him, as in effect he walked in the truth. The Apostle had no greater joy than that of hearing that his children walked in the truth. In receiving those who went forth to preach the truth, they helped the truth itself; they were co-workers with it. Diotrephes would have nothing to do with this; he not only refused to receive these itinerant preachers, but excommunicated those who did so. He claimed authority for himself. The Apostle would remember it. It was their duty to do good. He that doeth good is of God.
He goes so far, with regard to the truth, as to say that the truth itself bore witness to Demetrius. I suppose that the latter had propagated it, and that the establishment and confirmation of the truth everywhere-at least, where he had labored-was a testimony with regard to himself.
This insistence on the truth, as the test for the last days, is very remarkable., And so are these courses of preaching, by persons who took nothing of the Gentiles when they came forth, leaving it to God to cause them to be received of those who had the truth at heart; the truth being their only passport among Christians, and the only means by which the Apostle could guard the faithful. It appears that they were of the Jewish race, for he says," receiving nothing of the Gentiles," the Apostle thus making the distinction. I notice this, because, if it be so, the force of the expression, "And not for ours only," 1 John 2:22And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2), becomes simple and evident; which it is not to every one. The Apostle, as Paul does, makes the difference of us, Jews -though one in Christ. We may also remark that the Apostle addressed the assembly, and not Diotrephes its head; and that it was this leader who, loving pre-eminence, resisted the Apostle’s words, which the assembly, as it appears, were not inclined to do.
Gaius persevered in his godly course, in spite of the ecclesiastical authority (whatever may have been its right or pretended right) which Diotrephes evidently exercised; for he cast parsons out of the assembly.
When the Apostle came, he would (like Paul) manifest his real power. He did not own in himself an ecclesiastical authority to remedy these things by a command. These epistles are very remarkable in this respect. With regard to those who went about preaching, the only means he had, even in the case of a woman, was to call her attention to the truth. The authority of the preacher lay altogether in that. His competency was another matter. The Apostle knew no authority which sanctioned their mission, and the absence of which would prove it to be false or unauthorized. The whole question of their reception lay in the doctrine which they brought. The Apostle had no other way to judge of the authority of their mission. There was then no other, for had there been any, that authority would have flowed from him. He would have been able to say, "Where are the proofs of their mission?" He knew none but this-do they bring the truth? If not, do not salute them. If they bring the truth, you do well to receive them, in spite of all the Diotrephes in the world.