Read 2 John 7-11.
Focus on 2 John 7.
Knowledge
Answer the following
questions from the text:
What word connects verses 6 and 7?
Who has gone out into the world?
Whom do these not acknowledge?
What do they not acknowledge about that one?
Those who do not acknowledge this—what are they called? (Two
answers)
Understanding & Wisdom
In verses 4-6, John has affirmed to the readers of the need
to love one another by walking in the truth of God’s commandments. He ends the
sixth verse specifically emphasizing that his reader should continually conduct
their lives according to this command. Today we see why the apostle felt it so
necessary to reiterate that basic truth: There were false teachers roaming the
streets.
Many deceivers
Now there is a paragraph break placed between verses six and
seven in many translations. While that makes it easier for our modern eyes to
read, paragraph breaks did not exist in the original manuscripts, and there is
no break in John’s train of thought between verses six and seven. If anything,
it is quite the opposite: The first word in verse seven, for, shows that these two verses are connected. Verse seven doesn’t
mark a change of subject but continues John’s train of thought from verse six.
And what does this little conjunction tell us? The word seems
to be used in a causative sense here. That is, the word for says that which follows explains the why of what went before.
So here it is telling us why it’s important to conduct ourselves according to
the commandment: We face the problem of many deceivers having gone out into the
world.
Or to put it in the reverse, because there are many
deceivers roaming the world, we ought to behave according to that which John
outlined for us in verses five and six. Indeed, the implication seems to be
that our first—or perhaps even our primary—defense against deceivers lays in
obeying those instructions.
Question to ponder: How
does loving each other by walking according to God’s commands protect us
against spiritual deceivers?
Now who are these people John says we’re to guard against?
First, he calls them “deceivers.” This word is rooted in the
physical concept of wandering and leading astray. It was even used in secular
Greek for the labyrinth and for how it confused and led people astray
geographically. The concept then came to be applied figuratively to seduction
and causing someone to be mistaken. (Bauer’s Lexicon, page 821-822; Vine’s Expository Dictionary, page 151; The Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, Abridged, pages 857-860) This reveals three common attributes of
deceivers:
1) These people are intentional.
They know exactly what they are doing. It is not a mistake or a coincidence or
an accident. They act with the purpose to mislead.
2) These people are attractive.
They sound inviting. Their teaching seems right. Their words entice. They make
a great first impression and initially appear quite likeable. Attracting a
following is not difficult for them.
3) Most importantly, these people are untrustworthy. Like the sirens of Greek mythology, they lure you
off course to your destruction. They might sound good, but they teach error.
Their ways may be attractive, but they draw you away from walking according to
God’s commands. Their ideas may seem reasonable, but they lead you into error.
They confuse and obfuscate, fogging the mind so that you walk without a clear
sense of direction, which allows them to lead you wherever they want.
Next, John describes these deceivers as having gone out into
the world. This is the image of spreading and infiltration, like a cloud of
smoke or a contagious virus. These deceivers are not confined to a specific
locale. They are not constrained to specific environments. They are not
restricted to a set route or precise path. Like spores borne upon the wind,
they go wherever and everywhere in search of the perfect conditions to sprout.
No one is immune or protected against their visitation. All we can do is to
make conditions unfavorable for their taking root. Therefore, we all must be on
our guard against them.
Question to ponder: How
do we make conditions unfavorable for these deceivers and their teachings, both
within our homes and our churches?
John now zeroes in on a specific error being propagated in
the first century, mainly that Christ did not come bodily and was not fully
human. This idea, part of the Gnostic heresy, came from a secular Greek idea
that the spirit was good but matter was evil. However, Jesus was supposed to be
sinless. Therefore, they concluded that Jesus couldn’t have truly come in the
flesh, since that would taint him with evil. Jesus only appeared to be human. (Swindoll’s Living Insights: 2 John, page
143)
For me, this then provides two sets of applications. First,
indirectly, it provides us a basic pattern for false teaching. Second, the
passage then directly provides us a core belief about the nature of Christ.
A Pattern of False
Teaching
Though I’m no expert in this topic, the development of this
particular heresy provides a basic template that many false teaching follows. Therefore,
while it is not directly found in this verse, I believe it is a worthwhile excursion
to take so that we don’t follow the same path. I see three basic elements here:
1) False teaching is syncretistic.
That is, it blends together the beliefs of Christianity with secular or
cultural beliefs. In this case, the belief that Jesus is the sinless One,
completely untainted by anything evil is biblically accurate. However, the
belief that matter is evil was a completely secular idea, not rooted in
Scripture. Gnosticism joined these two beliefs into one system of theology. So
heresy arises when we mix our secular and cultural beliefs with our Christian
faith, and this is one reason why false teaching can be so difficult to combat—it
is a mixture of truth and lie.
2) False teaching appears logical. The conclusion the Gnostics arrived at is perfectly
logical. If it is true that Christ is sinless, and if it is true that matter is
evil, then it must be that Christ could not have a material body. The problem
with false teaching often doesn’t lie with how they arrive at their conclusion,
but with the foundation with which they start. Yet another reason why false
teaching can be hard to detect and counter—you must return to the origins.
Which leads us to:
3) False teaching has a cracked
foundation. This is probably what most significantly sets apart true false
teaching from the simple mistakes and the erroneous beliefs that we all have,
pastors and Bible teachers included. For we all at time misapply a passage,
lack the knowledge or maturity to correctly interpret, and fail to carry
something through to a logical conclusion. But these erroneous beliefs don’t
deal with foundational assumptions or core beliefs, but generally deal with matters
of how should we live, such as keeping the Sabbath or the matter of eternal
security.
Now some errors will have more problematic impact on our
lives than others. Crooked wallpaper has less impact on a house than a crooked
wall. Likewise, for example, your views of rapture probably won’t as impact your
life as much as your views on sexuality. But a wrong view doesn’t necessarily
equal the false teaching or heresy we’re talking about here.
False teaching, however, messes with the integrity of core beliefs—that
is, those beliefs which primarily (though not exclusively) pertain to matters
of salvation. This would include things like how we obtain salvation and the
death and resurrection of Christ. You mess with these beliefs and everything
else we believe is destabilized. In short, the foundation under false teaching
is cracked, undermining the entire structure.
Questions to ponder: What
are some of the non-negotiable, core beliefs we have as Christians? In light of
all this, how do we prevent ourselves from falling into false teaching?
Doctrine of
Incarnation
This leads us back to the false teaching being specifically
countered here. Although incarnation
is not the term John uses here, that is the basic belief being disputed: Did
Jesus Christ truly come to earth as a human, not merely as an apparition that
appeared human? John says those who deny the Incarnation are deceivers, so John
is testifying that Jesus did absolutely take on human flesh, not merely human
appearance. He had skin and blood and bones. He had muscles and organs. He had
tendons and sinews and vessels. Just like the rest of us.
Why is this so important?
There are many reasons. If He did not have flesh, Scripture
lied, and if it lied about this important subject, how could we trust anything
else it says? And if He did not have flesh, then He couldn’t have experienced
everything we experience as humans and would be unable to sympathize with our
weaknesses (Hebrews 4:15). And if He did not have flesh, then He would not be
able to accurately represent us as our mediator before God (1 Timothy 2:5).
But perhaps most of all, if Jesus did not have flesh, then
He could not have died on the cross. If He did not die on the cross, He did not
shed real blood. Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sin
(Hebrews 9:22). If there is no forgiveness, then we are still dead in our
trespasses and doomed for destruction. Therefore, to deny Christ is come in the
flesh is to deny our very means of salvation. But Hebrews 2:14 says, “Since the children share in flesh and blood, [Jesus]
Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render
powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil.”
Antichrist
Finally, John concludes the seventh verse by reiterating
that the one who denies this truth is the deceiver—the one who leads astray. Then
he adds this person is also “the antichrist.”
Now because of how we use that term, this statement could be
a bit confusing, so allow me to clarify some. In modern Christianity, we often associate
the term antichrist with a specific
person, a ruler at the end of time who will set up himself as the ultimate
opposite—the anti—of Christ.
That is not how the term is being used here. In fact, the
term antichrist is only used four
times in Scripture: here, in 1 John 2:18, 1 John 2:22, and 1 John 4:3.
Interestingly, in none of those passages is the Antichrist of the End the main
focus.
Adding to the confusion, Greek and English use the article
“the” in different ways. Here, it is easy to read the English the before antichrist as referring to a
specific person. However, the Greek the
was more likely used categorically. That is, it was pointing out a specific type of person—a category of people—not
a specific person. This is why some translations choose to use “an antichrist”
instead of “the antichrist.”
All this to say, this false teacher is not merely misleading
people. He or she is actually opposing Christ—that
is, anti (against) Christ. If they are opposing Christ, they are not of Christ.
So though they may claim to be Christians, though they may claim to follow
Jesus, the reality is that they are actually His enemy and working against Him.
It is this active opposition that frames John’s tough words of verse 8-11,
which we will look at in the next lesson.
Question to ponder: Why
is important to establish that the group John speaks of as antichrists?
Make it personal
One truth learned:
One area of conviction:
One way to correct:
Written prayer:
