Revised New Testament: 2 and 3 John, Jude

 •  5 min. read  •  grade level: 10
Listen from:
• BibleTruthPublishers.com
The Second Epistle Of John
I. The Authorized and Revised Versions are questionable as to “lady.” Kyria1 is not without claim as a proper name instead of the appellative “lady “; while the idea of some that Eclecta is meant seems unfeasible, and indeed refuted by 13. But the Revisers rightly say “in truth” as characteristic of the apostle's love. Loving in truth supposes the truth known, but it goes farther and so stamps the love. Thus in fact the Authorized Version renders the same phrase in verse 4. Again, it is not well to confound lyv. with vv., the perfect with the present part. “That have the knowledge of” might fairly represent the force. In 2 the Revisers say “it” in the last clause to mark the change of construction. In 3 they give correctly the future: “Grace shall be with us,” &c. For ἡμῶν (à B L P &c., and so Stephens) they read here, instead of ὑμῶν as in K, most cursives, and so Elz. followed by the Authorized Version. Undoubtedly “you” is the more usual wish; but this is rather an assurance, and the peculiar form well admits of the apostle's putting himself with those addressed, as in the preceding verse. “The Lord” (κυρίου) is doubtful, though strongly supported, as some of the best uncials, cursives, and versions do not sanction it. In 4 “I rejoice” is a dubious rendering of the aorist, though I presume its adoption was mainly grounded on the perf. that follows, εὕρ., which certainly must mean, not “I found” only, as in the Authorized Version, but “I do find.” The Revisers rightly give “we received.” — “That we love one another” in 5 goes back from the entreaty of the apostle to the commandment of the Lord when on earth. In 6 divine love is shown to be identified with obedience, or at least inseparable from it, as it really is in the new nature, eternal life in Christ. What created the need for thus pressing the truth is the fact (ver. 7) that many deceivers went forth into the world, those that confess not Jesus Christ coming [ἐρχ.] in flesh. The received text εἰσῆλθον, though supported by most, and in the Authorized Version, must yield to the more, ancient and truer ἐξῆλθον. Of course the last clause should be “the” deceiver and “the” Antichrist. Here, too, it will be noticed that those who so wrongly contend for a continuous force in σωζόμενοι and ἁγιαζόμενοι, the Revisers included, are obliged to own that the present part is timeless in this instance. Compare 3 John 33For I rejoiced greatly, when the brethren came and testified of the truth that is in thee, even as thou walkest in the truth. (3 John 3), where it is really no question of epoch. At any rate the late Dean Alford very properly shows that in these cases the present has nothing to do with time, but represents the great truth of the Incarnation itself, as distinguished from its historical manifestation [ἐλθών, 1 John 1:66If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: (1 John 1:6)], and from the abiding effect of that manifestation [ἐληλυθότα, 1 John 4:22Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: (1 John 4:2)); as all three are confessions of the Person Ἰησοῦς χριστός, distinguished from the accus. with infin. construction, which would have reduced the confession to simply the fact announced; whereas in each case it is the PERSON who is the primary predicate, the participle carrying the attributive or secondary predicate. There has been sad tampering with the MSS. in 8, and the text accordingly varies in the hands of the editors also. Thus Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Wordsworth follow à A, eight cursives, and other good authorities, in the reading αἰργάσασθε, which gives the at best commonplace sense “ye wrought.” These and others also, as Colinaeus and Alford with the Revisers, give “ye lose not” and “ye receive,” but “we wrought.” The text adopted by Erasmus and the Complutensian editors, by Stephens, Beza, and Elz., yields a touching appeal to those addressed, that the apostles and all who labor in the truth and for Christ might receive full recompense. Copyists, commentators, and critics missed the meaning, which is as delicate as it is forcible, though Beza was dull enough to say, in alluding to the text with the uniform second person, that the sense is the same. The Complutensians interpolate καλά after εἰργ., as does the Antwerp Polyglott; but not Goldhagen's edition, which some have supposed a reprint of the Greek Testament in either. Romanist theology sought to draw from the verse a Scriptural ground for their Pelagian notion of the meritoriousness of good works. Its real drift was, as one might expect, generally misunderstood. The correction in 9 is most important, “Whosoever goeth “onward,” προάγων, (à A B 98m.g. the best Latin, Sab. Aeth.), not παραβαίνων, as in the Text. Rec. and the more ordinary copies. “Transgression” is not the point, but development as to Christ, instead of abiding in the doctrine of Christ, His deity and humanity. It is really more forcible to omit the second τοῦ χριστοῦ or αὐτοῦ, and so the oldest MSS. and versions, &c. “Greeting” is the better rendering in 10, 11. In 12 à confirms K L P with most cursives in reading ἡμῶν, “our,” with Erasmus, Compl., Steph., Elz.; but ὑμῶν, “your,” has good and ancient authority.