Bible Study 2 John Study

[Elijah674]

O.T. Tithes.
Doctrines of O.T. have changed say most today. But what did Christ say in Matt. 23:23's last part of the verse.. '....and NOT TO LEAVE [THE OTHER UNDONE].'

Just another short'y by Christ Himself about His Isa. 5 Virgin Vineyard and their Doctrines of His Sanctuary! (Psalms 77:13)

Christ says in Matt. 23:2-3.. '[ALL THEREFORE WHATSOEVER THAT THEY BID YOU OBSERV, THAT OBSERVE AND DO]; but do not after their works:[for THEY SAY, AND DO NOT.]'

Even check out one of many famous in the congregation and men of renown?? Num. 16

verse 3.. '... Ye take too much upon you, [SEEING ALL THE CONGREGATION ARE HOLY, EVERY ONE OF THEM, AND THE LORD IS AMONG THEM]..' ( )

That was not the question that you asked? But, it just shows the same history repeated on both sides of the cross, huh? Rev. 17:1-5 ones. Still NO NEW THING!

 

[Nathan]

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. )

I see what your saying. And I agree about the prevailing gnostic heresy. But along with the belief that Jesus never had flesh(which is an insane argument), there was another belief that He became the Christ, not that He has always been the Christ. Does that make sense?

Why do we see this? You have to look closely at wording to see the difference, but its there. There is no need to twist anything, or leave it to open interpretation. The fact that the apostles believed He was in the past the same as He was when He came, and not a 'human' who was 'anointed' and received the Spirit of God.

This is what I believe John is speaking too. I think the gnostic doctrine was a gross cover-up of this belief. Gnosticism was a way to provide something very foolish to talk about in order to distract from the spiritually discerning doctrine of the incarnation, from the false doctrine of the creation of Christ Jesus.

We have to understand that the enemy is very clever in the ways of human thinking and flesh. Issues like these can only be spiritually discerned. We are never going to be able to win the battle in the flesh or be able to understand it.

 

[mcgyver]

Absolutely!!!

We're on the same sheet of music here.

 

[Nathan]

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.

Well, I think that the issue of Jesus being the Christ seen leading the people in the old testament is rather easy to grasp a hold of if you are willing. You seem like one that is at least willing to look into it, so let me lay out where the proof is.

Looking at 1Corinthians 10 we see Paul using the word "Christ".

1Cr 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

And then for contextual purposes, we need to look a few more sentences down for another use of the word.

1Cr 10:9 We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents,

And then yet again, look a little further.

1Cr 10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Now in each of these instances we understand its the word "Christ" being used. But what we cannot see from just the translation, unless you are confident in the translators precision, is that when the word "Christ" is capitalized it is done so because there is the definite article that precedes it.

The purpose of this article is to define something as specific. If it is left out, then the word "christ" could be used to define anyone who was "anointed", as you have pointed out. But Paul does not leave this up to interpretation. He signifies that the Christ in verse 4 is the same in verse 9 and the same in verse 16.

So therefore, the Christ(Jesus) who we remember in communion [verse 16], is the same Christ that was "put to the test" by the Israelites in the wilderness [verse 9], and the same "Rock" they drank from [verse 4].

So with just this one passage, we can clearly see that Jesus(the Christ dwelling in human flesh), is the very same 'person' that was with the Israelites of old. There are many more passages, especially in the gospels, that deal with this also.

This make sense to you?

 

[Wings]

Elijah here:
OK, that answered 1/2 the questuin huh?;) But were you a member of the J.W. Kingdom Hall Church, was also asked if you care to answer?

No Elijah674,

The only Church that I identify with is that of Ephesians 1:22,23. I have never been a member of the J.W. Kingdom Hall Church.

In Christ Jesus
my Saviour, Lord and Head

Wings

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Well, I think that the issue of Jesus being the Christ seen leading the people in the old testament is rather easy to grasp a hold of if you are willing. You seem like one that is at least willing to look into it, so let me lay out where the proof is.

Looking at 1Corinthians 10 we see Paul using the word "Christ".

1Cr 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

And then for contextual purposes, we need to look a few more sentences down for another use of the word.

1Cr 10:9 We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents,

And then yet again, look a little further.

1Cr 10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

Now in each of these instances we understand its the word "Christ" being used. But what we cannot see from just the translation, unless you are confident in the translators precision, is that when the word "Christ" is capitalized it is done so because there is the definite article that precedes it.

The purpose of this article is to define something as specific. If it is left out, then the word "christ" could be used to define anyone who was "anointed", as you have pointed out. But Paul does not leave this up to interpretation. He signifies that the Christ in verse 4 is the same in verse 9 and the same in verse 16.

So therefore, the Christ(Jesus) who we remember in communion [verse 16], is the same Christ that was "put to the test" by the Israelites in the wilderness [verse 9], and the same "Rock" they drank from [verse 4].

So with just this one passage, we can clearly see that Jesus(the Christ dwelling in human flesh), is the very same 'person' that was with the Israelites of old. There are many more passages, especially in the gospels, that deal with this also.

This make sense to you?

Makes a lot of sense Nathan. And based on the overall context, I can see how one could reasonably conclude that Jusus is the Christ mentioned in those verses. Most render verse 9 as 'we must not put the anointed one (christ) to the test', but others have instead translated the text with the "we must not put the LORD (YHWH) to the test." I'm not sure which approach is correct but I can definately see how the context of the 1st 17 verses supports using "the anointed one" as opposed to "the LORD".

Verse 4 really puzzles me. Describing the anointed one as "a spiritual rock that FOLLOWED them" to me is a head scratcher. What does it mean? Guess I'll need to get into Numbers pretty hard to get a clearer understanding of this verse and see it that language has some special significance.

 

[Nathan]

Makes a lot of sense Nathan. And based on the overall context, I can see how one could reasonably conclude that Jusus is the Christ mentioned in those verses. Most render verse 9 as 'we must not put the anointed one (christ) to the test', but others have instead translated the text with the "we must not put the LORD (YHWH) to the test." I'm not sure which approach is correct but I can definately see how the context of the 1st 17 verses supports using "the anointed one" as opposed to "the LORD".

Verse 4 really puzzles me. Describing the anointed one as "a spiritual rock that FOLLOWED them" to me is a head scratcher. What does it mean? Guess I'll need to get into Numbers pretty hard to get a clearer understanding of this verse and see it that language has some special significance.

You know, I have never really contemplated that before. It would be interesting to understand the symbolism behind the "Rock". I am going to have to guess it flows(no pun intended) a lot into the NT teaching of Christ being the Cornerstone.

Source of "life" giving water that is "firm" in its place and can be "measured" from to erect a proper place of "dwelling"?

A rock usually does not go anywhere. And so the symbolism is they drank from this 'Eternal' Rock, and so do we. Thats my first 'shot' without doing any study.

 

[reba]

Good ol Moses and the water in the rock...

Exo 17:6 Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

You know, I have never really contemplated that before. It would be interesting to understand the symbolism behind the "Rock". I am going to have to guess it flows(no pun intended) a lot into the NT teaching of Christ being the Cornerstone.

Source of "life" giving water that is "firm" in its place and can be "measured" from to erect a proper place of "dwelling"?

A rock usually does not go anywhere. And so the symbolism is they drank from this 'Eternal' Rock, and so do we. Thats my first 'shot' without doing any study.

And what was the spiritual food and spiritual drink the ate and drank? Was it the manna or did it have to do with them being given sustainance by the promises and plan of God for them which would lead to the coming Messiah?

 

[Nathan]

And what was the spiritual food and spiritual drank the ate and drank? Was it the manna of did it have to do with them being given sustainance by the promises and plan of God for them which would lead to the coming Messiah?

It was Christ's provision they ate, symbolic of His words. Remind you of anything? Communion?

Jhn 6:48-51 I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."

 

[Nathan]

Good ol Moses and the water in the rock...

Exo 17:6 Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

Interesting, what do we know about the Mountain of Horeb?

What do we know about the symbolism of water?

 

[farouk]

I would be glad if the questioner would summarize the question; then I might understand better what is being said.

 

[Nathan]

I would be glad if the questioner would summarize the question; then I might understand better what is being said.

Well, that's just it. The questions are as they stand. If you would like, just pick one or two to answer. I would like to keep it all in the context of the topic of the thread.

 

[reba]

Strong's Horeb

H2722
חרב
chôrêb
kho-rabe'
From H2717; desolate; Choreb, a (generic) name for the Sinaitic mountains: - Horeb.

H2717
חרב חרב
chârab chârêb
khaw-rab', khaw-rabe'
A primitive root; to parch (through drought), that is, (by analogy) to desolate, destroy, kill: - decay, (be) desolate, destroy (-er), (be) dry (up), slay, X surely, (lay, lie, make) waste.

This alone is interesting... I guess i will always be amazed at how the Scriptures tie together..

 

[Nathan]

Strong's Horeb

H2722
חרב
chôrêb
kho-rabe'
From H2717; desolate; Choreb, a (generic) name for the Sinaitic mountains: - Horeb.

H2717
חרב חרב
chârab chârêb
khaw-rab', khaw-rabe'
A primitive root; to parch (through drought), that is, (by analogy) to desolate, destroy, kill: - decay, (be) desolate, destroy (-er), (be) dry (up), slay, X surely, (lay, lie, make) waste.

This alone is interesting... I guess i will always be amazed at how the Scriptures tie together..

Thanks Reba!

Your right, this is very interesting. This will take some time to contemplate.