2 John

vs 1

Why is John being vague? Some people have said that this is a result of persecution - he is forced to hide the identities of people who both wrote the letter and who received it. It could also be that this is just how John wrote the letter, perhaps because of a special relationship he had with that church. Certainly he didn't feel the need to write Revelation in such a guarded manner (although Jesus himself was dictating, and at times like that you tend to just write what you're told).

The lady could either be a church or a woman who had a church in her house. John has already referred to his audience as "little children" and "dear children" in 1 John (assuming it's to the same people).

vs 2

He's writing because of the truth, and the way he describes it as living in us and being with us forever, you've got to assume it's Jesus. And because his letter is going to be about truth, you've also got to assume that false teaching will be involved.

vs 3

John actually uses a typical introductory paragraph like in Paul's letters here. He gives an extended one though, with extra focus on Jesus.

vs 4

Does this clear up at all who it is? Are only some of the church walking in the truth? Or is he actually writing to a woman and her children, only some of which are Christian? Perhaps that could explain the guardedness of his language.

vs 5

Who could possibly be writing this? A focus on loving one another... it's got to be John.

vs 6

Love is obedience to God's commands. And his commands are to walk in love.

vs 7

The beginnings of the Gnostic heresy. If you're wanting to take John literally, then he's saying that anyone who doesn't agree that Jesus came in the flesh is Satan (the deceiver is a title of Satan's) and also the antichrist. I think he might just be being dramatic - he means they work for Satan, that Satan is involved.

vs 8

There's nothing wrong with this - we know there's plenty of statements in Scripture that support a heavenly reward for our labours on earth.

vs 9

It's interesting the language that John uses here. Running ahead is the word proago. It has several meanings, mostly which mean to lead forth or to go before, to precede. But John is using it here in what seems a more negative colloquial sense, to "go too far" (the NASB says that). I mean, you don't want people to think that getting ahead in a good way is bad, or that Gnostic teaching is somehow a step ahead of Christianity.

vs 10

Now we've got to be careful here. We read this and think "Oh no! What about that cup of coffee I gave to a Mormon one time when he visited the door!" But what John is saying is far more than inviting them to step off the porch and take a seat. If we can't have non-Christians in our home, how will we ever build relationships with them?

I think this is really talking about those teachers who travel around and rely on other people to put them up and feed them while they do their teaching. Christian teachers did this all the time. So it would make sense that Gnostic teachers would do the same. So having non-Christian friends stay over should be fine. But if you are supporting them in their job by doing so (say by letting them stay at your place while they preach at the local Buddhist temple or something) then I would seriously think about what you're doing.

vs 11

And this is why - because if you're helping someone do wicked work, then... well, that's what you're doing. And that's bad.

vs 12

Damn you John! If you don't write it in paper and ink, we don't get to see it! Selfish whatnot.

vs 13

This is a typical closing greeting. The sister is, obviously, a sister church or a sister of the woman, or even another sister in Christ.