| Most Recently Posted Ask a Question | |||||||
| Q: | 1&2 John It seems that I often see 2 John 9-11 used in a broad sense as a reason to discourage ecumenalism with other Christian churches. 2 John 9-11 reads (NIV): "9) Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10) If anyone comes to you and does not bring this this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 11) Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work." I have a Concordia NIV Self-Study Bible published by Concordia Publishing House of the Missouri Synod. The fifth "Bible Interpretation/Meaning" topical contained the following comment regarding it: "'Perhaps the best study Bible is the "Concordia Self-Study Bible NIV." In the commentary for verse 9, it says, "The similarity of this letter to 1 John, the nature of the heresy combated, and the immediate context suggest that John is not referring to teaching given by Christ, but to true teaching about Christ as the incarnate God-man." Would WELS agree with this commentary? If so, it seems inappropriate or disingenuous to simply quote 2 John 9-11 (or worse, just verses 10-11 to imply generic support of whatever argument one happens to be making as the "true Christian faith") and use it to imply that John was saying that Christians not in complete doctrinal agreement should avoid worshiping together. I do not dispute the utility of using 2 John 9-11 with other verses to make arguments regarding ecumenalism, but it does seem inappropriate to use the verses to imply that John meant more than he specifically intended there (if Concordia's views are correct). | ||||||
| A: | In this instance, the Concordia Study Bible is basing its conclusion on two arguments: 1) that verse 7 and verses 9-11 are saying the same thing; and 2) that the words in v9 translated "the teaching of Christ" means the "teaching about Christ." Both of these arguments are doubtful. Verse 7 does address the same doctrinal error as that discussed in 1 John. But verse 8 is a warning not to lose the truth (compare verse 4), and verse 9 then becomes a general warning against any and all (note the words "any" and "whoever") who do not hold to what Christ taught. In regard to the phrase "the teaching of Christ," the Greek construction here allows only the meaning that Christ was the object of the teaching (that is, that Christ was the one who was taught) or that he was the subject of the teaching (that is, that he did the teaching). The former obviously in context is not the meaning, the latter is the only meaning that fits. If John meant the phrase "the teaching of Christ" to mean "the teaching about Christ," he could have used a different Greek construction to make this meaning apparent. Even if the verse were limited to speaking about the teaching about Christ (which is doubtful as the previous paragraph points out), it would still be legitimate to apply this passage to any and all false teachers. Scripture never distinguishes between false teachers, saying that some we should avoid and others we need not avoid. Instead, Scripture always speaks of every false teaching as a dangerous yeast that can work through the whole lump. And so Scripture gives the same warning about every false teacher, namely, separate yourselves from them and avoid them. So whether a passage is directed against a teacher who denies what Scripture says about Christ or some other doctrine, whatever warning that passage gives about avoiding that false teacher is the same that it gives about every false teacher. | ||||||
| |||||||