And now I beseech thee, lady,…. Or “Kyria”, which word the Syriac and Arabic versions retain, as if it was a proper name: the apostle having finished the inscription, salutation, and congratulation in the preceding verses, passes to an exhortation and entreaty to observe the commandment of love to one another, which is not a new commandment, but what was from the beginning:

not as though I wrote a new commandment, &c. [See comments on 1Jo 2:7] and [See comments on 1Jo 2:8].

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

      5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.   6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

      We come now more into the design and substance of the epistle; and here we have,

      I. The apostle’s request: Now, I beseech thee, lady. Considering what it is that he entreats, the way of address is very remarkable; it is not any particular boon or bounty to himself, but common duty and observance of divine command. Here he might command or charge; but harsher measures are worse than needless where milder will prevail; and the apostolical spirit is, of all other, the most tender and endearing. Whether out of deference to her ladyship, or apostolical meekness, or both, he condescends to beseech: And now I beseech thee, lady. He may be supposed speaking as another apostle does to a certain master to whom he writes: Wherefore, though I might be very bold in Christ (and according to the power with which Christ hath entrusted me) to enjoin thee that which is convenient, yet, for love’s sake I rather beseech thee, being such a one as the aged, the elder. Love will avail where authority will not; and we may often see that the more authority is urged the more it is slighted. The apostolical minister will love and beseech his friends into their duty.

      II. The thing requested of the lady and her children–Christian sacred love: That we love one another, v. 5. Those that are eminent in any Christian virtue have yet room to grow therein. But, as touching brotherly love, you need not that I write unto you; for you yourselves are taught of God to love one another. But we beseech you, brethren (and sisters), that you increase more and more,1Th 4:9; 1Th 4:10.

      1. This love is recommended, (1.) From the obligation thereto–the commandment. Divine command should sway our mind and heart. (2.) From the antiquity of the obligation: Not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, v. 5. This commandment of mutual Christian love may be said to be a new one in respect of its new enaction and sanction by the Lord Christ; but yet, as to the matter of it (mutual holy love), it is as old as natural, Jewish, or Christian religion. This commandment must every where attend Christianity, that the disciples of it must love one another.

      2. Then this love is illustrated from the fruitful nature of it: And this is love, that we walk after his commandments, v. 5. This is the test of our love to God, our obedience to him. This is love to ourselves, to our own souls, that we walk in obedience to divine commands. In keeping them there is great reward. This is love to one another, to engage one another to walk in holiness; and this is the evidence of our sincere, mutual, Christian love–that we (in other things) walk after God’s commands. There may be mutual love that is not religious and Christian; but we know ours to be so, by our attendance to all other commands besides that of mutual love. Universal obedience is the proof of the goodness and sincerity of Christian virtues; and those that aim at all Christian obedience will be sure to attend to Christian love. This is a fundamental duty in the gospel-charter: This is the commandment, that, as you have heard from the beginning, you should walk in it (v. 6), that is, walk in this love. The foresight of the decay of this love, as well as of other apostasy, might engage the apostle to inculcate this duty, and this primordial command, the more frequently, the more earnestly.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Beseech (). For pray as in 1Jo 5:16.

Lady (). Vocative case and in the same sense as in 1.

As though I wrote ( ). Common idiom with the participle (present active) for the alleged reason.

New (). As in 1Jo 2:7f., which see.

We had (). Imperfect active (late – form like in Mr 8:7) of and note with ‘ in 1Jo 2:7. Not literary plural, John identifying all Christians with himself in this blessing.

That we love one another ( ). Either a final clause after as in Joh 17:15 or an object clause in apposition with , like 1John 2:27; 1John 3:23 and like verse 6.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

New [] . See on Mt 26:29.

We had [] . The apostle identifies himself with his readers.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “And now I beseech thee, lady “ the exhortation of John is a direct appeal to the “elect lady” the church – meaning any church or each church in every locality.

2) “Not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee” What John admonished was that love of the Spirit, a fruit of Salvation, should be cultivated and shown in the church toward each other and before the world.

3) “But that which we had from the beginning. To love one another and love one’s enemies was our Lord’s commandment from His early ministry, even in the Sermon on the Mount, Mat 5:44; Mat 5:48.

4) “That we love one another”, As the Father loved the world and sent Him, so has He sent each child of His in general, and every member of His church in particular, to witness to, and love the lost and one another. Joh 3:17; Joh 20:21; Rom 5:5; Rom 12:9-10.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

5. And now In view of this evidence of adherence to Christian truth, I beseech that the Christian love be added.

A new commandment See notes on 1Jn 2:7-8.

From the beginning From our first listening to the gospel of love.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘And now I beseech you, lady, not as though I wrote to you a new commandment, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another. And this is love, that we should walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, even as you heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.’

He then moves on from faith and trust in Jesus Christ, God’s Son, to the further aspect of the commandment that they love one another. This was the new commandment (Joh 13:34), but he emphasises that it is not new in the sense of novel and recent, for it was given by Jesus Christ and known by them from the beginning of their Christian lives. This is no novelty such as the false prophets were presenting. It is based soundly in the words of Jesus Christ.

‘And this is love, that we should walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, even as you heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.’ To walk after His commandments is to walk in the light (1Jn 1:7). He stresses that this love, which results from walking in the light, involves obeying God’s and Christ’s commandments. Indeed these were centred in the reality of love, for they were to love God with heart, soul, mind and strength (Deu 6:5-6), and their neighbour as themselves (Lev 19:18), which would be revealed in the way they lived their lives. Those who did such things would live in them (Lev 18:5; Eze 20:11). Their eternal life was given by the Father through His Son (1Jn 5:11-12), but it involved living lives pleasing to Him because we are in Him that is true (1Jn 5:20), and Jesus had made clear that they should walk in them (Joh 14:15). These are the commandments given by God and expanded and explained by Jesus (e.g. Matthew 5-7).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

2Jn 1:5-6 . ] is used here, not temporally, but logically. Dsterdieck refers it to the immediately preceding subordinate clause: . . .; Ebrard, on the other hand, to the idea . . .; but it is more correctly referred to . . .; the joy which the apostle felt is the cause of his present request (so also Brckner and Braune). John says instead of the usual , as the request is suitable to the Church, as a .

. . .] Comp. 1Jn 2:7 .

] dependent on , comp. Joh 17:15 , not on (Baumgarten-Crusius), “for this is used in a subordinate clause merely, and would be without connection and without object” (Brckner). states here also not merely the purpose, but the substance of the request (contrary to Braune). 2Jn 1:6 . ] The same construction, 1Jn 5:3 . The apostle is not distinguishing the commandment of love from the other commandments (de Wette), but is describing the walking according to the commandments of God as the substance and essence of love; with justice, for, in the first place, only that love is moral or more particularly, Christian in its character which is founded on obedience toward God, and therefore “consists in the fulfilment of the commandments of God that regulate our relationship to our neighbour” (Ebrard); and, in the second place, the aim of all the divine commandments is nothing else than love. Brckner, Braune, and others here interpret incorrectly of “Christian love simply,” including also the love of God and Christ; the close connection of this sentence with the preceding one ( clearly refers back to ) compels us to understand of Christian brotherly love. The thought last expressed is specially emphasized by the following words. According to the reading: , we must translate: “ This commandment is (consists in this), as ye have heard from the beginning (no other than this), that ye should walk .”

resumes the preceding . the transition from the plural to the singular is not difficult; comp. 1Jn 3:22-23 .

states the substance of the commandment, and refers to (de Wette-Brckner, Lcke, Dsterdieck, Ebrard, Braune), and not to (Sander); for this would not only give an inadmissible tautology, but would also be contrary to John’s mode of expression, in which the phrase: , does not appear.

By the intervening clause , “a subordinate definition of the ” (Lcke, de Wette) is not given, but it is observed that the readers have heard from the beginning what is the substance of the divine commandment; the apostle thereby refers back to what was said in 2Jn 1:5 (so also Dsterdieck, Ebrard, Brckner, Braune). The circle that results from this interpretation only serves to bring clearly out the identity of brotherly love and obedience toward God. [9]

[9] Kstlin incorrectly interprets (p. 218): “the old commandment, that we should love one another, means nothing else than that we should abide in what He has commanded us to believe.” That here denotes the command to believe (1Jn 3:23 ), finds no confirmation in the context. Ebrard unjustifiably asserts that the obscurity of the expression in this verse is to be explained by the fact that the apostle intentionally alludes to some passages of the First Epistle, with which he assumes the Kyria to be familiar.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another. (6) And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

Let the Reader observe, with me, how sweetly a life of grace in Jesus, leads to a life of holiness in Jesus. “As ye have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him, rooted and built up in him” (Col 2:6-7 ). It is impossible to be otherwise. Where Christ is, there must be fruitfulness in Christ. Exhortations here are all sweet, and in season. But to exhort the unawakened and unregenerate, is like the rain upon the sands and deserts, which can produce nothing!

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.

Ver. 5. Not as though I wrote a new commandment ] A new commandment our Saviour calleth it, Joh 13:34 . Quia exuto veteri induit nos novum hominem, as Austin gives the reason; because the old man being put off, it puts on us the new man. Or, as others, because when the scribes and Pharisees by false glosses and corrupt interpretations had put it out of date, Christ restored it by a true interpretation,Mat 5:43-45Mat 5:43-45 , &c., and revived and illustrated it by his own practice and example, as Paul also observeth, Eph 5:2 ; Phi 1:9 .

That we love, &c. ] God lays no other commands upon us than what we may perform by love, that lighteneth and sweeteneth all. His subjects and soldiers are all volunteers,Psa 110:3Psa 110:3 .

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

5 .] And now (so , coupling to what has gone before, 1Jn 2:28 . It has also a force of breaking off, and passing to that which is the main subject, or most in the Writer’s thoughts, which here is, that this walking in truth is a walking after God’s commandments in love) I entreat thee (see on and , 1Jn 5:15-16 . Here carries, as Schlichting, “blandior qudam admonendi ratio:” with the assumed fact of a right thus to entreat) lady, not as writing to thee a new commandment, but (as writing to thee : the construction is not strictly logical) that which we had from the beginning (see on this, 1Jn 2:7 ), that ( here is not epexegetic of , as so often in St. John, but is to be taken in its proper sense, as the aim of , and dependent on it) we love one another (the expression of the commandment in the first person is a mark of gentleness and delicacy: a sign that he who wrote it kept the commandment himself.)

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

2Jn 1:5-6 . The Comprehensive Commandment. “And now I ask thee, Kyria, not as writing a new commandment to thee but the one which we had from the beginning, that we love one another. And this is love that we walk according to His commandments; this is the commandment, even as ye heard from the beginning that we should walk in love,”

These counsels are just a summary of the doctrines expounded at large in the first Epistle. There is here a sort of reasoning in a circle: The commandment is Love; Love is walking according to His commandments; His commandments are summed up in one Love.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

2Jn 1:5 . , “from the beginning of our Christian life”. See note on 1Jn 2:7 .

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

beseech = ask. App-134.

new. Greek. kainos. See Mat 9:17.

from the beginning. Greek. ap’ arches. See 1Jn 1:1.

that = in order that. Greek. hina.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

5.] And now (so , coupling to what has gone before, 1Jn 2:28. It has also a force of breaking off, and passing to that which is the main subject, or most in the Writers thoughts, which here is, that this walking in truth is a walking after Gods commandments in love) I entreat thee (see on and , 1Jn 5:15-16. Here carries, as Schlichting, blandior qudam admonendi ratio: with the assumed fact of a right thus to entreat) lady, not as writing to thee a new commandment, but (as writing to thee : the construction is not strictly logical) that which we had from the beginning (see on this, 1Jn 2:7), that ( here is not epexegetic of , as so often in St. John, but is to be taken in its proper sense, as the aim of , and dependent on it) we love one another (the expression of the commandment in the first person is a mark of gentleness and delicacy: a sign that he who wrote it kept the commandment himself.)

Fuente: The Greek Testament

2Jn 1:5. -, not as-new) Love performs both pages:[4] truth produces nothing else.

[4] The Old as well as the New Testament love to God, and love to our neighbour-E.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

2Jn 1:5-6

ADMONITIONS

(2Jn 1:5-6)

5 And now I beseech thee, lady,–“And now,” i.e., on the basis of what has just been written by the apostle, “I beseech thee . . .” “Beseech” is translated from eroto, a stronger word than our English word beseech. It is a petition, but such a peti-tion as one has a right to make, a right in this instance based on the law of love. “Lady” (kuria, vocative case) raises again the question of verse 1: Is the noun kuria a proper name, or not? If it is, then this is an instance of direct address: “I beseech thee, Cyria . . .” If it is not, again reference is made to a “lady” not otherwise identified. For additional details in the matter, see the comments on verse 1 of this Epistle.

Not as though I wrote to thee a new commandment, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one an-other.–The design of all of God’s commandments is that we should love one another, since love is the fulfilling of the law. The love which the commandment requires is not a new commandment, but one which had been repeatedly emphasized from the beginning, i.e., from the beginning of the gospel of Christ. It will be observed that the plural pronoun “we” indicates John’s awareness of equal responsibility in the obligation. This duty, the apostle often heard from the lips of the Lord: “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; even as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” (Joh 13:34-35.) For the reasons why reference is made to commandments both new and old, regarding the obligation of love, see the comments on 1Jn 2:7-8.

The two great keynotes of John’s writings become manifest: love and duty. The one issues in the other; love prompts to the keeping of the commandments. “For this is the love of God that we should keep his commandments.” (1Jn 5:3.) Emotion, unrelated to obedience, is worse than useless. Love in the absence of obedience, degenerates into fanaticism ; duty without love is cold formalism. Where love does not exist, the keeping of God’s commandments is irksome and hard. To the faithful, the keeping of his commandments is not grievous, because love, makes them light.

This is the commandment, even as ye heard from the be-ginning, that ye should walk in it.–(See 1Jn 2:7-11; 1Jn 3:23-24.) Brotherly love and obedience to God are inseparable; the one fails in the absence of the other. “We love, because he first loved us. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar; for he that loveth not his brother whom he bath seen cannot love God whom he bath not seen. And this commandment have we from him that he who loveth God love his brother also.” (1Jn 4:19-21.) The phrase, “this is the commandment,” designates the obligation we have to love one another, and is singled out because it serves as the basis for all the other commandments. Jesus said, “if ye love me, ye will keep my commandments. . . .He that bath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me:and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him.” (Joh 14:21.)

Commentary on 2Jn 1:5-6 by E.M. Zerr

2Jn 1:5. Lady is the same as that used in the first verse. Not . . . new commandment. (See the comments at 1Jn 2:7-8 as to why it was not a new commandment.) It pertains to the subject of love which is a precious one especially to John.

2Jn 1:6. Love, like faith, is to be shown by works, hence this verse says that to walk after the commandments is love; to walk means to keep moving onward.

Commentary on 2Jn 1:5-6 by N.T. Caton

2Jn 1:5-And now I beseech thee, lady.

The exhortation is earnest. “I beseech thee.” The reason for this was, the fear and anxiety entertained by the apostle that, as false teachers were abroad, danger menaced the lady and her family, and to guard them against all possible evil influences that might arise, he here shows his great solicitude.

2Jn 1:5 –Not as though I wrote a new commandment.

Do not misunderstand me. I do not wish you to think that I have a new injunction to impose, or a new revelation to impart. It is the same we had from the very first proclamation of the word of life, “That we love one another.” This includes everything. It is very broad and full. It embraces all Christian duties, the observance of which insures the continued favor of the Father.

2Jn 1:6-And this is love.

We know one possesses this love whenever we see its demonstration. One, therefore, who knows by acts that he loves, shows at the same time that he walks after the commandments. We hear the Lord when we obey what he commands, and no other love is acceptable to the Father on high. This commandment was given, and was heard at the very beginning, in order that it might be observed along the pathway of life.

Commentary on 2Jn 1:5-8 by Burton Coffman

2Jn 1:5 –And now I beseech three, lady, not as though I wrote to thee a new commandment, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.

The full sentiments of this verse were commented on in 1Jn 2:7-8.

2Jn 1:6 –And this is love, that we should walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, even as ye heard from the beginning, that ye should walk in it.

In the writings of John, keeping God’s commandments is the only proof, either of faith or of love. It is in such passages as these that the common authorship of all these epistles is so evident. See in 1Jn 3:23 for further comment.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Chapter Two – Confronting Apostasy

Destruction of Apostates (Jud 1:5-7)

When the saint of God considers the end awaiting all apostates from the truth, all bitterness toward them must of necessity be banished from the heart. They may seem to ride now on a crest of popular appreciation and support, but they will soon fall. For surely thou didst set them in slippery places: thou castedst them down into destruction (Psa 73:18).

This is the solemn lesson we are taught by observing the unbelievers who fell in the wilderness. They started out well. All were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea. All drank the same spiritual drink and ate the same spiritual food. But unbelief manifested itself when the time of testing came. Murmuring, idolatry, and the gainsaying of Korah (of which particular note is taken further on in this Epistle), told out the true state of many who sang with exultation on the banks of the Red Sea. Kadesh-Barnea, the place of opportunity, became but the memorial of unbelief. Though once saved out of Egypt, they were destroyed in the wilderness because of having apostatized from the living God.

In the same way the Nephilim (the fallen ones) had been dealt with long before. Though created as sinless angels of God, they like Lucifer, the son of the morning, bartered the realms of Heaven for selfish ends. These angels kept not their first estate, but left then-own habitation, [and are now] reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day (Jud 1:6).

Whether the apostle is here referring to the sons of God of Genesis 6 has been a debated question throughout the Christian centuries. That the beings there referred to could possibly be angels has been denounced by many spiritually-minded teachers, who see in the sons of God simply the seed of Seth, and in the daughters of men the maidens of the line of Cain. Others, equally deserving to be heard, identify the sons of God in the book of Job with those of Genesis. They accept the passage before us as the divine commentary on the solemn scene of apostasy described as the precursor of the flood, and believe that in Jude they learn the judgment of those fallen angels.

It must be admitted that verse 7 (Jud 1:7) of Jude seems to corroborate the latter view. As Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Scripture seems to indicate a close relationship between the sin of these cities and that of the angels referred to in verse 6 (Jud 1:6). At any rate both angels and the men of the plain fell into grievous sin through unbelief, and were punished accordingly. They rejected the light and are now presented as an example of those who will suffer and undergo the vengeance of eternal fire.

Nothing can be more solemn than this. Many centuries have elapsed since fire from heaven destroyed those cities, but the guilty apostates of that distant day are at this moment still suffering the judgment of God because of their wicked deeds. They are, along with the rich man of Luke 16, tormented in the flames of Hades. They await the awful hour when, as Rev 20:14 declares, death and hades shall be cast into the lake of fire.

Contrary to the Scriptural teaching of eternal punishment of the wicked, there are those who hold out instead the delusive dream of annihilation. They refer to Mal 4:1-3 as the basis for their belief:

For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts.

This passage is looked upon by the annihilationist as one of his strongest proof-texts. Assuming that the passage is talking of the final judgment, he exclaims, What could be clearer? If the wicked are burned up like stubble, if neither root nor branch is left remaining, wouldnt they have utterly ceased to exist? Furthermore, if they become as ashes under the soles of the saints feet, where is room for the awful thought of an immortal soul suffering endless judgment?

A more careful study of Malachi 4 reveals the fact that it makes no reference to judgment after death. The Holy Ghost is describing the destruction of apostates at the coming of the Lord to establish His kingdom prior to the millennium of Revelation 20. It is the bodies of the wicked, not their souls, which are to become as ashes under the feet of triumphant Israel. Like stubble, their physical bodies will be destroyed as with devouring fire, so that neither root nor branch shall remain. So it was in the day when Sodom and Gomorrah and its surrounding cities met their doom. Lot or Abraham might then have trampled on the wicked, who would have been ashes under the soles of their feet after the terrible conflagration. All had been burned up-root and branch-but were they then annihilated? No. Our Lord Jesus said, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment than for those who rejected His ministry when here on earth (Mar 6:11). The very men and women who were burned to ashes so long ago are to rise from the dead for judgment. Where are they now, and what is their condition? Are they wrapped in a dreamless slumber, waiting in unconsciousness until the sounding of the trump of doom? No, the soul-sleeper and the annihilationist are both wrong. The inhabitants of those cities are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire!

Truly, it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb 10:31). Judgment must be the portion of all who trifle with the grace shown on the cross to guilty sinners. It would be better to have never heard of Christ and His blood, than having heard, to turn from the truth to the soul-destroying fables of false teachers.

Be awake to the solemnity of these things! Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, cried the apostle Paul, we persuade men. Paul also wrote, The love of Christ constraineth us (2Co 5:11; 2Co 5:14). Man, energized by Satan, would divorce the fear of the Lord from His love, making much of love, and ridiculing the thought of eternal punishment. Scripture teaches that God is light just as much as God is love.

God has said, If any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But the Holy Ghost is careful to say of true believers, We are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul (Heb 10:38-39). It is only those who endure to the end who will be saved-but all who are born of God will endure through divine grace. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? (1Jn 5:5).

Irreverent and Irrational Despisers of the Truth (Jud 1:8-10)

Unholy ways always accompany, and indeed spring from, unholy teachings. Therefore we can easily understand the readiness with which apostates from the truth give themselves up to what is defiling and abominable. Present-day advocates of free love, are in large measure persons who have apostatized from a nominal Christianity, and now tolerate and even stand for what they once would have abhorred. What would once have been rebuked, even by the world, is now advocated by a Christless pulpit. Men and women sustaining unholy relations are rocked to sleep in their sins while death, judgment, and eternal punishment are fast approaching! The rejection of the inspiration of the Bible places the law of God, as expressed in the ten commandments, among the productions of the human mind. Therefore its code of morals is spurned and a lower ethical system, more in keeping with present day conditions, is substituted. And so loose standards prevail where Scripture no longer speaks with authority. They have rejected the word of the Lord, and what wisdom is in them? (Jer 8:9).

Coupled with this new standard of morals, so opposed to the purity of Scripture, will be found a limitless pride that boasts itself against every unseen power. Satan is no longer feared, but his very existence denied on the one hand, or his superhuman ability ridiculed on the other. How different was the behavior of Michael the archangel, who, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee (Jud 1:9). All kinds of ingenious theories have been advanced concerning the nature of this dispute, but as God Himself has not given us the particulars, it would seem useless to speculate. When we know as we are known, this and all other mysteries will be solved in a place where we can no longer pride ourselves in our knowledge.

It is important to observe that in Scripture, the word archangel occurs only in the singular. Michael (meaning, who is [as] god) is the archangel. Gabriel is never given that title. Some have sought to identify Michael with the Son of God Himself, but as there is no hint of such an identity, it is unwise to theorize. Michael appears in the book of Daniel as the great prince which standeth for the children of thy [the prophets] people-that is, of Israel (Dan 12:1). In Rev 12:7 he appears as the leader of the angelic hosts driving Satan from the heavens when his days of accusing the brethren are ended. Here he is seen contending for the body of Moses; and in 1Th 4:16 he seems to be a distinct being, whose voice (as Israels prince) will be heard in connection with the rapture of the church. It is noticeable that in Dan 10:13 he is called, Michael, one of the chief princes, a title that would be completely inconsistent with our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.

It is solemn indeed to be told that such a great being durst not bring a railing accusation against the devil, while proud, ignorant men speak boldly against all that is high and beyond their comprehension. Even in what they do understand they do not behave with propriety, but like natural brute beasts, they corrupt themselves, and display an inability to curb their fleshly lusts. They know no shame, and complain loudly against the unknowable. Such actions are the result of the deification of the human mind and scientific knowledge.

Judgment is fast approaching and it becomes increasingly important that those who know God search His Word and value His truth. Remember that perilous times have come, when, if it were possible, Satan would deceive the very elect. It is only by the grace of God that any are kept from error and the evil practices that result. Paul reminded the Thessalonians of this sustaining grace: But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth (2Th 2:13). If any abide in the truth, it is due to the fact that God himself has chosen them, and sustains them in their path. Where is boasting then? It is excluded (Rom 3:27).

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

that we love one another

Law (of Christ), Summary: The new “law of Christ” is the divine love, as wrought into the renewed heart by the Holy Spirit Rom 5:5; Heb 10:16 and outflowing in the energy of the Spirit, unforced and spontaneous, toward the objects of the divine love; 2Co 5:14-20; 1Th 2:7; 1Th 2:8. It is, therefore, ” the law of liberty”; Jam 1:25; Jam 2:12 in contrast with the external law of Moses. Moses’ law demands love,; Lev 19:18; Deu 6:5; Luk 10:27 Christ’s law is love; Rom 5:5; 1Jn 4:7; 1Jn 4:19; 1Jn 4:20 and so takes the place of the external law by fulfilling it; Rom 13:10; Gal 5:14. It is the “law written in the heart” under the New Covenant.

(See Scofield “Heb 8:8”).

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

not: 1Jo 2:7, 1Jo 2:8, 1Jo 3:11

that we: Joh 13:34, Joh 13:35, Joh 15:12, Gal 5:22, Eph 5:2, 1Th 4:9, Heb 13:1, 1Pe 1:22, 1Pe 1:23, 1Pe 4:8, 2Pe 1:7, 1Jo 3:14-18, 1Jo 3:23, 1Jo 4:7-12, 1Jo 4:20

Reciprocal: Eph 4:1 – beseech 1Jo 2:24 – which 2Jo 1:1 – the elect lady 2Jo 1:6 – This is the

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

2Jn 1:5. Lady is the same as that used in the first verse. Not . . . new commandment. (See the comments at 1Jn 2:7-8 as to why it was not a new commandment.) It pertains to the subject of love which is a precious one especially to John.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

2Jn 1:5. And nowthis is the purport of the letter.

I beseech thee, Syria: the request has in it a tone of dignity as well as of courtesy; the mother is addressed, though some of her children who walked not in love are aimed at: the apostle urges his request, which is sheltered behind the evangelical law, not as though writing to thee a new commandment, but that which we had from the beginning, in the first person, that we love one another. Let us all walk in love: this, as well as the whole strain, shows the same exquisite courtesy which pervades St. Pauls letters to individuals.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Observe here, The duty required, together with the profession of the gospel; namely, to love in unity and peace, in amity and concord, one with another. This he calls a commandment, in the singular number, to intimate that in this one commandment all the rest are contained, and in keeping this we keep all: and he tells them, it is no new commandment, but an old one from the beginning; it is as old as Moses, yea, as old as Adam, being a part of the law of nature written in Adam’s heart; yet, in some respects, love may be called a new commandment, because urged from new motives, and enforced by a new example; and because it is never to wax old, but to be always fresh in the memories, and found in the practice of Christ’s disciples, to the end of the world: I write no new commandment, but what we had from the beginning, that we love one another.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

2Jn 1:5. Now, I beseech thee, Kuria This sort of address suits a particular person much better than a whole church, consisting of many individuals, to which, in the opinion of some, this letter was directed; not as though I wrote a new commandment A commandment which thou didst never hear before; but that which we had from the beginning Of our Lords ministry. Indeed it was in some sense from the beginning of the world; that we love one another More abundantly. The apostle does not here speak of a new commandment in the sense in which our Lord used that phrase Joh 13:34; (see on 1Jn 2:7-8;) but his meaning is, either that the commandment to love one another, which he gave to this family, was not a commandment which had never been delivered to the church before, or that it was not a commandment peculiar to the gospel. The first of these seems to be the apostles meaning; as he tells this matron that the disciples of Christ had had this commandment delivered to them from the beginning. In inculcating mutual love among the disciples of Christ so frequently and so earnestly in all his writings, John showed himself to be, not only a faithful apostle of Christ, but a person of a most amiable and benevolent disposition; his own heart being full of love to all mankind, and particularly to the followers of Jesus, he wished to promote that holy and happy temper in all true Christians.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

John’s message for this church was not some new revelation. It was a reminder to keep on walking in obedience to God’s truth by continuing to love one another (cf. 1Jn 2:3-9; 1Jn 3:14-18; 1Jn 3:23; 1Jn 4:7; 1Jn 4:11; 1Jn 4:20-21). This was important since false teachers were encouraging the readers to depart from the truth they were hearing (2Jn 1:6).

"It is not that love precedes truth or belief but that love offers the clearest test of the truthfulness of the confession and the sincerity of the obedience given to God’s commands. Belief may be feigned and confession only of the lips, but love is harder to counterfeit." [Note: Glenn W. Barker, "2 John," in Hebrews-Revelation, vol. 12 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 363.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 33

DOUBTFUL READINGS AND THE THEORY OF VERBAL INSPIRATION-THREE PALMARY INSTANCES OF DIVINE VENGEANCE UPON GRIEVOUS SIN.

Jud 1:5-7

WITH these three verses the main portion of the Epistle begins, the first three verses being introductory. These put before us three instances of Divine vengeance upon those who were guilty of grievous sin-the unbelieving Israelites in the wilderness, the impure angels, and the inhabitants of the cities of the plain; and in. the three verses which follow (Jud 1:8-10) St. Jude points out the similarity between the offences of these wicked persons and the offences of the libertines who were provoking God to execute similar vengeance upon them. It is quite possible that we have here the explanation of the words, “Who were of old set forth unto this condemnation” (Jud 1:4). The doom of these impious profligates has long since been written in the doom of those who sinned in a similar manner.

The Greek text of the opening verse exhibits a great variety of readings, and one may suspect with Westcott and Hort that there has been some primitive error, and that none of the existing readings are correct. Of the points in which they differ from one another three require notice:-

(1) In the words, “The Lord, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt,” the authorities vary between “the Lord” (with or without the article), “God,” and “Jesus.” This last is far the best attested (AB, the best cursives, the Vulgate, both Egyptian Versions, both Ethiopic, the margin of the Armenian, and several Fathers); but the internal evidence against it is immense. Nowhere else in Scripture is Jesus said to be the author of anything which took place before the Incarnation. Had St. Jude written “Christ,” we might have compared “the rock was Christ”. {1Co 10:4} But the general adoption of the reading “Jesus” shows how completely in Christian thought and language the Man Jesus had become identified with the Eternal Son. If “Lord” be correct (, without the article), it should be understood as meaning Jehovah; and therefore “God,” though not likely to be right as the reading, is right as an interpretation. In the Latin translation of the “Hypotyposeis” of Clement of Alexandria we have these two readings combined, Dominus Deus, and the Greek of Didymus has “Lord Jesus” combined. Possibly all three readings are insertions, and should be omitted, the true text being simply, “He who saved a people out of the land of Egypt.”

(2) In the words, “though ye know all things once for all,” some authorities, which were followed by the translators of 1611, have “this” for “all things,” while one authority makes “all” to be masculine instead of neuter ( for ). This last may be correct, for the final letter of the masculine might easily be lost (especially in front of ); and in that case the meaning would be, “though ye all know it,” i.e., “know what I am going to point out.” There is a similar confusion of reading in 1Jn 2:20, where for “Ye know all things” ( ) we should perhaps read “Ye all know” ( ). But here the masculine has too little support to be adopted.

(3) The Sinaitie MS. transposes the “once” or “once for all” () from “know” to “saved,” and makes it answer to the “afterwards,” or “the second time” () which follows. In this it is supported by the Armenian Version and a single cursive of the fourteenth century. If it were adopted the sentence would run thus: “Now I desire to put you in remembrance, though ye know all things, how that the Lord, having once saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed them that believed not.” The correspondence between “once” and “afterwards”-“having a single time savedthe second time He destroyed”-is at first sight attractive; but it is precisely this superficial attractiveness which has caused the corruption of the text. A recent writer pleads for its adoption, but his reasons are not convincing. The external evidence against the proposed transposition is enormous; and there is no strong internal evidence against the best-attested text (as there is against the reading “Jesus”) to turn the scale. “Though ye know all this once for all” makes excellent sense; and so also does “He who saved a people out of Egypt, the second time (viz., in the wilderness) destroyed them that believed not.”

This collection of various readings out of which it is impossible to select the true text with anything like certainty, is worth remembering in considering the theory of verbal inspiration. If every word that St. Jude wrote was supernaturally dictated, why has not every word been supernaturally preserved? It is manifest that God has not, either miraculously or in any other way, secured that the exact words written by St. Jude should come down to us without alteration. The alterations are so ancient, so widely diffused, and so numerous, that we are unable to decide what St. Judes exact words were. We are not even certain that among the numerous variations we have got his exact words. This is not a common case. The usual problem, when various readings occur, is to select the right reading out of several that have been handed down to us, there being no reason to doubt that one of them is the original reading of the autograph. But there are a few passages, and this is one of them, where one may reasonably doubt whether the original reading has not been altogether lost. Act 7:46; Act 13:32; {comp. Heb 11:4; Rom 15:32; 1Co 12:2; Col 2:18; Col 2:23; Heb 4:2; Heb 10:1; 1Ti 6:7; 2Ti 1:13; 2Pe 3:10; 2Pe 3:12; Jud 1:22-23} This result might easily be produced through an error in the earliest copies made from the original document, or through a slip made by the amanuensis who wrote the original document. There are minds to which this supposition is very repugnant; and there are writers who assure us that in Biblical criticism “conjectural emendation must never be resorted to, even in passages of acknowledged difficulty,” or that “conjectural criticism is entirely banished from the field.” But if the whole of an Apostolic Epistle may have been lost, {1Co 5:9; 3Jn 1:9} why may not a word or two of an extant Epistle have been lost? And is it quite natural that there should sometimes be a doubt as to which of the several existing readings is the original, and yet quite inconceivable that there should ever be a doubt as to whether any of them is original? In either case we are left in uncertainty as to the precise words which are inspired; and we are thus confronted with the perplexing result that the Almighty has specially guided a writer to use certain words and phrases to the exclusion of all others, and yet from very early times has, in not a few cases, allowed Christians to be in doubt as to what these exact words and phrases are. Have we any right to assume that there was this special Divine care to produce a particular wording, when it is quite manifest that there has not been special Divine care to preserve a particular wording?

The theory of verbal inspiration imports unnecessary and insuperable difficulties into the already sufficiently difficult problem as to the properties of inspired writings. It maintains that “the line can never rationally be drawn between the thoughts and words of Scripture”; which means that the only inspired Word of God is the original Hebrew and Greek wording which was used by the authors of the different books in the Bible. Consequently, all who cannot read these are cut off from the inspired Word; for the inspired thoughts are, according to this theory, inseparably bound up with the original form of words. But if it is the thought, and not the wording, that is inspired, then the inspired thought may be as adequately expressed in English or German as in Hebrew or Greek. It is the inspired thought, no matter in what language expressed, which comes home to the hearts and consciences of men, and convinces them that what is thus brought to them by a human instrument is indeed in its origin and in its power Divine. “Never man thus spake” was said, not of the choice language that was used, but of the meaning which the language conveyed.

In the passage before us there are several points which call for attention, most of which are independent of the differences of reading.

It may be doubted whether the participle () is rightly rendered “though ye know all things once for all.” It makes good, and perhaps better sense to understand it in the equally possible signification of “because ye know all things once for all.” Their being already in full possession of a knowledge of Old Testament history is the reason why St. Jude need do no more than remind them of one or two particulars which throw a terrible light upon the position of those whose conduct is being discussed. That “once” here does not mean “formerly,” as the Authorized Version takes it, “though ye once knew this,” is manifest to every one who knows the meaning of the participle and adverb here used ( ). Nor is there much doubt that both here and in ver. 3 it does mean “once for all.” This Greek adverb, like its Latin equivalent semel, is sometimes “used of what is so done as to be of perpetual validity and never need repetition.” It is twice so used in the Epistle to the Hebrews: “For as touching those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift”; {Heb 6:4} i.e., once for all enlightened, so that no second enlightenment is possible. And again, “Because the worshippers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more conscience of sins”. {Heb 10:2} So also in 1 Peter: “Because Christ also died for sins once”. {1Pe 3:18} The meaning is similar in both the passages here (Jud 1:3; Jud 1:5). The Gospel was once for all delivered by the Apostles to the Church; for there can be no second Gospel. And this Gospel Christians receive and know once for all.

Doubt has been raised as to the event or events to which St. Jude refers in the words “afterward destroyed them that believed not.” Hofman Schott, and others, adopting the best-attested reading, “Jesus, having saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not,” interpret the latter clause of the destruction of Jerusalem or of the overthrow of the Jewish nation. It is felt that this makes a very unnatural contrast with the deliverance of Israel from Pharaoh by the hand of Moses, and therefore, “saved a people out of the land of Egypt” has to be interpreted to mean “the redemption from the bondage-house of the Law and of sin wrought in Israel and for Israel by Christs act of salvation” (Schott, Erlangen, 1863, p. 225). This is very forced and improbable. Let us hold by Hookers “most infallible rule in expositions of sacred Scripture, that where a literal construction will stand, the farthest-from the letter is commonly the worst” (“Eccl. Pol.,” 5. 59:2). The literal construction of “saved a people out of the land of Egypt” will certainly stand here, and the words must be understood of the passage of the Red Sea and all that accompanied that event. This is the clause of which the meaning is plain, and it must be the interpreter of the clause of which the meaning is less plain: to work backwards from the latter is singularly unreasonable. The “saving” being understood of the deliverance of the Israelites from the tyranny of Pharaoh, the “destroying” is most naturally understood of the overthrow of these same Israelites in the wilderness; not of any catastrophe, such as followed the matter of Korah {Num 16:49} or of Baal-peor (25), but of the gradual destruction, during the forty years of wandering, of the rebellious and unbelieving, “whose carcasses fell in the wilderness. And to whom sware He that they should not enter into His rest, but to them that were disobedient? And we see that they were not able to enter in because of up-belief”. {Heb 3:17-19} It is quite unnecessary to add to this, with Fronmuller, the Babylonish captivity, as if “afterward” or “the second time” (toteron) referred to two destructions. It refers to two Divine acts-one of mercy, and a second of judgment.

“And angels which kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, He hath kept in everlasting bonds.” This is St. Judes second instance of Gods vengeance upon gross sin, and this and the next are common to both Epistles. For the destruction of the unbelieving Israelites 2 Peter has the Deluge. The Revised Version has several improvements here. It substitutes “principality” for “first estate,” in harmony with other passages, where the same word occurs, {Rom 8:38; Eph 3:10; Eph 6:12; Col 1:16; Col 2:10; Col 2:15} and inserts “own”-“their own principality”; thereby marking the difference between “own” and “proper” – “their proper habitation.” Above all, it preserves St. Judes irony in the double use of the word “kept”; “angels which kept not their own principality He hath kept in everlasting bonds”; which is destroyed in the Authorized Version by the substitution of “reserved” for the second “kept.” The alteration of “chains” into “bonds” is of less moment; but it is worth while marking the difference between two Greek words, both of which are frequent in the New Testament, and of which the former is always used in a literal sense, {Mar 5:3-4; Luk 8:29; Act 12:6-7; etc.} and the other sometimes literally, {Luk 8:29; Act 16:26; Act 23:29; etc.} and sometimes metaphorically. {Mar 7:35; Luk 13:16; Phm 1:13} It is the latter which is used here.

It may be regarded as certain that this passage does not refer to the original rebellion of the angels, and their fall from being heavenly powers to being spirits of evil and of darkness. Nor is it a direct reference to the Rabbinic interpretation of “the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all that they chose”. {Gen 6:2, where the best texts of the Septuagint have “angels of God” for “sons of God”} Much more probably it is a reference to a topic which is very prominent in the Book of Enoch, which, however, in this particular is based upon the common interpretation of the passage in Genesis. A discussion of this most interesting and perplexing writing is reserved for a later chapter. At present it suffices to say that the work is a composite one, written at different times and by different authors, and that the allusions to it here, and the quotation from it in vv. 14 and 15 {Jud 1:14-15}, are from the first portion of the Book of Enoch (chapters 1-36.), which, together with the last portion (chapters 72-105.), may safely be considered as the original writing, and undoubtedly pre-Christian. Whether any of the book was composed in the Christian era is doubtful, and that any of it was written by a Christian is very doubtful indeed. Hofmann, Philippi, and Weisse have not succeeded in persuading many people that the whole work is of Christian origin. The portion of which St. Jude makes use may, with a good deal of probability, be assigned to the latter part of the second century before Christ. A sketch of the section respecting the sin of the angels will throw much light on the passage before us. A portion of it had long been known through two considerable extracts, which the Byzantine writer Georgius Syncellus (cir. A.D. 800) makes from it in his “Chronographia” (pp. 20-23 and 40-42, Dindorfs ed., Bonn, 1829). The quotation in our Epistle and those made by Syncellus constituted all that was known of the Book of Enoch in Europe until 1773, when the English traveler Bruce brought home three MSS. of an Ethiopic version of the whole which was still extant in the Abyssinian Church.

The section about the sin of the angels and their punishment (7-36) begins very abruptly after a short introduction (1-6), in which Enoch blesses the righteous, and states that he received a revelation from the angels in heaven. “And it came to pass, when the sons of men had multiplied, that daughters were born to them, very beautiful. And the angels, the sons of heaven, desired them, and were led astray after them, and said to one another, Let us choose for ourselves wives of the daughters of the men of the earth.” Two hundred of them then made a conspiracy, and went down to the earth, and begat an offspring of giants. They imparted a knowledge of sorcery and many baneful arts; and the corruption thus diffused, and the voracity and violence of their offspring, produced the evils which preceded the Deluge. Then the sinful angels are sentenced by the Almighty, and Enoch is commissioned to make the sentence known to them. “Then the Lord said to me, Enoch, scribe of righteousness, go tell the watchers of heaven, who have deserted the lofty sky, and their holy everlasting station, who have been polluted with women that on earth they shall never obtain peace and remission of sin.” The fallen angels persuade Enoch to intercede for them; but his intercession is not heard, and he is told to repeat the sentence which has been pronounced upon them. The following particulars of their punishment are of interest. Azazel, {comp. Lev 16:26, R.V} one of the ringleaders, is to be bound hand and foot, thrown into a loft in the wilderness, and covered with darkness; there he is to remain, with his face covered, till the great day of judgment, when he is to be cast into the fire. The others, after they have seen their offspring kill one another in mutual slaughter, are to be bound for seventy generations underneath the earth, till the day of their judgment, when they shall be thrown into the lowest depths of the fire, and be shut up for ever (10:6-9, 15, 16). “Judgment has been passed upon you; your prayer shall not be granted you. From henceforth never shall you ascend to heaven. He hath said that on the earth He will bind you, as long as the world endures” (14:2). And Enoch is afterward shown their punishment in a vision. “These are those of the stars which have transgressed the commandment of the most high God, and are here bound, until the infinite number of the days of their crimes be completed. Why art thou alarmed and amazed at this terrific place, at the sight of this place of suffering? This is the prison of the angels; and here are they kept for ever” (21:3, 6).

It is specially worthy of remark that it is in these older portions of the Book of Enoch that we meet for the first time in Jewish literature with the distinct conception of a general judgment. The idea is very frequent, and is expressed in a great variety of ways. Thus, what St. Jude calls “the Judgment of the Great Day” ( ), a phrase which occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, is called in the Book of Enoch “the Great Day of Judgment” (10:9), “the Day of the Great Judgment” (93:8; 97:15; 104:3), “the Day of the Great Trouble” (99:5), “the Great Day” (16:2)”; the Great Judgment” (22:5), “the General Judgment” (22:9).

St. Jude of course need not have derived this idea from the Book of Enoch; but the fact that it is so very frequent there, especially in connection with the sin of the impure angels, may have influenced him in writing the passage before us. At any rate all these numerous de-fails will not leave us in much doubt as to the origin of St. Judes statement, “angels which kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, He hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” It comes either directly from the Book of Enoch, or from a source of which both the writer of the book and St. Jude make use.

It was “in like manner with these” angels that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah sinned, going astray after unlawful and unnatural indulgences; and “in like manner with these “angels, they also” are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.” The meaning is not quite clear, but apparently it is this, that the sinful angels are in prison awaiting the day of judgment, when they will be cast into the lake of fire; and that the destruction of the cities of the plain by fire, and their perpetual submersion, are an example of the eternal fire in which the angels will be submerged. Perhaps there is also the idea that under the Dead Sea volcanic fires are burning. It is quite possible to take “of eternal fire” after “example” instead of after “punishment”; and this rendering makes the statement more in accordance with the actual facts: “are set forth as an example of eternal fire, suffering punishment.” But the two last words come in rather awkwardly at the end of the sentence, and most commentators decide against this construction. {comp. /RAPC 3Ma 2:5}

The three cases exhibit, not a climax, but great diversity, as regards persons, sin, and punishment. We have both Jews and Gentiles, and between them beings superior to both. The Israelites by unbelief rejected their promised home, and perished slowly in the wilderness. The angels left their proper home, sinned grossly, and are in banishment and in prison, awaiting still worse punishment. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah sinned grossly in their home, and both they and it were suddenly, horribly, and irrevocably destroyed. This great diversity gives point to the moral. No matter who may be the sinners, or what the circumstances of the sin, outrageous offences, such as impurity and rebellion, are certain of Divine chastisement.

If fallen angels are evil spirits actively compassing the ruin of souls, how can fallen angels be “kept in everlasting bonds until the judgment of the great day”? More than one answer might be given to this question, but the reserve of Scripture on the subject seems to warn us from unprofitable speculation. Even without Scripture the reality of spiritual powers of evil may be inferred from their effects. Scripture seems to tell us that some of these powers are personal, and some not, that some are more free than others, and that all shall be defeated at last. That is enough for our comfort, warning, and assurance. It consoles us to know that much of the evil within us is no part of ourselves, but comes from without. It makes us wary to know that such powers are contending against us. It gives us confidence to know that even Satan and his hosts can be overcome by those who resist steadfast in the faith.

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary