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:
No comments:
Post a Comment