Bible Study 2 John Study

[Nathan]

So, to continue on the look at the letter itself; whats the thought process of what is talked about in verses 7-11?

 

[Jake]

Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind.



Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day: 17 which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ's.

 

[Nathan]

Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind.



Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day: 17 which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ's.

lets move on from here then shall we?

 

[Nathan]

2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

I want to dissect this verse. The coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. What does that mean? I know we started to hit on it, but lets go back there.

What are the views of how this is interpreted? Myself, I can think of about three different ways I have heard it interpreted. But obviously there is only one way that is true. This is not one of those things that can be interpreted however someone wants. John is very specific that these people are deceivers and the antichrist.

 

[Theofilus]

2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

I want to dissect this verse. The coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. What does that mean? I know we started to hit on it, but lets go back there.

What are the views of how this is interpreted? Myself, I can think of about three different ways I have heard it interpreted. But obviously there is only one way that is true. This is not one of those things that can be interpreted however someone wants. John is very specific that these people are deceivers and the antichrist.

I see two ways of understanding this, and I'm not sure which is closer to the truth. The first possiblity would involve a slight change of word order:

those who do not confess Jesus is Christ come in the flesh​

In other words, it refers to those who do not believe that Jesus is who he claimed to be. The second option is that John is addressing certain heretical groups that claimed that Jesus was pure spirit and not flesh. There were groups that believed that flesh is evil and spirit is good. Since Jesus was without sin, then he could not have had a body of flesh like the rest of us. It's not unlikely that this is what John was referring to.

 

[Elijah674]

2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Well, who was Jesus Christ in Eternity? John called it the Everlasting Gospel in Rev. 14:6, so this Eternal Christ God came IN THE FLESH as God/Man! This John call's the DOCTRINE OF CHRIST. And ALL OTHER teaching's (teachers) are FALSE deceivers & are against Christs Eternity as God.


And Christ said: 'And why call ye me, Lord Lord and do (or believe) not do the things that I say?' Luke 6:46 Read on!

This is the way that I see it also!

--Elijah

 

[Nathan]

I see two ways of understanding this, and I'm not sure which is closer to the truth. The first possiblity would involve a slight change of word order:

those who do not confess Jesus is Christ come in the flesh​

In other words, it refers to those who do not believe that Jesus is who he claimed to be. The second option is that John is addressing certain heretical groups that claimed that Jesus was pure spirit and not flesh. There were groups that believed that flesh is evil and spirit is good. Since Jesus was without sin, then he could not have had a body of flesh like the rest of us. It's not unlikely that this is what John was referring to.

Well, then maybe I know of 4 different ones now.

One of them would be close to the first one of yours, which is the one I am closely drawn too. It would be that Jesus was who He claimed to be, except He was a mere man and not an eternal God. The other has to do with His return, which is kind of the furthest out there, but interesting to consider.

I think one of the keys lies in the word "come".

come - erchomai
1) to come
a) of persons

1) to come from one place to another, and used both of persons arriving and of those returning

2) to appear, make one's appearance, come before the public

2) metaph.
a) to come into being, arise, come forth, show itself, find place or influence
b) be established, become known, to come (fall) into or unto

3) to go, to follow one

With this word it indicates that He did not just "appear" or that He was 'born' and then inherited the title Christ.

The definition of the word seems to dictate that He came from "one place to another". Or that He was made "manifest" as in He was known in another 'form' or 'way' before.

To me, it seems that the antichrist is one that denies that the Christ, Jesus, is the Messiah prophesied of old. And not only that, but that through the Mystery revealed to us, He is the very One who had in previous times in the past come in His glorified body to people of old.

Why do I think this? Because of what John says before and after this. Before he talks about love as walking in His commandments. He says that this commandment is nothing new, but that "we" have had from the "beginning".

Then after the the statement he states that everyone who "goes on ahead" or "does not abide" in the teachings of Christ, does not have God.

One way or another, I find it interesting that this "teaching" is paramount to discerning who is false and who is true. Because they were not even to bid them well on the way they were going.

 

[Nathan]

One thing I find very intriguing is that we are given some real definitive ways of 'testing' someone, and encouraged to do so.

But I find it interesting that we never do that anymore. I have sat in numerous "services" where a guest speaker will come in to speak to the "congregation". Not ONCE can I recall them ever proclaiming anything liken to this, or members asking them about it. The very least I would think is that the "pastor" would acknowledge that he had spoken with the individual about this topic.

But I think this is what has attributed to the deception of the "church" today. We classify love as the ONLY thing, not truth. There is truth, and there is love. They go hand in hand, but one without the other is false and just a 'look alike'.

Now truth is love, and love is truth. But the way you can tell it is either one, or both is by examination of the two together or the lack of one or the other. This is a VERY Biblical principal that finds itself all the way up into the book of Revelation.

 

[Nathan]

1Jo 2:18-23 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.

But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge. I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth.

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.

Who was the Christ? I think its imperative to grasp that huh? So here, John is not pointing out those who believed Jesus was just spirit, but rather those who believed that Jesus was indeed a man; just not the Christ.

1Jo 4:1-3 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

So here we can knock out one of the interpretations that say it is in reference to when He comes a second time to gather His saints. John is obviously talking about His first coming.

So it goes back to the obvious difference between Jesus and Christ. Jesus the Man. Christ the Messiah. But Jesus WAS the Christ. So, we need to understand who the Christ is. I guess this is where we must trod back to the 'old' testament to see who He was/is (always has been). Right?

 

[Nathan]

Would it be safe to say that some on here think that Jesus had a 'independent' set of commands apart from the ones God had given in the past?

If that is so, then is that saying that Jesus was something 'new'?

If He was the Christ, the One of old, who appeared and led the 'children' of 'Israel' of old, then did He change His testimony of Himself?

1Cr 10:1-4 For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

So its safe to say that Paul was convinced that Christ was 'around' and 'active' in the life of the Israelites. Right? So did He change?

1Cr 10:6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did.

1Cr 10:11 Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.

So what God did with them was a mere "example" for us? In other words, what He was doing back then was in forethought of us, for our instruction? The word "doctrine" seems to come up in my mind.

doctrine - didaskalia

1) teaching, instruction
2) teaching
a) that which is taught, doctrine
b) teachings, precepts

Now here is a pretty good question, I believe. Its probably not fair, and borderline sarcastic, to think that Christ 'changed' when He came in the flesh. Right? So the question is, did Jesus, the Christ, ever teach anything contrary to what He had taught before, in the "old" testament? Were any of His teachings different? Or, think about this before you answer, were the teachings He taught against what man had 'added' to the pure teachings He had given the Israelites?

So the question is better stated; Did Christ ever teach against anything HE personally taught before in the "old" testament?

 

[Nathan]

I was hoping people would chime in with thoughts on the above posts. Specifically the last question asked.

Did Christ ever teach against anything He had previously taught the children of Israel when He was in His glorified body verses when He walked among us as a man?

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist.

I want to dissect this verse. The coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. What does that mean? I know we started to hit on it, but lets go back there.

What are the views of how this is interpreted?

I believe that the usage of the term antichrist in translation has really been a stumbling block for the reader who wishes to come to a proper understanding of this text. Below is a translation of this verse that seems to do the message beter justice.

A Non Ecclesiastical NT

Because many deceivers have gone out into creation – those who do not acknowledge that Anointed Jesus came in the flesh. This person is the deceiver and the one who opposes the Anointed One.​

In order to properly dissect this verse, we must look at the following verses because in them we may find some clues.​

Look at yourselves, so that you would not lose the things that we worked on, but that you might receive a full reward.
No one who goes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Anointed One has God. The one who remains in the teaching: this one has both the Father and the son.​

I believe that what is highlighted above is the crux of the matter and needs no further explanation. John is simply telling the chosen lady and her household that because many deceivers have gone out that they (her and hers), need to hold fast to that which they had been taught so that they would not lose what they were working towards because if they do not remain in the teaching of Jesus, they would not have or be on the side of the FATHER.​

 

[Theofilus]

I was hoping people would chime in with thoughts on the above posts. Specifically the last question asked.

Did Christ ever teach against anything He had previously taught the children of Israel when He was in His glorified body verses when He walked among us as a man?

It is my belief that Jesus never taught anything which in any way contradicted the Hebrew Scriptures. What he did contradict was the people's interpretation of those Scriptures. When we see apparent contradictions between Jesus' teaching and the Old Testament, then it is most likely because we are misunderstanding either Jesus, the Old Testament or both.

 

[Elijah674]

I was hoping people would chime in with thoughts on the above posts. Specifically the last question asked.

Did Christ ever teach against anything He had previously taught the children of Israel when He was in His glorified body verses when He walked among us as a man?

I smile at that!;) Heb. 13:8-9 + Mal. 3:6 finds these ones not knowing this perhaps??

That was not the funny though, my smile brought to mind Peter's three time vision & why forlks still do not know the answer that you ask about God Changing. No one hardly even knows what Peter was Understanding even on New(?) Covenant Side, huh? But don't feel to bad, for I spin my wheels much also!

Acts 10:17 (10-17)

--Elijah

 

[Nathan]

I believe that the usage of the term antichrist in translation has really been a stumbling block for the reader who wishes to come to a proper understanding of this text. Below is a translation of this verse that seems to do the message beter justice.

A Non Ecclesiastical NT

Because many deceivers have gone out into creation – those who do not acknowledge that Anointed Jesus came in the flesh. This person is the deceiver and the one who opposes the Anointed One.​

In order to properly dissect this verse, we must look at the following verses because in them we may find some clues.​

Look at yourselves, so that you would not lose the things that we worked on, but that you might receive a full reward.
No one who goes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Anointed One has God. The one who remains in the teaching: this one has both the Father and the son.​

I believe that what is highlighted above is the crux of the matter and needs no further explanation. John is simply telling the chosen lady and her household that because many deceivers have gone out that they (her and hers), need to hold fast to that which they had been taught so that they would not lose what they were working towards because if they do not remain in the teaching of Jesus, they would not have or be on the side of the FATHER.​

Right. And if someone does not stay in the teachings of Jesus, the Christ, then they are in effect 'opposing' Him.

So the question looms....which of His teachings do we stay in?

 

[Nathan]

Right. And if someone does not stay in the teachings of Jesus, the Christ, then they are in effect 'opposing' Him.

So the question looms....which of His teachings do we stay in?

Still no thoughts? Interesting.

Ok, so lets ask another question.

Did Jesus, the Christ, ever teach anything other than what is written within the 27 'books' of the "New Testament"?

 

[Elijah674]

Still no thoughts? Interesting.

Ok, so lets ask another question.

Did Jesus, the Christ, ever teach anything other than what is written within the 27 'books' of the "New Testament"?

A verse comes to mind? Rev. 3:16

 

[mcgyver]

I've read through this thread, and there are some great posts here.

Something that I'd like to bring up if I may, is the reason behind the writing of all three of John's epistles...might shed some light, might not...but I've found that a lot of times doing some digging into context really brings things into perspective...'cause "there ain't nothing new under the sun"

Of course, John was writing after his release from the island of Patmos...and he was residing in Ephesus. This was a tumultuous time in Christianity, with many attacks upon the church. One of the most virulent attacks (and one indeed that threatened Christianity) was known as the "gnostic heresy".

There was a fellow who was a contemporary of John who also lived in Ephesus by the name of Cerinthus. Cerinthus was the most vocal proponent of gnosticism at that time and had swayed many Christians to his beliefs. He also attempted to stir up persecution against John.

Now trying to nail down exactly what "gnosticism" is, is kind of like trying to nail jello to a wall...but the one thing that all gnostic systems have in common is that they deny the incarnation of Christ...because they held that all flesh was evil, and only the spirit was good...therefore how could God (all good) put on flesh (all evil)?

The entire thrust of John's belief is of course found in John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Now on top of all this, we have Diotrephes who rejects not only John's authority, but also the authority of any itinerant preacher (many of whom were vital in building the early church) i.e. Demetrius.

So, we have a rapidly spreading and dangerous heresy, a threat of persecution, a stubborn and inflexible "pastor" who rejects John's authority, and wandering preachers giving the word of God to gentile churches....

How would all this play into the writing of 2 John (just food for thought. )

 

[Theofilus]

Still no thoughts? Interesting.

Ok, so lets ask another question.

Did Jesus, the Christ, ever teach anything other than what is written within the 27 'books' of the "New Testament"?

Yes, but God made sure we have a record of everything we need.

Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. (John 21:25 ESV)

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

.... is that saying that Jesus was something 'new'?

If He was the Christ, the One of old, who appeared and led the 'children' of 'Israel' of old, then did He change His testimony of Himself?

1Cr 10:1-4 For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

So its safe to say that Paul was convinced that Christ was 'around' and 'active' in the life of the Israelites. Right? So did He change?

1Cr 10:6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did.

1Cr 10:11 Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.

So what God did with them was a mere "example" for us? In other words, what He was doing back then was in forethought of us, for our instruction?

Now here is a pretty good question, I believe. Its probably not fair, and borderline sarcastic, to think that Christ 'changed' when He came in the flesh. Right? So the question is, did Jesus, the Christ, ever teach anything contrary to what He had taught before, in the "old" testament? Were any of His teachings different? Or, think about this before you answer, were the teachings He taught against what man had 'added' to the pure teachings He had given the Israelites?

So the question is better stated; Did Christ ever teach against anything HE personally taught before in the "old" testament?

This is so loaded Nathan. It's a pleasure to encounter people like you who are thinkers and seekers. Man, what an encouragement you are!

Starting from the beginning, I believe the correct answer is that Jesus only said new things to the extent that he revealed the fullness of the plan of God that had previously only been particially revealed. Jesus did not want to even start a new religion, instead what he did was reveal the purpose of the law and the Jewish nation that was bound in covenant to it.

An issue that I will admit that I am not quite sold on is that Jesus was the anointed one who appeared and led the children of Jacob of old. The passage you quote from 1 Cor 10 does speak of the "spiritual rock" that followed the Israelites in the desert as being an anointed one, but should we read Jesus into that statement? I know we've been conditioned to believe Jesus = christ and vise versa, but the fact of the matter is that that is often not the case. Others can be and were referred to as christs in scripture, the problem is that the translations don't render it that way, they instead say those others were "anointed ones." Well, isn't that exactly what the term christ means? It is very deceptive to use the term christ when describing jesus and anointed when describing all others as it can lead to false conclusions.
So, based on the fact that anointed = christ and is NOT always talking about Jesus i cannot say with any degree of certainty that Paul was convinced that Christ (JESUS) was 'around' and 'active' in the life of the Israelites. Jesus' Father definately was, but that is a whole other can of worms.

What happenned to the Israelites in the desert because of their desire for evil and inclination towards idolatry can definately teach all men valuable lessons, BUT that message was not what Paul was telling his audience. Let's go back to the context.

6 Now, such things are examples to us, so we won’t become people who desire bad things, as they did… 7 we don’t want to become idol worshipers, as some of them did!
And it is written: ‘The people sat down to eat and drink, and then they got up to play.’ 8 So, we shouldn’t commit sexual immorality as some of them did, because twenty-three thousand of them fell in one day! 9 Nor do we want to put Jehovah to the test as some of them did, because they were destroyed by snakes! 10 Nor do we want to complain as some of them did, because they were killed by the destroyer!
11 Now, these things that happened to them are examples, and they were written as a warning to us upon whom the end of the age has arrived.

The context of the passage tells us who the 'us' of the passage is. The 'us' is those on whom the end of the age had arrived.
So what was being done in, with, and to the Israelites and even before them all was a part of God's plan to bring His Son Jesus into the world to be christed as king and prepared the way for Jesus to be seen in His kingdom with power.

----
To answer the final question in a word, NO. Remember that Jesus is said to basically be the point of it all, the light, the very life of men. He embodied the very message of God which God has been proclaiming or should I say had in mind since before the world began.