Shunning supported by 2 Jo 9-10


Viewed 961 times

    Splash posted Mon, 05 Nov 2012 23:27:27 GMT(11/5/2012)

    Post 182 of 1727
    Joined 7/16/2012

    (2 John 9,10) 9 Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. He that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to YOU and does not bring this teaching, never receive him into YOUR homes or say a greeting to him.

    In context this is saying that if anyone does not remain (continue) believing in Christ, then don't receive him or say a greeting.

    Does this therefore support shunning? How could I answer someone who says it does?


    cofty posted Mon, 05 Nov 2012 23:32:51 GMT(11/5/2012)

    Post 5099 of 13910
    Joined 12/19/2009

    Difficult to argue with that.

    The early christian church would have looked a lot like a cult.

    M bennyk posted Mon, 05 Nov 2012 23:37:04 GMT(11/5/2012)

    Post 606 of 666
    Joined 2/15/2005

    You need to consider the context.

    Verse seven indicates that the writer has in mind persons "not confessing Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the anti-christ."

    The verse emphatically does not require the shunning of individuals who reject the unscriptural teachings of the Watch Tower Society. Indeed, it may be necessary to reject the Society's doctrines in order to "remain in the teaching of the Christ."

    Leolaia posted Mon, 05 Nov 2012 23:40:54 GMT(11/5/2012)

    Post 17234 of 16188
    Joined 9/1/2002

    This pertains to a very specific social situation in the first century. Wandering teachers depended on the hospitality of their hosts for their livelihood. "Receive into your homes" means giving material support to someone the author regarded an antichrist (usually such itinerants stayed for a few days and moved on). Now read 3 John. The same author is complaining that someone is doing exactly what 2 John recommends, but to his own teachers. If you read the two epistles side by side, you can see that there was some sort of controversy at the time, with different factions shunning each other.

    Splash posted Tue, 06 Nov 2012 00:28:39 GMT(11/6/2012)

    Post 183 of 1727
    Joined 7/16/2012

    I can see the application to early travelling preachers who come denying the Christ, but how is that different from modern day persons turning their backs on what they first learned, to become non-believers.

    The principle described in 2 John and 3 John still applies - if they turn away from Christ then do not say a greeting to them.


    Christ Alone posted Tue, 06 Nov 2012 00:42:42 GMT(11/6/2012)

    Post 1021 of 1949
    Joined 3/9/2012

    Keep in mind that Christians did not meet in churches, but met in their own homes. John was speaking about not letting those that were denying that Jesus was the Messiah teach in the church. It would be like saying, "if someone comes to the church, do not let him teach before the congregation."

    it was not saying that if someone denies Jesus after already believing that you were to shun them. But they would not be received into the home church in order to teach.

    Christ Alone posted Tue, 06 Nov 2012 00:45:39 GMT(11/6/2012)

    Post 1022 of 1949
    Joined 3/9/2012

    If the wt teaching was correct then:

    1. Christians should not let jws in their homes to debate the scriptures with them

    2. Jws should not invite anyone into their own home to discuss the scriptures

    3. They would not be able to go door to door and talk with those that deny christ. In fact as soon as a person said, "I do not believe in Jesus" the jw woukd have to terminate the conversation.

    Splash posted Tue, 06 Nov 2012 00:54:53 GMT(11/6/2012)

    Post 184 of 1727
    Joined 7/16/2012

    If someone doesnt "remain" in the teaching do not say a greeting to them.

    If someone "leaves" the teaching do not say a greeting to them.

    Its very simple and clear: those that leave are to be shunned.


    Christ Alone posted Tue, 06 Nov 2012 01:00:11 GMT(11/6/2012)

    Post 1023 of 1949
    Joined 3/9/2012

    Not contextually or hermeneutically. You can't isolate the verse without understanding the history, language, and context, Spalsh. Otherwise you will interpret the bible like the wt does.

    DATA-DOG posted Tue, 06 Nov 2012 01:01:32 GMT(11/6/2012)

    Post 640 of 6632
    Joined 6/21/2012

    The bible is written in such a way that anyone can twist the scriptures. Do you want a certain scripture to support your doctrine? Go ahead, but you will be accountable. Christ knew men would always twist the scriptures to their own ends, that is why he taught with parables that exposed their heart conditions, and that is why they hated him. Sadly you cannot reason with any JW's about this scriptural interpretation. They believe the GB above Christ. The GB wants to use this verse to oust any who may dare to disagree with them. You cannot change their hearts, so you cannot reason with their slaves. Only those who have been awakened by whatever events trigger awareness can be reasoned with. Some people simply will not see truth until they are personally affected. Some never will. If you know a dub who is already awakening, discuss away. Otherwise do not get too discouraged when they won't listen to reason. They search the scriptures hoping to gain life, but they will not come to Christ to receive it. They are focused on the Golden calf.

    whathappened posted Tue, 06 Nov 2012 01:07:10 GMT(11/6/2012)

    Post 397 of 2117
    Joined 12/22/2010

    Yes, Splash. Those that don't remain in the teachings of Christ and the Apostles can be shunned. Jehovah's Witnesses do fall into this group as they have pushed ahead and are teaching things that Jesus and the Apostles never instructed them to do. The Bible is very clear on this. They should not be teaching things that go above and beyond what the scriptures say. The Watchtower does this in every issue. It's a shame. I am embarrassed to ever have been associated with Jehovah's Witnesses & the Watchtower Society.

    Christ Alone posted Tue, 06 Nov 2012 01:08:25 GMT(11/6/2012)

    Post 1024 of 1949
    Joined 3/9/2012

    You CAN make it say what you want, especially if you disregard the rules of hermeneutic interpretation. Most just write it off and say, "we'll you can make it say what you want" and not investigate what the text was actually saying.

    Splash posted Tue, 06 Nov 2012 01:09:30 GMT(11/6/2012)

    Post 185 of 1727
    Joined 7/16/2012

    It's a tough one alright. Someone quoted this to me today as we discussed shunning. I was hoping to have some conclusive Greek meaning or parallel account to explain it away.

    Seems this will always be their trump card.


    Christ Alone posted Tue, 06 Nov 2012 01:10:33 GMT(11/6/2012)

    Post 1025 of 1949
    Joined 3/9/2012

    Any response to John speaking about teaching in the home churches?

    transhuman68 posted Tue, 06 Nov 2012 01:15:28 GMT(11/6/2012)

    Post 1821 of 2368
    Joined 3/30/2010

    It is a problem for people who believe that 'all scripture is inspired', but really the letters of John had a very specific application relating to a schism among John's followers, as Bart Ehrman explains:

    I will be treating these letters as a group of works produced by the same author at roughly the same time.
    The first is an open letter or persuasive treatise written to a community (1 John), the second a personal letter to the same community (2 John), and the third a personal letter to an individual within it (3 John). There are clues within the letters themselves concerning the historical context that prompted the author to produce them. The first step in the contextual method of interpretation is to examine these clues and use them to reconstruct the situation.
    The most important event in the recent history of this community is that it has experienced a serious rift. The author of I John indicates that a faction from within the community has split off from the rest of the group and left in a huff:

    They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But by going out they made it plain that none of them belongs to us. {1 John 2:19)

    Why did this Christian community split, with some members leaving, presumably to start their own congregation? In the next few verses the author designates those who left as "liars" and "antichrists," a word which literally means, "those who are opposed to Christ." He then contrasts them with those who have remained, who "know the truth." What do these antichrists believe that makes them so heinous to this author? He indicates that they have "denied that Jesus is the Christ" (2:22).
    The author's language may appear to suggest that those who have seceded from the community, a group that some scholars have labeled the "secessionists," are Jews who failed to acknowledge that Jesus is the messiah. But they used to belong to the community, that is, they were Christians. In what sense, then, could they deny that Jesus is the Christ?
    There are two other places where the author discusses these "antichrists." In I John 4:2-3 the author claims that unlike those who belong to
    God, the antichrists refuse to confess that "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh." A similar statement occurs in 2 John 7, where the antichrists are called
    "deceivers who have gone out into the world" and are said to deny that "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh." These descriptions suggest the secessionists may have held a point of view that we know about from other sources from about the same period, such as the writings of Ignatius (which we will be discussing at greater length in Chapter 25).
    Ignatius opposed a group of Christians who, like Marcion a few years later (see Chapter 1), maintained that Jesus was not himself a flesh-and-blood human being but was completely and only divine.
    For these persons, God could not have a real bodily existence; God is God invisible, immortal, all-knowing, all-powerful, and unchanging. If Jesus was God, he could not have experienced the limitations of human flesh. For these people, Jesus only seemed to experience these limitations. Jesus was not really a human; he merely appeared to be.
    These Christians came to be known by their opponents as "docetists," a term that derives from the Greek verb for "appear" or "seem." They were opposed by Christian leaders like Ignatius who took umbrage at the idea that Jesus and the things he did, including his death on the cross, were all a show. For Ignatius, Jesus was a real man, with a real body, who shed real blood, and died a real death.
    It may be that the secessionists from the johannine community had developed a docetic kind of christology. In the words of the author, they "denied that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh." If they were, in fact, early docetists, then a number of other things that the author says in these letters make considerable sense. Take, for instance, the opening words of 1 John. Readers who do not realize that the essay is being written because a group of docetic Christians have seceded from the community may not understand why the author begins his work the way he does, with a prologue that in many ways is reminiscent of the
    Prologue to the Fourth Gospel (with which he was probably familiar):

    We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life-this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father, and was revealed to us. (1:1-2)

    Once a reader knows the historical context of the epistle, however, this opening statement makes considerable sense. The author is opposing Christians who maintain that Jesus is a phantasmal being without flesh and blood by reminding his audience of their own traditions about this Word of God made manifest: he could be seen, touched, and handled; that is, he had a real human body. And he shed real blood. Thus, the author stresses the importance of Jesus' blood for the forgiveness of sins (1:7) and of the (real) sacrifice for sins that he made (2:2; 4:10).
    What led a group of Johannine Christians to split from the community because of their belief that Jesus was not a real flesh-and-blood human being? We have seen that after the community was excluded from the synagogue, it developed a kind
    of fortress mentality that had a profound effect on its christology. Christ came to be seen less and less as a human rabbi or messiah and more and more as a divine being of equal standing with God, who came to reveal the truth of God to his people only to be rejected by those who dwelt in darkness.
    Those who believed in him claimed to understand
    his divine teachings and considered themselves to be children of God. By the time the Fourth Gospel was completed, some members of the Johannine community had come to believe that Jesus was on a par with God.
    It appears that Christians in this community did not stop developing their understandings of Jesus with the completion of the writing of the Gospel.
    Some of them took their christology a step further. Not only was Jesus equal with God, he was God himself, totally and completely. If he was God, he could not be flesh because God was not composed of flesh; Jesus therefore merely appeared to be a human.
    This view proved to be too much for some of the other members of the community; battle lines were drawn and a split resulted. The Johannine epistles were written by an author who thought that the secessionists had gone too far. For this author, Christ was indeed a flesh-and-blood human being; he was the savior "come in the flesh," whose blood brought about salvation from sin.
    Those who rejected this view, for him, had rejected the community's confession that the man Jesus was the Christ; in his view, they were antichrists.
    The charges that the author levels against the secessionists do not pertain exclusively to their ideas about Christ. He also makes moral accusations. He insinuates that his opponents do not practice the commandments of God (14), that they fail to love the brothers and sisters in the community (2:9-11; 4:20), and that they practice sin while claiming to have no contact with it (1:6-10).
    It is possible that, in the mind of the author at least, these moral charges related closely to the doctrinal one. If the secessionists undervalued the fleshly existence of Jesus, perhaps they undervalued the importance of their own fleshly existence as well. In other words, if what really mattered to them was the spirit rather than the flesh, then perhaps they were unconcerned not only about Jesus' real body but also about their own.
    Thus, they may well have appeared totally uninterested in keeping the commandments that God had given and in manifesting love among the brothers and sisters of the community. This would explain why the author stresses in his letters the need to continue to practice God's commandments and to love one another, unlike those who have left the community.

    metatron posted Tue, 06 Nov 2012 01:16:04 GMT(11/6/2012)

    Post 6314 of 7472
    Joined 4/7/2001

    Where does it say, 'never speak to him'? It doesn't. John could have said that but he didn't. It suggests debate, therefore.

    Who was it talking to? Gnostic apostates. Not ordinary fornicators with no interest in contrary teaching.

    Watchtower, do not go beyond was is written!


    Splash posted Tue, 06 Nov 2012 01:20:51 GMT(11/6/2012)

    Post 186 of 1727
    Joined 7/16/2012

    Wearing my WT hat i'd just say: Read it, it speaks for itself. There's nothing complicated and shouldn't be reasoned around.

    I guess one area it does NOT apply is if someone is df'd for eg smoking, but still comes to the khall.


    DATA-DOG posted Tue, 06 Nov 2012 01:26:17 GMT(11/6/2012)

    Post 643 of 6632
    Joined 6/21/2012

    Dear Metatron,

    Too late!!

    Your friends,

    Governing Body.

    DATA-DOG posted Tue, 06 Nov 2012 01:26:19 GMT(11/6/2012)

    Post 644 of 6632
    Joined 6/21/2012

    Dear Metatron,

    Too late!!

    Your friends,

    Governing Body.

    Splash posted Tue, 06 Nov 2012 01:42:56 GMT(11/6/2012)

    Post 187 of 1727
    Joined 7/16/2012

    Transhuman68 - i enjoyed reading that, thank you. I could read stuff like that all day.

    Metatron, it DOES say "never speak to them", it just doesn't use those four words. It was written to the congregation and its members.

    I wonder if there are any scriptural instances of shunning, i cant think of any at the moment.



      Confirm ...