Dogmatization of Faith
In 2 John we see a subtle shift in the language of “abiding.” While the Gospel of John and 1 John speak of abiding in Christ or abiding in the Father and the Son, 2 John speaks of abiding in the “teaching” of Christ. The Greek word translated as “teaching” is didaché, which can also be translated as “doctrine.”
What is the difference between abiding in Christ and abiding in the teaching of Christ? The former implies an intimate relationship with a person while the latter implies assent to a doctrine. We see this shift happening in several of the later New Testament writings, as the church is confronted with beliefs that differ from the inherited tradition and feels the need to clarify and solidify its teaching. Some have argued that in the Western church in particular, this dogmatization of the faith has been taken too far, so that faith is viewed as intellectual assent to the correct doctrines, and the sense of a living, intimate relationship with God tends to get lost. Along with this, the importance of right practice – following JesusJesus is the Messiah whose life, death, and resurrection are God's saving act for humanity. More in a life of discipleship and service – tends to get lost as well.
In any case, the author of 2 John probably would not make a distinction between abiding in Christ and abiding in the teaching of Christ. Proper understanding of who Christ is seems essential to abiding in him. And the author clearly understands right belief and right practice to be two sides of the same coin. As affirmed in 1 John, believing that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh and knowing the great love God has shown us in Christ naturally leads to following Christ and loving one another.
Church Discipline
2 John 10-11 encourages the community addressed not to receive into the house or welcome those who propagate false teachings. Clearly, the author wants to protect the community from being led astray. In contextualizing this letter for today, it is important to ask whether this advice should always be followed in situations of conflict or schism in the church. After all, if one refuses hospitality and dialogue with those of differing viewpoints, can there be any hope for reconciliation, or even civil relations between those with opposing views? What about the love and unity Jesus urges among us?
There are certainly times when, for the protection of the community and particularly its most vulnerable members, it is appropriate for congregations to exclude from their fellowship members causing harm. In cases of abuse, for instance, exclusion of the abuser is necessary for the well-being of the abused and the whole community. It may also be necessary to exclude members who intentionally sow division or undermine church leadership. Yet what about cases of doctrinal or ethical disagreements? Has the church sometimes been too quick to exclude people for these reasons? How elastic are the boundaries of faith? Perplexing questions remain for the church in our day.
Who or what is an antichrist?
The author of 1 and 2 John calls those leaders who are causing schism in the Johannine community “antichrists” (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7). In Greek, the term “antichrist” refers to someone who puts themself in the place of Christ. The term appears only in 1 and 2 John and does not refer to one specific person but rather to a type of person or class of people.
The author’s point is that the teachings of certain leaders are inimical to the truth of Christ. The severe label “antichrist” speaks to the danger the author believes these false teachings pose for believers. The false teachings promoted by the antichrists include the denial that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22; 4:3) and the denial that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (2 John 7). These are Christological issues of the highest importance.
The term “antichrist” has found its way into popular culture primarily through interpretation of Revelation, even though Revelation never uses the term. The seven-headed, ten-horned beast that rises out of the sea in Revelation 13, speaks blasphemies, and persecutes the followers of Christ has often been associated with the title “antichrist.” Likewise, the “lawless one” of 2 Thessalonians (2:1-4, 7-10) has been interpreted as the antichrist. Throughout the history of interpretation, attempts have been made to identify the antichrist with historical figures or structures, including emperors, popes (or the papacy), U.S. presidents, and the United Nations.
The witness of 1 and 2 John, however, is much more restrained. The antichrists to which the author refers are not apocalyptic beasts or world leaders, but local leaders who have departed from the Johannine community and deny basic tenets of true Christian faith – namely, that Jesus is the Christ who came in the flesh.
False prophets and testing the spirits
Closely related to the question of antichrists is that of false prophets. In the early church, especially before more official structures for leadership developed, prophets played an important role, speaking for God and giving direction to the community. Indeed, prophecyProphecy is the gift, inspired by God, of speaking and interpreting the divine will. Prophets such as Amos, Isaiah, and Ezekiel spoke words of judgment and comfort to the people of Israel on behalf of God. More is one of the gifts of the Spirit identified by the ApostleDerived from a Greek word meaning "one who is sent," an apostle is a person who embraces and advocates another person's idea or beliefs. At the beginning of his ministry Jesus called twelve apostles to follow and serve him. Paul became an apostle of Jesus... More PaulThe Apostle Paul, originally known as Saul of Tarsus, was the author of several New Testament letters and the founder of many Christian communities. More (1 Corinthians 12:10, 28-29). The problem that troubled the Johannine community is one that has troubled Christian communities in every age: how to distinguish a true prophet from a false one?
In 1 John 4:1-6, the author exhorts the community to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.” The author offers two criteria for testing the spirits. The first is the content of their message: those who confess that Jesus is the Christ who has come in the flesh are true prophets, while those who deny that Jesus is the Christ or deny his humanity are false prophets. The second criterion concerns reception of the prophet’s message: because false prophets are from the world, the world listens to them, but those who are from God listen to true prophets.
How helpful are these criteria for the church today? The second criterion is somewhat problematic in that it presents a circular and subjective argument. Most likely, the false prophets and those who listened to them believed that they too were from God. Those who lead others astray often believe their own deceptions. The first criterion – the content of the message – provides a more objective measure.
Yet the profession of correct beliefs is insufficient on its own, according to the author. In the passage that follows (1 John 4:7-21), the author offers an additional principle of discernment in speaking of the outcomes of true belief. Those who believe that God sent his Son, Jesus Christ, in the flesh to be the savior of the world know that God is love. They therefore express love for their brothers and sisters in concrete ways. Those who say that they love God yet hate a brother or sister, however, are liars. One cannot truly love God while hating a brother or sister. Thus, the content of the message cannot be separated from its fruits. True prophets promote and live a life of self-giving love that reflects God’s love shown to us in Jesus Christ.
