2 John is a letter written from John the Apostle to a church. The language is a bit encoded. Some scholars through the years have proposed that John was actually writing to a "matriarch" of a household and is writing about her family. Nothing about the structure of this letter supports this. He is writing with apostolic authority to a church to instruct them and warn them about a danger they need to consider.
vv.1-3 is a greeting, not unlike other letters of the day. The elder is John and the chosen (elect) lady is a church. Her children are the people of the church and the "Truth" is Christ Himself. Now that you have your "batman decoder ring," Let's look at the occasion.
In v.4, John begins by commending the church that he knows of some walking in the truth. In other words, they have love for one another (v.5). He then reminds them that loving one another means walking according to the commandments of God (v.6).
In v.7-11 he points out the reality (and probably the reason for his letter), that some who had previosly acknowledged Christ...had walked away from the faith and had strayed into some false teaching...namely, that Christ did not come in the flesh. The way this "heresy" goes, they taught that Christ appeared as a man to the eye, but that He was never a man, since man is made of "matter" and "matter" is bad. (This is a heresy that came from the influence of Greek Philosophy). Here is a point of application for us today:
Diversity in thinking was not a problem. People have differing opinions and speculations all the time. The church is full of them. However, there is a line a person can "drift" across that becomes error and requires correction. I say "drift", because no one I know ever sets out to create a heresy. They drift there by accepting one speculation after another...until they are so far down the path that they cannot get back. John says we must stop them before it becomes too late (v.8). We have an obligation to Christ to stop the drift before we lose everything.
In v.10, we see that part of our obligation as a church is to not promote/acknowledge people who are involved in false teaching. We apply this pretty broadly. It is why I am "jealous" over the pulpit and screen people very closely. Some may get through...but I will not allow someone to share what I am certain is false teaching just because he is a family member to a church member, to keep the peace, or because he has degrees. If we don't act this way, we stand to lose fundamentals that Christ established (v.8) and we share in the sin preached by the false teacher (v.11). This does not just apply to the pulpit, but penetrates to every level of teaching in our church.
If I were applying this to the home...I would say that I would use the same principle in discerning who my kids hung out with, who I had over influencing my family, and what books and music were on the shelf. Even with textbooks in school. I am not an isolationist who believes that you isolate children from all outside contact. I am however and "insulationist" who says that I need to know what they are hearing and need to temper that with my influence so they can interpret these other ideas correctly. It is my responsibility to insulate my kids from the world. They will still experience it, but I need to help protect them so that they are not harmed by the contact.
Proverbs 25:28 is my takeaway today. "Like a city that is broken into and without walls is a man who has no control over his spirit."
A man without self-discipline (spirit) is a man who is unsafe, unfruitful, and without honor. We are all guilty at times of yielding to temptation and lacking self-discipline. That is not the issue here. The writer speaks here of the one who lives a life of pleasure, without direction and boundaries...in a free spirit sort of life. This man is a ship without a rudder, a field without a purpose, and a man with a reason to be. We are called to be free in Christ...and that freedom requires that we live disciplined lives that seek to fulfill our purpose, accomplish that for which we have been commissioned, and glorify God in the process.
Grace,
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I think it is very important too that you protect the pulpit. I respect that because I do not need anyone coming up there confusing me :) but I also liked the way you applied it to our family life. I can agree with you on this issue but at what point do you think the child becomes able to handle their own choices. I have been around kids who have been sheltered by their parents. Typically in the people I see growing up the kids end of rebelling pretty badly. I am no where close to this point with my kids yet but if you know of any signs that the kids are ready to make their own choices... I do believe who they hang out with and what they watch and listen to makes who they are and begins to mold who they will become.
The Proverbs was great for me today. I know how it feels to live without a purpose. It kind of feels pointless. I like feeling like God has a plan for me and I am help Him to complete His goals. It is reassuring to me that God is using me to for His Big Plan. I am kind of like a celebrity. SHHH...Don't tell anyone though....:)
I've heard both versions of who the "elect lady" is and then a third, that what we see as "elect lady" could also be a proper name for a woman, her household and other local believers. It doesn't change the interpretation given for any case, but I lean towards either the proper name or title for who it was written to. To me it simply makes too much sense for a smaller body of believers in a place. How many church plants do we know of where the first services are held in the home until a more formal setting can be acquired? It happened the same way in the early church.
Verse 10-11 are very important, since anyone in Christian authority is responsible for the people under him, as the shepherd is to his master for the sheep under the shepherd's care. Sometimes it can be a subtle thing, because it does not only include a "sin of commission" by welcoming the false teacher, it can also be a "sin of omission" by allowing a false teaching to fester without correcting it.
Although I lean more towards Gamaliel's solution in Acts 5 as to judging how a situation may turn out, if everyone involved is a Christian, then as we have been shown lately here, there must be a reconciliation. It need not be a formal one, it may not be a public one, but it must be one that shows charity (love) and does not violate the duties given in Scripture. It could simply be enough that each brother could stand outside of the situation and say that they have discussed it and are reconciled.
This says nothing about "right" or "wrong" in a disagreement between brothers, but the proprieties given in Scripture must be observed and given what we have learned about the behavior of Christian brothers in the last few days, there must be a reconciling between them or a sign is definitely being given that someone is possibly following the wrong spirit.
Amanda,
Thanks for the post and the encouragement.
Kamatu,
I don't know of any mainstream scolars who hold to a proper name. Who are you reading?
Careful on how you handle stuff. 1 Timothy speaks as to how elders/teachers are to be corrected once MT 18 and Gal 6 prove unfruitful. Gamaliel's approach is never referenced in Scripture as a way to deal with sin within the fellowship of Christians. I imagine you agree with that??
Thanks again for the post.
Easton's Bible Dictionary, Holman Apologetics Study Bible, Wesley's commentary, International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. Without getting fancy, all three views have been considered, including some variations: The elect Kyria, the lady Electa, Electa Kyria (mentioned, but not given much weight), elect lady (Matthew Henry favors that one) and considering it a code for a church. I'm aware of at least one of those sources has a "handle with care" sign on it. Good, bad or indifferent?
Definitely not referenced as a way to handle sin or an obvious error. I use it as an example of applying Christian charity when I am doubtful of a situation and the testimony is unclear to me from a lack of facts. When I don't know and cannot make a determination, I can watch the situation and see how it prospers or fails to prosper.
Even using it that way (which I'm sure you will correct me on if I need it), if the dispute is between Christians, then there still must be reconciliation. I'm reminded of a couple in Acts where the disputes occurred and then everyone was later reconciled.
Aha, I see it now. I'm responding not just to the Bible text, but to you also. If that is what you meant earlier today and I was missing it, I will submit that you are being far too polite in correcting me. A 2x4 upside the head will get my attention.
Post a Comment