Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary 2 John 1:10

"If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into [your] house, and give him no greeting:" — 2 John 1:10 (ASV)

The last warning extended to the reader is both the most objective and the most final. “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him.” The author is not certain what will happen in the lady’s community. Probably he expects that the false teachers will soon arrive with their pernicious propaganda. If so, the situation is dangerous. They must not be shown hospitality, as if they were brothers in the faith. They are deceivers, and thus it would be a mockery of the Father and a sin against Christ to give those who deny the Son and hate fellow believers any place of respect within the community of faith. To do so means becoming a partaker in their unbelief and hatred of the truth.

This statement is all the more remarkable since it comes from the “apostle of love.” Moreover, the command to extend hospitality is deeply rooted in the tradition (Romans 12:13; 1 Timothy 3:2; 1 Timothy 5:3–10; Titus 1:8; Hebrews 13:2; 1 Peter 4:8–10). It was an absolute demand that brothers in Christ be supported, fed, and housed by the local congregations they visited. Nevertheless, the elder invokes a higher principle here. False prophets, antichrists, and deceivers are not to share in the provision of hospitality. Even the Christian greetings that might be given ever so casually are forbidden in the case of the false teachers. One cannot serve God and mammon simultaneously (Matthew 6:24). One cannot be a partner of God and a partner of the devil (1 Corinthians 10:20).

Clearly the elder’s words are an offense to some today and are not considered worthy of the church. Admittedly great care should be exercised before applying such a radical withholding of hospitality from anyone. For the elder it was applied only to those who were committed to destroying the faith of the community. The issue involved more than disagreements in interpretation or personal misunderstandings among members of the body of Christ. It was clearly defined unbelief, and it involved active and aggressive promotion of perversions of truth and practice that struck at the heart of Christianity.

But ought not persons who had gone so far astray be dealt with all the more in love? Do they not require even more by way of grace, mercy, and forgiveness of Christ? At the personal level, Christians should always be prepared to turn the other cheek and seek tirelessly to be reconciled with others. But only those whose own faith is secure and whose understanding beyond corruption can do this. Unfortunately, the community of the elect lady was not yet in this position. It was not mature enough to deal with such deadly deviations; in fact, it was more likely that it might be destroyed by them. The responsibility of parents may furnish an analogy. Parents must discriminate as to whom even among their relatives they entertain in their home. Some relatives might be of such questionable character as to menace the moral, spiritual, and physical welfare of the children. Such relatives must be excluded. Parents must balance their concern for their relatives with their responsibility for their children. It is important to note that John does not suggest that the elect lady and her children deal with the false teachers in hatred or retaliate against them. Instead, he counsels that the false teachers be kept at a distance lest their heresy destroy the young church.

We today can only be grateful that the infant church took heresy regarding the person of Christ seriously. Christianity stands or falls with its Christology. From the human point of view, if John and other apostolic leaders had tolerated the “antichrists” who denied the basic truth of the Incarnation, the church might never have survived. We today benefit from the spiritual discernment and moral courage of John and others like him.