[Aquila]

Originally Posted by bertcarring

What is your thoughts on this?

2 John
Chapter 1
9: Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10: If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Well, first you just plucked three verses out of an entire passage. Let’s look at the entire passage together and then sum up the writer’s original meaning. Here’s our text:

2 John 1:4-11 (KJV)
{1:4} I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children
walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from
the Father. {1:5} 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.
{1:6} 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. {1:7} For
many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not
that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and
an antichrist. {1:8} Look to yourselves, that we lose not
those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a
full reward. {1:9} Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not
in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in
the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
{1:10} If there come any unto you, and bring not this
doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him
God speed: {1:11} For he that biddeth him God speed is
partaker of his evil deeds.

John is the second epistle of John. It was most likely written from Ephesus. While I John was written to be circulated among the churches in Asia Minor, the audience of this letter is often debated. It is addressed to “the elect lady”. Translation of this phrase lends itself to several possible meanings. First, this could be figurative and indicating that this letter was written to a specific church in Asia Minor. It could also mean that the letter was written to a specific woman that John knew in Asia Minor. I personally believe that the term is used figuratively and indeed was circulated and eventually added to the Canon. So, I will be taking that approach in my interpretation.

As for our passage above, John commends the church for walking in the truth and obeying the Father’s commandment. John indicates that this is no knew commandment. The commandment is that they love one another. John’s epistles focus on two commandments. Loving God and loving the brethren. It can be argued that contextually these are the “commandments” that John refers to throughout his epistles.

John explains that they are to walk in the commandment to love one another and remember that many deceivers are entered into the world who do not believe that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. This is a reference to an ancient Christian heresy known as Gnosticism. They believed that Jesus was a materialized spirit being, not actual flesh. John lists these individuals as being deceivers and antichrist. They are to take heed to this that they do not become infiltrated with false doctrine and thereby lose their reward.

The doctrine of Christ…

John states that whosoever doesn’t abide in the doctrine of Christ (Christ’s teachings regarding loving God, loving one another, and His identity as God) “hath not God”. However, whoever abides in these teachings of Jesus has both the Father and the Son. No “third person” is mentioned here. John is likely alluding to the understanding that Father was manifest in the Son. This is a perichoretic oneness expressing the coinherence of two distinct natures (humanity and divinity). Coinherence is the state wherein two distinct realities subsist in a single state of being (as illustrated by Jesus in John 10:30 and John 14:8-11). These two subsistent realities are the Father and the Son. The Father is no doubt God Almighty. The Son is the man Jesus Christ. In these distinct realities we see both natures fully expressed. Therefore we see the Son praying to the Father and the Father speaking from Heaven with regards to the Son. However, the perichoretic coinherence of their subsistent realities demand that they are a single being. Thus we see one person manifest in two distinct, but not separate, natures. To put it bluntly, Jesus is God. Therefore, as John states, to have the Son is to have the Father. To have not the Son is to have not the Father. He that abides in this teaching has both the Father and the Son.

The charge…

During the first 200 to 300 years of Christianity Christians didn’t have “church buildings”. Christians primarily met in two places. In Judea early Christians met in the Temple with their Jewish friends and family (until the Jews rejected Christian fellowship and the temple was destroyed) and in homes. Throughout the Roman Empire most believers simply met in homes. It was therefore customary when gathering to receive brethren into this home based meetings. These meetings were structured as Paul stipulated in I Corinthians 14. This means that in these gatherings all in attendance “may all prophesy one by one”. They didn’t have the “pastoral” system with one man behind the pulpit teaching the entire congregation who listened from their pews. It was a discussion based meeting. The danger here was that deceivers and false prophets might attend these meetings and begin sharing and discussion false doctrine. Any individual coming to these gatherings who presented themselves as learned teachers were to be questioned with regards to if they believed that Jesus was indeed God manifested in flesh (full humanity). Anyone denying this doctrinal truth was denied fellowship in their home based gatherings. It was customary for churches to send letters of recommendation and fellowship along with, or ahead of, traveling elders (evangelists) so that other gatherings of Christians would receive them warmly. However, John states that they are not to give any support, not even a blessing, to false teachers (specifically the Gnostics). This is because if they did they would be furthering error and not truth, thereby being partakers in his evil deeds.

I pray I’ve properly explained my understanding of this text.