Bible Interpretation, Second John

Author.

It is traditionally believed that the letter was written by the Apostle John. However, the author himself calls himself simply an “old man.” This word hardly means that he was one of the elders in one of the local churches. Rather it corresponded to the affectionate title (compare 1 Tim. 5:1-2; 3 John 1:1) by which the author was known to his readers; on the other hand, the Greek word “presbyteros” (“presbyter”) means an old man, an elder, and there is a number of evidence going back centuries in favor of the fact that this word could be used to call any of the apostles or those who from the very beginning were witnesses of the life of Jesus Christ, His disciples.

In light of the obvious similarity in style and content of the 1st and 2nd Epistles of John, it is quite possible to attribute those arguments that speak of him as the author of the large First Epistle to the smaller one, the Second. In essence, there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the traditional point of view regarding the authorship of this message.

Conditions for writing a message. This letter is addressed to “the chosen lady and her children” (verse 1; compare verses 4-5). Specific names are not given in the message. In this respect, the 2nd message differs from the 3rd, where 3 specific names are given.

There is an assumption that the words “to the chosen lady” referred to a specific church (a kind of literary device), and the words “her children” referred to the members of that church. There are many examples of such personification, when peoples (countries) or cities are likened to a woman (compare with the “daughter of Zion”) in the Bible, and the church is often likened on its pages to the bride of Jesus Christ (Eph. 5:22-23; 2 Cor. 1: 2; Rev. 19:7).

This assumption is also confirmed by the fact that after the 5th verse the pronouns used by the author are not singular, but plural (“we”, “us”, “you”); again the singular appears only in verse 13. And in general, the content of the message rather suggests that it is addressed to the community, and not to an individual. So, even if it cannot be denied with complete certainty that the message was written to a specific woman, it is still preferable to consider that it was addressed to the church.

Taking this view, we see that the problems faced by the members of this church were not much different from those faced by the readers of the first letter of John. Here, too, the apostle speaks of “antichrists” (2 John 1:7, compare 1 John 2:18,22). And the error here was of the same nature as that described in the First Epistle; it was expressed in disbelief that Jesus Christ came to earth in the flesh (2 John 1:7, compare with 1 John 2:22-23; 4:1-3). This message also contains an urgent call to fulfill God’s commandments, and first of all, the commandments about the need to love one another (2 John 1:5-6, compare with John 2:3-9; 3:14-18, 23;4:7,11,20-21).

The Second Epistle of John - read and listen.

1 The elder - to the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also all who have known the truth,

2 for the sake of the truth, which remains in us and will be with us forever.

3 May grace, mercy, and peace be with you from God the Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.

4 I rejoiced exceedingly because I found some of your children walking in the truth, just as we received the commandment from the Father.

5 And now I ask you, lady, not as a new commandment prescribing to you, but the one that we have had from the beginning, that we love one another.

6 Now this is love, that we should walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment which you heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.

7 For many deceivers have entered into the world, not confessing Jesus Christ who has come in the flesh: such a person is a deceiver and Antichrist.

8 Take heed to yourselves, lest we lose what we have worked for, but receive the full reward.

9 Whoever transgresses the teaching of Christ and does not abide in it does not have God; He who abides in the teaching of Christ has both the Father and the Son.

10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your home or welcome him.

11 For he who welcomes him shares in his evil deeds.

12 I have many things to write to you, but I don’t want to write them on paper with ink, but I hope to come to you and speak mouth to mouth, so that your joy may be full.

13 The children of your chosen sister greet you. Amen.

INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND AND THIRD EPISTLES OF THE APOSTLE JOHN

The very brevity of these two messages serves as a guarantee of their authenticity. They are so brief and, comparatively, so insignificant that it is unlikely that anyone would deliberately invent them and attribute them to John. The dimensions of each of these messages correspond almost exactly to the dimensions of a standard papyrus scroll - 25 x 20 centimeters - and this explains the fact that each of them takes up approximately exactly one scroll.

ELDER

Both of these messages were written, as they say in the messages, by the “Elder”. The second letter of John begins with the words: “The elder is chosen for the lady and her children.” The third letter of John begins with the words: “The Elder to the beloved Gaius.” It is unlikely to assume that the elder -

it is an official or ecclesiastical title.
The elders were officials appointed in the community, and their rights did not extend beyond that community, while the author of this message undoubtedly believes that he has the right to speak and that his word will be respected in other communities. He speaks as a man whose powers and authority extend to the entire Church. The Greek text contains the word presbuteros,
which originally meant
elder,
not as an official title, but in the most literal sense of the word.
The meaning of this word is best conveyed by the word elder,
by which it is translated in the Russian Bible, because the author of the message does not rely on his position in the Church, but on his age and personal qualities.

We know that the elderly John lived in Ephesus and occupied a special position there. At that time there lived one man named Papias (70-146). He had a passion for collecting everything he could get his hands on about the history of the early Christian Church. He, however, was not a great scientist, and the Church historian Eusebius considered him “a man of very limited intelligence.” Nevertheless, Papias has preserved extremely interesting information for us. After becoming Bishop of Hierapolis, he maintained very close connections with Ephesus and told us about his methods of obtaining information. He often uses the word elder, old man

in the sense
of one of the Church Fathers,
and mentions a particularly prominent elder named John.
“Without the slightest hesitation I will lay down for you,” he writes, “with my notes and interpretations, everything that I have ever learned from the elders
and have carefully memorized to ensure the truth of everything.
Because I loved, unlike so many, not those who talk a lot, but those who teach the truth; not those who tell strange commandments, but those who tell the commandments given by the Lord for faith, and coming from the truth itself. If someone who walked with the elders came,
I asked him about the words
of the elders -
what Andrew or Peter said, what was said by Philip, or Thomas, or James, or John, or Matthew, or another disciple of the Lord;
and what Aristion, or Elder John, says.
For I believed that everything that could be learned from books would not be as useful as a living and faithful voice.”
It is clear that Elder John
was an important figure in Ephesus.

He wrote these two small letters when he saw that the church was threatened by trouble and heresy. By that time he was already a very old man, one of the last living links with Jesus and His disciples; he was the bishop of Ephesus and nearby places.

This is the message of the holy elder, one of the representatives of the first generation of Christians, a beloved and respected man who mercifully and lovingly corrected his people.

COMMUNITY OF AUTHORITY

Both messages were written, without a doubt, by the same hand. Although they are very short, they have a lot in common. The second letter of John begins with the words: “The Elder to the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in truth.” The third letter of John begins with the words: “The Elder to my beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth.” The Second Epistle of John goes on to say: “I was exceedingly glad that I found among your children walking in the truth” (v. 4), and

in the Third Epistle of John: “I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in the truth”
(v. 4).
The second letter of John ends with the words: “I have many things to write to you, but I do not want to write them on paper with ink;
but I hope to come to you and speak mouth to mouth, so that your joy may be full” (v. 12).
The third letter of John ends with the words: “I had many things to write;
but I don’t want to write to you with ink and reed, but I hope to see you soon and talk mouth to mouth” (vv. 13.14).
There is a very strong similarity between these messages.

Moreover, there is a very close connection between the situation reflected in these two epistles and the situation in 1 John. In 1 John. 4.3

we read: “Every spirit that does not confess Jesus Christ who has come in the flesh is not from God, but it is the spirit of the Antichrist, about whom you heard that he would come and is now already in the world.”
In 2 John.
7 we read: “Many deceivers have entered into the world, not confessing Jesus Christ who came in the flesh: such a person is a deceiver and Antichrist.”

It is clear that the Second and Third Epistles of John are closely related, and that they are both closely related to the First Epistle of John. They arose in connection with the same circumstances, in connection with the same dangers and with the same people.

THE PROBLEM ARISING FROM THE SECOND MESSAGE

There are only a few serious problems with these two messages. It is important to decide only one thing: was the Second Epistle addressed to one person or to the church? It begins with the words: “The Elder to the chosen lady and her children.” Here the problem arises in connection with the expression to the chosen lady.

In Greek it is
eklekte kuria
and can be understood in three ways.

1. It is possible, but unlikely, that Eklekte is the name

own, and
curia
the usual loving treatment.
Kurios,
the masculine gender, has many meanings.
Usually it has the meaning master,
including in address;
it can mean master of slaves
and
owner of property
(estate);
at a higher level it has the meaning of lord
(lord) and is often used as a title for Jesus.
In letters, the word kurios
has a special meaning.
It is, in essence, equivalent to the Russian road.
Thus, one warrior writes home:
Kurie mou pater is
my dear father.
In the letters, the kurios
expresses both love and respect.
It is quite possible that this message is addressed to my dear Eclecta.
One commentator has actually stated that 2 John is just a Christian love letter.
We will see that this is unlikely for another reason, but one thing speaks strongly against it. The second letter of John ends with the words: “The children of your chosen sister greet you.” In Greek, again , eklekte is used,
and if this is a proper name at the beginning of the epistle, then it must be a proper name here, which means that the two sisters were called by the very unusual name
Eklekte,
which is absolutely impossible.

2. It can be considered that Kuria is

proper name, because there are such examples.
Then let us take the eclecte
in its ordinary New Testament meaning, and the message will be addressed to
the chosen Curia.
Three points speak against this.

a) It is unlikely that any one person would be loved by all who have known the truth (v. 1).

b) In Art. 4

John says that he rejoiced greatly when he found that some of her children were walking in the truth; which means others did not walk in the truth. And from this it should be assumed that their number was greater than the family of one woman.

c) The decisive argument is that in the epistle John addresses this eclectic curia

sometimes in the singular
(v. 4.5.13),
and sometimes in the plural
(v. 6.8.10.12).
It is unlikely that one person would be addressed this way.

3. Thus, it remains to conclude that the chosen lady is

this is a church.
Actually, there is other evidence in favor of the fact that this expression was used in this meaning. Thus, the First Epistle of Peter ends with the words: “The church chosen like you in Babylon greets you” (1 Pet. 5:13).
The words
you
and
the church
are in italics, which of course means that they are not in the Greek text and were introduced in the translation to convey the meaning.
In Greek it literally stands for Chosen in Babylon,
in the feminine gender.
Few have expressed doubt that this phrase means the church which is in Babylon,
and this is how the phrase must be understood also in the letter of John.
Without a doubt, the expression chosen lady
goes back to the idea of the Church as the bride of Christ. We can be sure that the Second Epistle of John was not written to any person, but to the church,

THE PROBLEM OF THE EARLY CHURCH

The Second and Third Epistles of John shed bright light on problems that were sooner or later to confront the early Church. Let's try to reconstruct the position in which they were written. It is quite obvious that Elder John considers himself to have the right to act as a mentor and adviser, to warn and rebuke the members of the church, his children. In 2 he commends those who behave well (v. 4)

and at the same time admits that there are those who do not walk in the truth.
It further becomes clear that there are traveling teachers in the church area, some of whom are teaching dangerous false teachings. At the same time, John orders not to accept them into the house and not to welcome them (vv. 7-11).
Here John exercises his undeniable right to give orders to his churches and tries to prevent the emergence of a situation that could be created at any moment by wandering false teachers.

The third letter of John was written in a somewhat more difficult situation. The letter is written to a certain Gaius, whose character and actions John fully approves of (vv. 3-5).

Traveling teachers and companions of the truth came to the church, and Guy showed them genuine Christian hospitality
(vv. 6-8).
Diotrephes, who loves to excel, lives in the same church
(v. 9).
Diotrephes is presented as a man with dictatorial habits who does not tolerate rivals.
He refused to accept traveling teachers of truth and even wanted to literally drive out of the church those who accepted them. He doesn't want to deal with traveling teachers at all, even if they actually preach the word of God (v. 10).
Next we talk about Demetrius;
John recommends him as a good man who should be given warm hospitality (v. 12).
This is most easily explained by the fact that Demetrius was the leader of a group of itinerant teachers heading to the church to which John was writing.
Diotrephes will generally refuse to deal with them and will try to expel those who accept them, and so John writes to Gaius to convince him to accept the wandering teachers and not allow Diotrephes to intimidate himself; John will talk to him when he comes to visit the church (v. 10).
The epistle was written precisely to secure the reception of these itinerant teachers. Guy had already accepted such teachers before and John convinces him to accept them and their leader Demetrius again. Diotrephes closed the door on them and challenged John's authority and power.

TRIPLE SHEPHERDING

The situation looks rather unpleasant, and indeed it was; moreover, it inevitably had to mature. The problem of shepherding had to be resolved in the Church. In the early Church there were three categories of pastors.

1. The apostles stood apart and above all ,

walked with Jesus and witnessed His Resurrection. They were the undisputed leaders of the Church. Their messages were distributed throughout the Church; they were the highest shepherds in all countries and communities.

2. Moreover, there were prophets.

They were not associated with any community.
These were itinerant teachers, going where the Spirit of God led them, and bringing people the message they received from Him. They left home and work, the comforts and security of a sedentary lifestyle, and became wandering messengers of God. They also occupied a special place in the Church. In the book of the Didache
or “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” which is the first prayer book of the Church, it is clear that the prophets occupied a special position in the Church.
It outlines the order of the communion service and the most ancient prayers. After communion, the service ends with a prayer of thanks, which is given in full, and then the text contains the sentence: “Let the prophets give thanks as much as they want” (Didache
10:7). Prophets were not supposed to be subject to rules and regulations intended for ordinary people. Thus, in the Church there were two groups of people whose power was not limited to one community and had the right to enter any community.

3. Finally, there were the elders

or
elders.
During their first missionary journey, Paul and Barnabas ordained, among other things, elders in each church they founded
(Acts 14:23).
The elders were officials of the settled community; they worked in the community and did not go beyond its boundaries. It is quite obvious that they were the supporting backbone of the organization of the early Church; the ongoing work and sustainability of an individual community depended on them.

THE PROBLEM OF ITINERARY PREACHERS

No problems arose in connection with the apostles and their position; There were very few of them and no one ever disputed their special position. But in connection with the wandering prophets, problems arose. They could abuse their position. They enjoyed extraordinary prestige and the most undesirable types could adopt this lifestyle, wandering from one place to another and living in relative comfort at the expense of local communities. A cunning swindler could arrange a comfortable life for himself as a wandering prophet. Even pagan satirists saw this. The Greek satirist Lucian, in his book The Death of Peregrine, paints a portrait of a man who has found the simplest way to live without working: a wandering charlatan, living comfortably and in luxury, traveling through Christian communities and remaining dependent wherever he pleases. This danger was noted in the Didache

and sets out specific measures to overcome it.
These norms are extensive, and they cast such a bright light on the life of the early Christian Church that they must be cited in full. “If anyone comes to you and teaches you all that is said above, accept him. If the teacher, having gone astray himself, begins to teach something else in order to turn you away from your teaching, do not listen to him. If he teaches in order to increase truth and knowledge of the Lord, accept him as the Lord Himself... But he should not stay longer than one day, and if necessary, he can stay for the second; if three days remain, then he is a false prophet. When leaving, the apostle should not take anything except bread to get to the next night. If he demands money, then he is a false prophet. Do not test or judge every prophet who speaks in the Spirit; for every sin will be forgiven, but this sin will not be forgiven. But not everyone who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet, but only one who has the disposition of the Lord, and therefore, according to his disposition, a prophet and a false prophet will be identified. And no prophet, having appointed a meal in the Spirit, will eat from it, unless he is a false prophet. And every prophet who teaches the truth and does not do what he teaches is a false prophet... If someone says in the Spirit: give me money or something else, do not listen to him, but if he asks for others who have nothing, let no one judge his. Let everyone who comes in the name of the Lord be accepted, and then, having tested, you will recognize him, for you must have understanding and distinguish right from left. If a stranger comes, help him as much as you can; but he should not stay with you longer than two, or, if necessary, three days. If he, being a craftsman, decides to settle with you, then let him work and eat. And if he does not know the craft, in your opinion, make sure that he, as a Christian, does not live idlely. If he does not want to do this, then he is a seller of Christ. Avoid such people" (Didache 11:12
).

To designate such people in the Didache

even a new word was invented:
seller of Christ,
in Greek
Christemporos.
John rightly warned his recipients that false prophets might come to them demanding hospitality, and told them not to receive anyone under any circumstances. In the early Church, such wandering prophets certainly became a real problem. Some of them were heretical teachers, even if they themselves were sincerely convinced of their teaching. Others were outright scammers who had found an easy way to live a comfortable life. This is what is behind the Second Epistle of John.

CONFLICT BETWEEN SHEPHERDS

The situation behind 3 John is in some respects even more serious than that behind 2 John. First, there are the difficulties associated with the figure of Diotrephes.

He wants nothing to do with wandering teachers and is ready to expel anyone who dares to accept them; he does not even agree to recognize the authority of John, and John sees him as a dictator. But behind this lies much more than what lies on the surface; This is not a storm in a teacup, but an insurmountable gap between local and wandering shepherds.

It is clear that the entire structure of the established Church relies on strong local pastors. In other words, its very existence depends on the presence of strong and authoritative local elders. Over time, sedentary elders and priests had to work under the control of a distant leader, like Elder John, and endure the often outrageous and unpleasant interference of traveling prophets and preachers. It could well be that these wanderers, no matter how good their intentions were, did more harm than good.

It is precisely these problems that the Third Epistle of John is connected with.

Explanatory Bible Interpretation of the Second Council Epistle of the Holy Apostle John the Theologian

ABOUT THE SECOND COLLECTION EPISTLE OF THE HOLY APOSTLE AND EVANGELIST JOHN THE THEOLOGIST

The second epistle of John the Theologian, similar to his third epistle, as well as the epistle of St. Jude, in the ancient Church until the 4th century belonged to the so-called “disputed” (αντιλεγόμενα) writings, as Origen testifies (in Eusebius, C. East VÏ25), blessed. Jerome (“On Famous Men.” Chapter XIX) and Eusebius (Ts. I. IIÏ25). Moreover, from the works of Eusebius and Blessed. Jerome knows that the second and third letters were sometimes attributed by some to a certain presbyter John of Ephesus, mentioned by Papias (in Eusebius, Ts.I. IIÏ39): the tomb of this presbyter John was also shown in Ephesus, where there was also the tomb of St. Ap. John the Theologian (in the same place, and in Blessed Jerome’s “O Famous Man,” Chapter IX). On this basis, many new researchers assimilate the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John to this presbyter John, and sometimes Apostle. Mark, called John in the book of the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 12:12, 25, 15:37). The reason for doubts about the apostolic origin of the epistle was partly the brevity of the epistle and its obscurity, due to its assignment to a private person - “a chosen lady and her children” (2 John 1:1), partly the absence of the name of the Apostle in the inscription of the epistle (the Apostle calls himself only an elder ). But the failure to mention the epistle in the first three centuries and its failure, for example, in the Syriac translation of Peshito of the 2nd century does not yet indicate the doubt of the ancient Church in the apostolic writing and the authority of the epistle. Along with the hesitations of individual church writers, there is authoritative testimony from other representatives of the Church in favor of the epistle belonging to the Apostle and Evangelist John.

The Muratorium Canon mentions several messages from St. John. St. Irenaeus of Lyons, who was a student of St. Polycarp of Smyrna, a disciple of St. Apex himself. John, quotes the words of 2 John. 1:7–8, 10–11 (about false teachers and the prohibition of communication with them), as the authentic words of the disciple of the Lord (Adv. haer. IIÏ16, 8). Clement of Alexandria also wrote his own interpretation of this epistle, as a truly apostolic work. Dionysius of Alexandria (in Eusebius, Ts. I. VIÏ25) and Origen (in Eusebius, Ts. I. VÏ25) recognize 2 John as the writing of St. Apostle John.

Eusebius themselves are inclined towards this (Demonstr. Evang. IIÏ5. Ts. Ist. IÏ23) and Blessed. Jerome (epist. ad. Euagr. 80). And although the Syriac translation of Peshito does not have this message, however, St. Ephraim the Syrian quotes it as genuine. The very spirit and character of the message and the noticeable, despite its brevity, similarity of content and language with the first message should also convince the reader of the message that it belongs to the great Apostle of love. Its inclusion at the end of the 4th century by the Church in the canon of sacred books (at the councils: Laodicean 364 reg. 60 and Carthage 397 reg. 47) eliminates any doubts about the writing of the epistle of St. Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian.

Questions about the authorship of the message.

Unlike the First Epistle of John, the authorship of which the official church never doubted and always attributed to John the Theologian, the Second Epistle always raised a large number of questions. At different times, the authorship of this text was attributed either to the presbyter of Ephesus John, or to the Apostle Mark. The canonicity of this message also remained in question for a long time. The Second Epistle was not mentioned until the third century. Along with those who doubted the authenticity of this message and that it was written by John the Theologian, there were those who always emphasized the authority of this text - among them Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria and Dionysius of Alexandria.

The spirit and style of the narrative speaks in favor of its author belonging to the Gospel of John and the First Catholic Epistle of John, whether he was John the Theologian or someone else (which a number of modern researchers insist on.)

The Second Epistle of John the Evangelist was included in the Biblical Canon at the end of the 4th century. Inclusion in the canon automatically meant that the official Church recognized John the Theologian as the author of the book.

Time of writing : end of the 1st century AD.

2 John introduction

ABOUT THE SECOND COLLECTION EPISTLE OF THE HOLY APOSTLE AND EVANGELIST JOHN THE THEOLOGIST
The second epistle of John the Theologian, similar to his third epistle, as well as the epistle of Apostle. Jude, in the ancient Church until the 4th century belonged to the so-called “disputed” (αντιλεγόμενα) writings, as Origen testifies (in Eusebius, C. East VÏ25), blessed. Jerome (“On Famous Men.” Chapter XIX) and Eusebius (Ts. I. IIÏ25). Moreover, from the works of Eusebius and Blessed. Jerome knows that the second and third letters were sometimes attributed by some to a certain presbyter John of Ephesus, mentioned by Papias (in Eusebius, Ts.I. IIÏ39): the tomb of this presbyter John was also shown in Ephesus, where there was also the tomb of St. Ap. John the Theologian (in the same place, and in Blessed Jerome’s “O Famous Man,” Chapter IX). On this basis, many new researchers assimilate the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John to this presbyter John, and sometimes Apostle. Mark, called John in the book of the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 12:12, 25, 15:37). The reason for doubts about the apostolic origin of the epistle was partly the brevity of the epistle and its obscurity, due to its assignment to a private person - “a chosen lady and her children” (2 John 1:1), partly the absence of the name of the Apostle in the inscription of the epistle (the Apostle calls himself only presbyter). But the failure to mention the epistle in the first three centuries and its failure, for example, in the Syriac translation of Peshito of the 2nd century does not yet indicate the doubt of the ancient Church in the apostolic writing and the authority of the epistle. Along with the hesitations of individual church writers, there is authoritative testimony from other representatives of the Church in favor of the epistle belonging to the Apostle and Evangelist John.

The Muratorium Canon mentions several messages from St. John. St. Irenaeus of Lyons, who was a student of St. Polycarp of Smyrna, a disciple of St. Apex himself. John, quotes the words of 2 John. 1:7-8, 10-11 (about false teachers and the prohibition of communication with them), as the authentic words of the disciple of the Lord (Adv. haer. IIÏ16, 8). Clement of Alexandria also wrote his own interpretation of this epistle, as a truly apostolic work. Dionysius of Alexandria (in Eusebius, Ts. I. VIÏ25) and Origen (in Eusebius, Ts. I. VÏ25) recognize 2 John as the writing of St. Apostle John.

Who was εκλεκτή κυρία, “the chosen lady,” to whom the 2nd letter of John was originally sent with her children, there is no reliable information about this. If some (for example, St. Athanasius the Great) considered the name Kyria to be the proper name of someone. deaconess of Asia Minor, others - by the Greek name of Martha, sister of Lazarus (Serbian Martha is equal in meaning to the Greek Κυρία), others (following Clement of Alexandria) considered εκλεκτή to be such a proper name and considered this Christian Babylonian, supposedly identical with the one mentioned in 1 Pet 5 :13, then all this is pure speculation. It is therefore necessary to see in Kyria a common name for a Christian woman turned to St. Christ. The Apostle John and what he teaches through this letter. It is not possible to accept the opinion of Clement Apex. and blessed Jerome, who understand by the “chosen Lady” the Church - as in St. Peter (1 Pet. 5:13). Such allegorism in the address of the message is hardly acceptable. The conciliar character of the epistle is not destroyed by its particular purpose: the similarity of the content and language of the second epistle with the first epistle indicates the nature of conciliarity in the second epistle, which character is recognized by the entire Church. According to the time of writing, the second letter should be attributed, like the first letter, to the senile period of the life of St. John the Theologian. Place of writing: the city of Ephesus.

Lopukhin's Commentaries on 2 John, Introduction

Source

Purpose of the message

There is no reliable information about the original purpose of the 2nd Epistle of John and the circumstances of its writing, except for those contained in the epistle itself. Even who the name of the “chosen lady” was, to whom it was written, and her children, is unknown. One thing is certain, that she was a Christian, just like her children. You can make guesses about this, but only guesses, which, however, do not help the matter at all. Regarding the time and place of writing of this epistle, one must think that it was written around the time of writing the 1st epistle, judging by the spirit, tone and syllable of the epistle, and, probably, in Ephesus, where the apostle stayed in the last years of his life (see preface to the 1st message). In the letter, the apostle expresses his joy that the children of the “chosen lady” walk in the truth, promises to visit her and persistently admonishes her not to have any communication with false teachers.